Uncategorised 23rd November 2016

National Integrity Framework-What you had to say

by Peter Timmins

Further in the series- Issues raised in Submissions on Draft National Action Plan

Plenty of criticism of gaps in the framework particularly the absence of a national integrity or anti-corruption commission.

The account of the Status Quo suggests there is no problem here that needs to be addressed.

Commitment 4.2 National Integrity Framework  

From the PM&C round up:

Justin Warren    PivotNine (consultancy)

The framework is an overly complex, toothless arrangement that appears aimed at cynically avoiding the creation fo a federal ICAC. There is no credible reason not ot have a federal ICAC with similar powers to that of the NSW ICAC, with jurisdiction that covers all aspects of the federal government. Create a single, independent commission, or explain to the Australian people why this is a bad idea.
Jack Mahoney    OGP Support Unit    

The status quo section is too lengthy and not balanced enough towards the problem being addressed by the commitment. The last two paras are more in line with what this section typically requires.

Milestone 1 – who is reviewing this law? Will there be multi-stakeholder engagement for this review?

Milestone 5 – specificity required. What are the objectives and intended outcomes from the roundtable?

Milestone 6 – specificity required. Consider options for what?

Milestone 7 – what processes/actions will these ongoing reviews inform? Will the outcomes of these reviews be made publicly available? Relevance to TAP principles unclear otherwise.
Nigel Waters    Pacific Privacy (consultancy)  

Needs to recognise the calls for a federal ICAC. Agencies such as ACLEI, AFP etc have an important role but will not be able to address all the challenges faced in ensuring integrity and combatting corruption.
Jose Marin    OGP Anti-Corruption Working Group 

Can be strengthened by including milestones that can catalyse change. Although the current milestones are steps towards change, they are not specific enough in regarding what is the expected change or measure to improve integrity.
Dr Madeleine Roberts  

Wants a viable, fully funded and staffed ICAC at state and territory gov level, but demands federal ICAC to be established.
Stan van de Wiel    Individual  

A Federal Corruption Commission would reveal too much dirty practices on all sides of politics. Hence the reluctance or outright refusal to instigate. Australia already has adequate legislation in place to act on internal bureaucratic corruption, it is however not capable of implementing the necessary procedures as it would mean a “palace revolt”.

Evelyn Doyle    Individual (2) 

Implement an anti-corruption taskforce working toward establishing a National Integrity body similar to ICAC.
Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer    Pirate Party    

An independent commission to investigate corruption would indicate to the public that corruption is taken seriously, and would reduce the perception that politicians and public servants are a law into themselves.
Natasha Molt    Law Council of Australia 

• National-level corruption and anti-bribery enforcement issues should be contained in two separate Commitments;
• The establishment of a National Integrity Commission should be considered;
• The use of an expanded enforcement pyramid of sanctions to target corruption should be considered; and
• The recommendations from the Statutory Review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) in as far as they relate to suspicious transaction reporting should not apply to the legal profession.
A J Brown    Griffith University    

The draft plan’s recognition of the importance of a holistic approach to anti-corruption and accountability in Australian institutions, through inclusion of this item, is to be applauded.

Many of the commitments (e.g. continuing to work on foreign bribery reform, and strengthening anti-money-laundering systems) are vitally important, but relate primarily to the business sector and to higher quality criminal laws and their enforcement. These elements should be retained but separated.

No specific activities or processes are proposed for this ‘ongoing’ review, let alone any which engage any external stakeholders.

Griffith Uni and TIA with Australian integrity agencies work on ‘Strengthening Australia’s National Integrity Systems: Priorities for Reform’.

Would welcome the participation of intrgrity agencies in a structured program of research, review and deliberation on questions of jurisdiction and capability in the field of federal public sector anti-corruption. Alternatively, Gov could commission its own expert comparative review of the current roles, powers and resources of the key Australian anti-corruption agencies (could be applied in the second action plan).
Kat Lane    Australian Privacy Foundation  

Current calls from across the political spectrum for a ‘federal ICAC’ need to be recognised with the case for a new body at least on the table for discussion. Agencies such as the ACLEI, AFPs, FACC, ASIC etc all have an important role but it should not be assumed that they will be able between them to adequately address all the challenges faced in ensuring integrity and combatting corruption in both the public sector and the corporate world.
Tim Smith    Accountability Roundtable (3)  

We submit, as we have previously that the jurisdiction of ACLEI should be extended to provide a single national anti-corruption and malpractice body with a jurisdiction giving it comprehensive coverage of the whole Commonwealth sector.
Other consequential action will need to be taken.  It will be necessary to rename ACLEI to reflect the broadened jurisdiction.

Submit that PM&C should be the lead agency.