1. Promoting Integrity Evaluating and Improving Public Institutions A J Brown Professor of Public Law Centre for Governance & Public Policy Griffith University, Australia. Board member, Transparency International Australia. NZ State Services Commission, Wellington 6 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' 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. Sydney Morning Herald, November 6, 2012

4. Chaos or Coherence? Strengths, Challenges & Opportunities for Australia’s National Integrity Systems National Integrity System Assessment Australian Research Council Linkage Project Report (2005) TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA Australian Research Council Linkage Project

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

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

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. TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL June 2012 -- http://www.transparency.org/research/nis/ MONEY, POLITICS, POWER: CORRUPTION RISKS IN EUROPE A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF HOW 25 EUROPEAN STATES ARE FARING IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION

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? 1)Parliamentary, electoral and ‘political’ integrity 2) Australian engagement and complicity in 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. Type of misconduct Employees investigated for this type of misconduct (no.) Cases where a breach was found (%) 2009–102010–11 % change 2009–102010–11 % change Conflict of interest5972+22% 6186 +41% Fraud other than theft (e.g. identity fraud) 5464+19% 6183 +36% Theft1711-45% 4764 +36% Improper use of position status (e.g. abuse of power, exceeding delegations) 6958-16% 3050 +67% Unauthorised disclosure of information (e.g. leaks) 1924+26% 4271 +69% 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. Auditor- General Ombuds-manPolice Complaint Authority Police Integrity Com n Anti- Corruption Com n Crime Com n NSW1234 (ICAC)5 QLD123 (Crime & Misconduct Commission) West Aust 123 (Corruption & Crime Commission) Sth Aust 123 Cth123 Vic12 Tas12 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. Some Core Public Integrity Institutions in Australia, 2004

16. Auditor- General Ombud- sman Police Complaint Authority Police Integrity Com n Anti-Corruption Com n Crime Com n NSW1234 (ICAC)5 Cth123 (ACLEI) 4 Sth Aust123 (Police Omb) 4 (ICAC + Office of Public Integrity) QLD123 (Crime & Misconduct Commission) West Aust123 (Corruption & Crime Commission) Tas123 (Integrity Commission) Vic123 (IBAC inc Office of Police Integrity) Some Core Public Integrity Institutions in Australia, 2012

17. Australia’s newest Independent 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? 1)Implies but does not require ‘mandatory’ reporting of misconduct 2)Implies Commissioner does not investigate misconduct 3)Commissioner directs Ombudsman on maladministration? 4)Public ‘statements’, but not hearings / inquiries 5)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 committees Commonwealth 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 Mean 28.6% nationally Fig 2.4 p.49

22. Disagree Neither / can’t say Agree A If I observed wrongdoing, I would feel personally obliged to report it to someone [in my organisation] Australian employees & org members (n=820) (Newspoll) 6.113.880.1100% All public servants (n=7530) 3.317.779.0100% Cth public servants (n=2285) 2.914.982.1100% B If I reported wrongdoing to someone in my organisation, I am confident something appropriate would be done about it Australian employees & org members (n=820) (Newspoll) 18.426.954.5100% All public servants (n=7459) 18.432.948.7100% Cth public servants (n=2262) 17.933.149.0100% C Management in my organisation is serious about protecting people who report wrongdoing Australian employees & org members (n=820) (Newspoll) 13.837.448.8100% All public servants (n=7453) 16.350.633.2100% Cth public servants (n=2260) 15.852.631.6100% ‘Propensity’ – Newspoll (2012) v public sector (2008)

23. State of reform - Australian whistleblowing legislation JurisReformOriginal1. Effective system & oversight 2. Public disclosure 3. Effective remedies ACT2012199411NKTW NSW2010-11199413NKTW QLD*201019942?2NKTW WA2012?20032? NKTW VIC??20012?MissingNKTW TAS200920022?MissingNKTW NT--2008?MissingNKTW CTHWaiting…1999?Proposed? ??? SA*2012?1993MissingNKTW Corps Act*Stalled?2004Missing NKTW * 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.