In November 2009, the Premier requested that the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Peter Allen, and Special Commissioner, Elizabeth Proust, review the efficiency and effectiveness of Victoria’s integrity and anti-corruption system. This includes the Auditor-General, Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate, the Office of Police Integrity, the Ombudsman and Victoria Police.

The Review involved consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, as listed at Appendix A. It also received 54 submissions in response to advertisements placed in one national and two state-wide newspapers. A list of submissions received is at Appendix B. In addition, a literature review and a survey on perceptions of corruption were conducted, as indicated in Appendix C and Appendix D. This report presents the Review’s findings and recommendations.

Overview of findings

Given the essentially invisible nature of corruption, it is difficult to determine the extent of any underlying problem and to measure the effectiveness of interventions. While the Review focused on identifying opportunities to strengthen the integrity system rather than on specific instances of corruption, some contributors to the Review raised concerns about specific areas where corruption may be occurring or has been detected in the past. The Review also found that there is a comparatively high level of concern within the Victorian community regarding the effectiveness of current efforts in addressing corruption, despite international rankings that rate Australian jurisdictions as being amongst the least vulnerable to corruption in the world.

Victoria’s integrity and anti-corruption bodies collectively hold broadly similar powers to those in other Australian states. They appear to be resourced reasonably and operate comparatively efficiently. However, there are opportunities to improve the comprehensiveness of the system, to ensure there are clearly defined responsibilities for implementing standards and for addressing maladministration, misconduct and corruption amongst all public officials. An effective integrity system should include independent and expert integrity bodies to both investigate complaints and maintain oversight of risks to public sector integrity.

Currently, there are gaps in the jurisdictions of Victoria’s integrity bodies, particularly for members of parliament, staff employed by members of parliament and the judiciary. The integrity bodies are also unnecessarily constrained in their ability to work as an efficient, effective and coordinated system. There is also an opportunity to strengthen the role of intelligence gathering and analysis within the overall system, alongside well-established mechanisms for addressing complaints. This would strengthen the system’s ability to detect and address serious misconduct and corruption.

Modernisation of the legislative underpinnings and the functions of the integrity bodies would support comprehensive and coordinated efforts to maintain high standards among all public officials. It would also improve responses to allegations of serious misconduct and corruption. This would include clearly defining responsibility for implementing standards and addressing transgressions across all public bodies and officials. Legislative modernisation should be accompanied by the establishment of rigorous oversight of all integrity bodies to instil accountability within the system.