Promoting Integrity

1. Promoting Integrity Evaluating and Improving Public Institutions A J BrownProfessor of Public LawCentre for Governance & Public PolicyGriffith University, Australia. Board member, Transparency International Australia.NZ State Services Commission, Wellington6 November 2012

2. Better Public Services • government agencies working more closely together and organising themselves around results that make a difference to New Zealand • sharing functions and services, purchasing goods and services, and developing systems together • greater use of technology and a shift to digital channels, so New Zealanders can more easily access government services • agencies improving how they measure and report on performance • greater responsiveness within the public sector to the needs and expectations of New Zealanders, and a commitment to continuous improvement.

3. Media, unions, political parties 'corrupt' Sydney Morning Herald, November 6, 2012 AUSTRALIANS view the media, unions and political parties as the most corrupt institutions in society, according to a poll by the Australian National University. … Despite the belief that corruption occurs, fewer than 1 per cent of respondents said they or a family member had personally experienced corruption in the past five years. The poll found 43 per cent of people surveyed believed corruption in Australia had increased while 41 per cent believed it had remained the same. Only 7 per cent believed corruption had declined.

4. Australian Research Council Linkage Project TRANSPARENCYINTERNATIONALAUSTRALIA Chaos or Coherence?Strengths, Challenges & Opportunities forAustralia’s National Integrity SystemsNational Integrity System AssessmentAustralian Research Council Linkage Project Report (2005)

5. Transparency International’s National Integrity SystemJeremy Pope (ed), TI Sourcebook 2000, p.35

6. Private Sector Police Anti-Corruption Commissions Industry Ombudsmen ASICACCC APRA Ombudsmen Public Service Commissions Austn Stock Exchange Ltd Compn Tribunals Auditors-Genl Auditors Public Companies Govt Departments Large Private Companies Govt Owned Corporations Small & Medium Private Companies Statutory Bodies Local Govts Private/Public Companies Public Sector Agencies Sectors, ‘Core’ & ‘Distributed’ Institutions Public Sector Core Integrity Institutions (Regulators / Societal Integrity Systems) Distributed Institutions (The Regulated / Organisational Integrity Systems)

7. Relationships between NSW Public Sector Agencies and Integrity Agencies and Organisations (Smith 2005)Notes:++ indicates ‘very important’ to the agency.+ indicates ‘fairly important’ to the agency.‘Other’ columns refers to ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ important integrity agencies and organisations not listed in the interview schedule/questionnaire but raised by the respondent.

8. Money, Politics, Power:Corruption Risks in Europea comprehensive assessment of how 25 European states are faring in the fight against corruption TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL June 2012 -- http://www.transparency.org/research/nis/

9. A Ten-Point Integrity Plan for the Australian Government – Submission by Transparency International Australia on the Proposed National Anti-Corruption Plan May 2012 http://www.transparency.org.au

10. Health of the integrity system? • Parliamentary, electoral and ‘political’ integrity • 2) Australian engagement and complicityin foreign corrupt practices • Foreign bribery by Australian companies • Foreign bribery by Australian GOCs • Foreign bribery facilitated by Australian trade agencies? • Australian real estate and banking system as a haven for proceeds of foreign corruption… NZ?

11. 3) A lawyer’s issue! Defining ‘official corruption’ • Traditional corruption offences • ‘Corruption in public administration’ (SA) • ‘Corrupt conduct’ (ICAC NSW) • ‘Official misconduct’ (CMC Queensland) • ‘Corrupt conduct’ (Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth) • ‘Improper conduct’ (WA, Vic) • Misconduct and disciplinary regimes generally.

12. Review of Victoria’s Integrity and Anti-Corruption System (May 2010), Figure 10

13. Figure 1: Types of misconduct in finalised Australian Public Service Code of Conduct investigations, 2009–10 and 2010–11 Source: Australian Public Service Commission (2011)

14. Health of the integrity system? 4) Issues for public administration – the anti-corruption / misconduct ‘infrastructure’

15. Some Core Public Integrity Institutions in Australia, 2004 NB These tables do not include Public Service Commissions or equivalents, or Health Care Complaints Commissions and a range of other specialist independent integrity bodies, other than those dedicated to police.

16. Some Core Public Integrity Institutions in Australia, 2012

17. Australia’s newestIndependent Commissioner Against Corruption Bill 2012 • Historic integrated approach? • Corruption (criminal offences) • Misconduct in public administration (breach of codes) • Maladministration (plus role of Ombudsman) • But query? • Implies but does not require ‘mandatory’ reporting of misconduct • Implies Commissioner does not investigate misconduct • Commissioner directs Ombudsman on maladministration? • Public ‘statements’, but not hearings / inquiries • No general public reporting power (‘dissatisfaction’ only).

18. Not including Crime Commissions, Public Service Commissions, Health Care Complaint Commissions, etc

20. Health of the integrity system? • 5) Issues of oversight and accountability –-- Inspectors -- Special investigations monitors -- Parliamentary committeesCommonwealth Ombudsman • 6) A ‘bottom up’ view: issues for the average public servant -- The state of whistleblower protection

21. How many don’t report? Select case study agency reporting and inaction rates Mean28.6% nationally Fig 2.4p.49

22. ‘Propensity’ – Newspoll (2012) v public sector (2008)

23. State of reform - Australian whistleblowing legislation * Some private sector coverage NKTW: Not known to work

24. Better Public Services • government agencies working more closely together and organising themselves around results that make a difference to New Zealand • sharing functions and services, purchasing goods and services, and developing systems together • greater use of technology and a shift to digital channels, so New Zealanders can more easily access government services • agencies improving how they measure and report on performance • greater responsiveness within the public sector to the needs and expectations of New Zealanders, and a commitment to continuous improvement.