Chapter 2
Strategy and performance
2.1
ACLEI 'supports the Integrity Commissioner to provide independent
assurance to government about the integrity of prescribed law enforcement
agencies and their staff members, by detecting, investigating and preventing corrupt
conduct'.[1]
2014-15 in review
ACLEI's jurisdiction
2.2
In 2014, Commonwealth law enforcement agencies within ALCEI's
jurisdiction included the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), the Australian
Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS), the Australian Federal Police
(AFP), Australian Transaction and Reporting Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), CrimTrac
and prescribed parts of the Department of Agriculture.[2]
2.3
On 1 July 2015, ACLEI's jurisdiction expanded to capture the Department
of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), including the newly formed
Australian Border Force (ABF).[3]
To prepare for the expanded jurisdiction, ACLEI was allocated an additional $1
million.[4]
These additional funds were used to establish a Joint Task Force (JTF) between
ACLEI and the AFP to be accommodated at AFP offices in Sydney.[5]
The ACLEI/AFP JTF represented a significant investment for ACLEI. Locating the
JTF in Sydney allowed investigators to be close to border operations and
respond as operational need required.[6]
Partnerships
2.4
ACLEI continued to form cooperative working partnerships with other
agencies. Aside from the JTF with the AFP, this included working with the ACC
to use the National Criminal Intelligence Fusion Capability to inform
anti-corruption investigations and providing strategic advice to AUSTRAC, the
Department of Agriculture and DIBP.[7]
2.5
In May 2015, senior ACLEI and ACC officers led a delegation to North
America to receive briefings and learn from their experiences dealing with
corruption enabled border crime. The annual report notes 'although many of the
prevailing factors differ, it is apparent that Australia can expect continued...corruption
pressure from illicit import and money-laundering enterprises'.[8]
Legislative reform
2.6
During the reporting period there were two legislative changes to the
investigation tools the Integrity Commissioner can deploy. The first was the Telecommunications
(Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015 that required
service providers to retain metadata for two years. The data can be accessed by
ACLEI and other specified law enforcement agencies subject to certain accountability
measures.[9]
2.7
The second legislative change was the enactment of the Law
Enforcement Legislation Amendment (Powers) Act 2015 which sought to clarify
the permissible uses of information obtained through coercive means.[10]
Business improvement
2.8
To address delays in assessing corruption issues, ACLEI appointed a
workflow manager.[11]
As the annual report states:
The immediate impact of this appointment is evident in
assessment statistics—96% of corruption issues received in 2014-15 were
assessed within 90 days, compared with 71% in the previous year. Even more
pleasing, the bulk of those assessments were made within a matter of days of
ACLEI receiving them.[12]
2.9
ACLEI also implemented new guidelines to clarify the options open to
ACLEI decision-makers in assessing corruption issues. The guidelines advised
decision-makers that mechanisms outside of the ACLEI Act context could be used
where appropriate.[13]
2.10
Legislation was also introduced to allow an agency head and the
Integrity Commissioner to agree on a definition of 'serious corruption'. The
rationale for this change was to give agency heads 'greater guidance about what
matters are likely to require intervention by the Integrity Commissioner, having
regard to the risk factors that are specific to each agency'.[14]
Integrity Commissioner
2.11
Following the conclusion of Mr Philip Moss' statutory term as Integrity
Commissioner on 22 July 2014, ACLEI experienced a period of leadership
transition.[15]
Mr Robert Cornall AO served as the Acting Integrity Commissioner from 23 July
2014 until Mr Michael Griffin AM commenced his term as Integrity Commissioner
on 19 January 2015.
2.12
Delivering his first review as Integrity Commissioner, Mr Griffin noted:
Upon taking up my appointment as Integrity Commissioner...it
was apparent to me that the Australian Commission on Law Enforcement Integrity
has at its heart the desire to protect the rule of law, by safeguarding the
integrity of law enforcement agencies.[16]
ACLEI's future
2.13
The annual report sets out a number of priorities for the 2015-16
reporting period. At the close of 2014-15, ACLEI had 48 operations on foot in
relation to 70 corruption issues.[17]
A high workload is likely to continue to challenge ACLEI and characterise its
operations in 2015-16. At the committee's public hearing, the Integrity
Commissioner provided an insight into ACLEI's increasing workload for 2015-16:
The annual report records that ACLEI received 100 corruption
issues, from all sources, in 2014-15. By way of contrast, ACLEI received 134
corruption issues in the first six months of the 2015-16 year. It is still too
early to know whether these increases are temporary or a new reality. ACLEI
will continue to assess and analyse these trends, and to engage with relevant
LEIC Act agencies to better understand the data.[18]
2.14
In 2015-16 ACLEI will 'expand permanently into both Sydney and Canberra'
representing a significant undertaking.[19]
2.15
The integration of DIBP into ACLEI's jurisdiction and the associated
system changes are likely to place pressure on ACLEI 'until those changes are
normalised and become integrated into agency business practice'.[20]
2.16
The Integrity Commissioner has also prepared a four year plan for
2015-16 to 2018-19 to ensure that ACLEI meets its strategic objectives.[21]
Resourcing
2.17
In 2014-15 ACLEI's budget was $10.154 million (an increase from $7.615 million
in 2013-14).[22]
The annual report notes that $1.7 million of the 2014-15 budget originated in
funding that was due to expire at the end of the reporting year. Of that amount,
$1 million was transitional funding and $0.7 million related to the extension
of ACLEI's jurisdiction in 2012-13 to include AUSTRAC, CrimTrac and parts of the
Department of Agriculture.[23]
2.18
ACLEI noted its operating surplus in 2014-15 of $1.424 million was primarily
due to the 'difficulty experienced in filling temporary vacancies' and
'supplier expenses that were lower than anticipated'.[24]
2.19
The Integrity Commissioner explained that the difficulties filling
temporary vacancies were caused, in part, by the challenges in finding
candidates with the necessary security clearance.[25]
2.20
In the past, to cover some of those temporary vacancies, ACLEI has
engaged secondees from partner agencies.[26]
2.21
With additional funding, ACLEI has reduced its reliance on the
secondment program and increased its permanent staff base:
...[at June 2015 ACLEI] had 29 active staff members on our
active roster, and funding for 38 full-time equivalents (FTE) spread across
Canberra and Sydney offices. As we meet today, ACLEI has 42 staff members
active, as well as a number of casual staff, with total funding for 52
full-time equivalents.[27]
2.22
The Australian National Audit Office audited ACLEI's accounts for the 2014‑15
financial year.[28]
In the auditor's opinion, ACLEI's financial statements:
- Comply
with Australian Accounting Standards and the Public Governance, Performance
and Accountability (Financial Reporting) Rules 2015; and
- Present
fairly the financial position of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement
Integrity as at 30 June 2015...[29]
2.23
The committee notes that this is the first annual report prepared in
accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act
2013 (PGPA Act). At the time of the committee's examination, the Department
of Finance is yet to issue rules about annual reports under section 46 of the
PGPA Act. However, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Regulations
2006 (LEIC regulations) provide for certain particulars to be included in
the annual report.
Key performance indicators
2.24
ACLEI is required by the Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) to perform
against a set of 'deliverables'. These deliverables are:
Corruption issues are promptly brought to the attention of
the Integrity Commissioner for independent assessment and decision on how each
issue should be dealt with (either by ACLEI, the agency to which the issue
relates, or another agency);
When appropriate, ACLEI independently investigates corruption
issues, giving priority to conduct that constitutes serious corruption or
systemic corruption;
When appropriate, the Integrity Commissioner uses statutory
intrusive and coercive information-gathering powers to assist in investigations;
ACLEI analyses and reports on patterns and trends in law
enforcement corruption;
ACLEI recommends changes to laws and to agency practices and
procedures to improve integrity in law enforcement, and to detect and prevent
corruption more effectively;
ACLEI enhances corruption prevention initiatives, such as the
assessment of corruption risk and raising awareness about corruption
deterrence, thereby helping to build corruption-resistant work cultures; and
Staff members of law enforcement agencies are made aware that
information about corruption can be referred with confidence to the Integrity
Commissioner.[30]
2.25
ACLEI's seven Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are linked to
program objectives and deliverables.
KPI one—the corruption notification and referral system is effective
2.26
ACLEI's first KPI supports the premise that if effective anti-corruption
arrangements concerning law enforcement agencies are in place, public
confidence in those agencies can be maintained. Further, 'an active detection
culture contributes to corruption deterrence and the reinforcement of an
agency's professional standards.'[31]
2.27
There are two different methods by which ACLEI may receive information
that assists it to detect corruption: notifications and referrals. The LEIC Act
requires the AFP Commissioner, the Secretary of the Department of Immigration
and Border Protection, the Australian Border Force Commissioner and the CEOs of
the ACC, AUSTRAC, and CrimTrac to notify the Integrity Commissioner of
corruption issues related to their respective agencies.[32]
The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is required to notify the
Integrity Commissioner of corruption issues related to prescribed (cargo
management) functions, as set out in the LEIC regulations.[33]
2.28
The second way in which ACLEI may receive information that assists it in
detecting corruption is through the referral mechanisms found in the LEIC Act. Under
those mechanisms the Minister, or a person other than the Minister, may refer a
corruption issue to the Integrity Commissioner.[34]
Notifications
2.29
ACLEI's annual report notes that the effectiveness of the integrity
system is demonstrated through 70 notifications in 2014-15.[35]
This is similar to the 69 notifications received in 2013-14.[36]
Referrals
2.30
The Integrity Commissioner was referred a total of 29 issues in 2014-15
(5 from individuals and another 24 from other government agencies),
compared to 23 referrals in 2013-14.[37]
2.31
The annual report states that 'diversity in the sources of information
can also be an indicator of effectiveness'.[38]
To maximise the likelihood of receiving actionable information ACLEI convened a
workshop of agencies that fall within the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction
to discuss the indicators of corruption and corruption vulnerabilities at the
border.[39]
2.32
ACLEI also noted that some resources had to be dedicated to dealing with
out-of-jurisdiction enquiries. In 2014-15, 163 individuals or groups contacted
ACLEI with enquiries that did not fall within the Integrity Commissioner's
jurisdiction.[40]
As ACLEI noted, some of these individual's requests were quite resource
intensive. Three individuals contacted ACLEI 860 times between them, with one
individual making contact more than 620 times.[41]
However, the Integrity Commissioner was adamant that they 'do not detract
substantially from our operational focus'.[42]
Committee view
2.33
The committee agrees with ACLEI's assessment of its performance against
KPI one. The committee notes that in purely numerical terms, the number of
notifications and referrals from 2013-14 to 2014-15 has remained largely
unchanged.
KPI two—ACLEI assesses all
notifications and referrals of corruption issues in a timely way
2.34
KPI two quantifies the timeliness of ACLEI's response to notifications
or referrals of corruption issues. The annual report notes that 'some
assessments are time critical because of the potential for target
identification and evidence collection to require prompt action by ACLEI'.[43]
2.35
The annual report states that ACLEI met this measure through its
internal processes relating to the allocation of investigative resources,
noting its internal benchmark which aims to complete 75 per cent of all
assessments within 90 days of receipt of the notification or referral.[44]
2.36
The annual report notes that 83 per cent (or 99 instances) of 120
assessments completed during 2014-15 were assessed within 90 days.[45]
Further, 96 per cent (or 92 instances) of notifications and referrals received
in 2014-15 and for which assessments were completed in the reporting year (96
instances) were finalised within 90 days of receipt.[46]
Of the 92 instances that met the benchmark, 84 per cent (81 instances)
were finalised within 30 days.[47]
Fifteen issues were still awaiting assessment at the end of the period.[48]
Committee view
2.37
ACLEI's internal benchmark provides a mechanism to evaluate whether KPI
two was met effectively. The committee notes that ACLEI's performance against
this measure has improved significantly by comparison to the 2013-14 reporting
period. The committee commends ACLEI on its improved efficiency in this area
and for its initiative to appoint a workflow manager. ACLEI achieved its 75 per
cent benchmark this year with 96 per cent of issues assessed inside 90 days, an
improvement on ACLEI's 2013-14 performance of 71 per cent.[49]
2.38
The committee will continue to monitor this KPI in future reports to
ensure ACLEI's assessments are made in a timely manner.
2.39
The committee considers the number of corruption issues carried forward
from year to year in Chapter 3.[50]
KPI three—ACLEI's investigations are conducted professionally and
efficiently, and add value to the integrity system
2.40
KPI three aims at supporting ACLEI's role within the Australian Government's
law enforcement integrity framework—to detect and deter possible corrupt
conduct. The annual report notes the Integrity Commissioner's role in providing
independent advice to the Minister in relation to corruption risks, as well as
the investigatory role of the Integrity Commissioner.[51]
2.41
ACLEI sought to address this measure by focussing its investigations on
those 'most likely to yield the highest contribution to maintaining and
improving integrity in law enforcement agencies.'[52]
2.42
Further, the annual report notes that ACLEI's legal advisers continue to
advise the Integrity Commissioner and investigators about the lawful use of
ACLEI's powers, authorisations, surveillance and telecommunication interception
issues.[53]
2.43
The annual report notes that the Integrity Commissioner may reconsider
previous corruption issues and how they should be dealt with. Under this
arrangement, the Executive Director–Operations advises the Integrity
Commissioner about possible reconsiderations, when warranted. This process
occurred in 2014-15 when:
...the Integrity Commissioner and Acting Integrity
Commissioner reconsidered and discontinued ACLEI investigations relating to
three corruption issues. In each instance, consideration was given to
disseminating collected evidence to relevant agencies, in accordance with the
LEIC Act and other relevant legislation. In a number of other cases, the
Integrity Commissioner reconsidered the type of investigation undertaken, for
example to enter into joint investigations or instead to refer a matter for internal
investigation by an agency[54]
Committee view
2.44
The committee is satisfied that ACLEI has achieved this KPI.
KPI four—ACLEI monitors corruption investigations conducted by law
enforcement agencies
2.45
The LEIC Act allows the Integrity Commissioner to refer corruption issues
for internal investigations by LEIC Act agencies, or where a Commonwealth crime
is evident, ask the AFP to investigate a corruption issue or issues relating to
other LEIC Act agencies.[55]
The annual report notes that at the conclusion of such investigations, the
agency head or AFP Commissioner provides a report to the Integrity Commissioner
for consideration, and the Integrity Commissioner may make recommendations and
comments relating to the investigation or outcome.[56]
2.46
Following concerns raised by the Committee in its 2013-14 report, ACLEI
implemented new communications arrangements with partner agencies to discuss
the progress of internal investigations.[57]
ACLEI now holds monthly meetings with the AFP and DIPB (formerly ACBPS) who
have the most investigations.[58]
2.47
The annual report notes that the new arrangements have resulted in 'a
higher than usual number of investigation reports' and the discontinuation of
certain investigations with the Integrity Commissioner's agreement.[59]
2.48
In 2014-15, ACLEI received 51 reports of completed agency investigations.[60]
This is an increase from the 16 reports of completed agency investigations in
2013‑14.[61]
As at 30 June 2015, a further 74 agency investigations were in progress, down
from 85 at the beginning of 2014-15.[62]
Committee view
2.49
The committee commends ACLEI on implementing the new measures to
regularly communicate with key law enforcement agencies about the progress of
internal investigations.
2.50
The committee notes that ACLEI has included a new table in this year's
annual report that shows the age of corruption issues being investigated by
other agencies.[63]
Based on this new information the committee notes that ACLEI and ACLEI partner
agencies have committed resources to close older cases including 44 internal investigations
from between 2010‑11 and 2012-13.[64]
KPI five—ACLEI contributes to policy development and law reform in
accountability and corruption prevention relating to law enforcement
2.51
The purpose of KPI five is to assist the Integrity Commissioner to:
...advise the Australian Government and the Parliament about patterns
and trends in corruption risks in law enforcement, and to recommend any changes
to law and policy or to agency practices and procedures that may be desirable.[65]
2.52
In 2014-15, ACLEI undertook numerous actions in relation to KPI five,
including:
-
contributing to new data retention legislation;
-
informing the process to extending ACLEI's jurisdiction to the Department
of Immigration and Border Protection;
-
making six public submissions to parliamentary inquiries,
including into integrity arrangements at Australia's borders;
-
contributing to the ACC Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2015;
-
convening a workshop of LEIC Act agencies to map current and
emerging corruption risks and vulnerabilities at Australia's border; and
-
providing corruption prevention insights to a variety of law
enforcement and Australian Public Service agencies, including by issuing an
occasional paper and by making public presentations.[66]
Committee view
2.53
The committee is satisfied that ACLEI has met KPI five, not only through
the information provided in the annual report, but also in the committee's
interactions with ACLEI over the financial year. ACLEI's officers have been
consistently professional and helpful to the committee in its deliberations.
KPI six—Staff members of law enforcement agencies are made aware of ACLEI's
role
2.54
KPI six supports ACLEI's centrality as the solitary statutory authority
charged with the prevention, detection and disruption of law enforcement corruption.
As such, it is important that ACLEI continue to inform law enforcement partners
and LEIC Act agencies of its role, as well as reminding officers in applicable
LEIC Act agencies of their professional and legal obligations under the
relevant integrity framework.
2.55
ACLEI noted:
This effort also helps to instil shared values and create a
law enforcement culture in which individuals (particularly supervisors) are
able to recognise the indicators of corrupt behaviour and are willing to report
information appropriately.[67]
2.56
ACLEI promotes its work to LEIC Act agencies through a range of
strategies including its online presence, speeches, presentations and
promotional material.[68]
In 2014-15, the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI staff addressed 27 audiences
of ACLEI agencies, aimed at drawing:
...attention to ACLEI’s role in the integrity framework and to
build broad and diverse partnerships to further ACLEI’s anti-corruption work.[69]
Committee view
2.57
The committee is satisfied that ACLEI has fulfilled its obligations
under KPI six. The committee is aware of the effort ACLEI makes to raise
awareness of its role as the Commonwealth's only dedicated anti-corruption
agency, and believes ACLEI has discharged this obligation effectively.
KPI seven—ACLEI handles personal information appropriately
2.58
ACLEI has been granted significant information gathering and coercive
powers, which result in the production of large amounts of personal
information. This requires ACLEI to appropriately store and safeguard that
information from inappropriate use:
This information is valuable to organised crime and corrupt
law enforcement officers, who may wish to manipulate, destroy or use it to undermine
a legitimate law enforcement outcome.[70]
2.59
The annual report explains that ACLEI's own Professional Standards
Officer undertakes regular and random internal audits of databases and
information holdings to ensure that ACLEI handles personal and sensitive
information in an accountable and secure manner.[71]
In 2014-15 ACLEI delivered training to all its staff members on information
management and security. A subsequent internal audit by KPMG confirmed the appropriateness
of ACLEI's arrangements.[72]
Committee view
2.60
The committee is satisfied that ACLEI has met its obligations to ensure
the appropriate and secure storage of sensitive personal information. The
committee supports the use of internal risk assessment tools to ensure
appropriate standards are being maintained.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page