Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Appendix 3
A tiered model for jurisdiction[1]
Tier 1 Agencies with significant law
enforcement functions, close operational ties and high inherent corruption
risks
Tier 2 Other agencies with important law
enforcement functions and lower inherent corruption vulnerability
Tier 3
Other
Commonwealth agencies
|
How
an investigation or inquiry may be commenced*
|
Addressing
Corruption Risk
|
|
|
CEO must notify corruption issues to
ACLEI (s 19)
|
CEO may refer corruption issues to ACLEI
|
Minister may refer a corruption issue (s
18)
|
Any other person may refer a corruption issue
(s 23)
|
Integrity
Commissioner
on own
initiative (s 38)
|
Minister may
request a
public inquiry (s 71)
|
Corruption risk assessment**
|
Providing corruption prevention advice**
|
Awareness raising about
corruption risks
|
TIER 1
|
✔
|
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
TIER 2
|
|
✔
|
✔
|
Whistle-blowers only
|
§
|
✔
|
On request
|
✔
|
✔
|
TIER 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On request
|
On request
|
* The Integrity Commissioner should give priority to
corruption issues that have a nexus to the law enforcement character of the
agency.
** To ensure
detection and prevention systems are appropriately targeted and resourced.
§ Please note that while ACLEI's
submission did not include 'own initiative' inquiry and investigation for the
second tier, the committee recommends that this be the case.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|