Go to top of page

Corporate Plan 2021-25

Acknowledgement of Country

In the spirit of reconciliation the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their Elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.

Contents

 

Integrity Commissioner's foreword

As the accountable authority for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), I am pleased to present ACLEI's Corporate Plan 2021–25, covering the four financial years from 2021–22 to 2024–25, as required under paragraph 35(1)(b) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act).

Established under the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (LEIC Act), ACLEI performs an important oversight role in relation to the integrity of Australian Government law enforcement agencies. We undertake this role through four key activities:

  • We receive and assess notifications and referrals of alleged corrupt conduct by members of law enforcement agencies.
  • We conduct investigations into serious and systemic corrupt conduct.
  • We support our partner law enforcement agencies to conduct their own investigations.
  • We prevent corruption through engagement, support and identification of vulnerabilities.

The law enforcement agencies that are within our jurisdiction are:

  • Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC)
  • Australian Federal Police (AFP) including ACT Policing
  • Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
  • Department of Home Affairs (including the Australian Border Force)
  • prescribed parts of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE)
  • Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (in relation to conduct by staff members that relates to the performance of a law enforcement function of ACCC)
  • Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) (in relation to conduct by staff members that relates to the performance of a law enforcement function of APRA)
  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) (in relation to conduct by staff members that relates to the performance of a law enforcement function of ASIC), and
  • Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (in relation to conduct by staff members that relates to the performance of a law enforcement function of ATO).

While we perform an oversight role in relation to the nine law enforcement agencies within our jurisdiction, we also work in partnership with them to maintain a strong integrity system. This partnership is established within the LEIC Act, which mandates that I concentrate on serious and systemic corruption issues, while providing support to law enforcement agencies in relation to the corruption investigations that they undertake. The LEIC Act also provides a feedback mechanism by which law enforcement agencies provide me with reports of their investigations once complete. In undertaking our oversight role, my goal is to ensure that corruption issues are investigated appropriately, and in a timely manner, and that any lessons or vulnerabilities that are identified from an investigation are shared.

On 1 January 2021, our jurisdiction was expanded to include four additional agencies as the first phase of the establishment of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC). Over the course of this Corporate Plan, ACLEI will complete its current expansion activities and continue preparations for the implementation of the CIC. This will include embedding and improving our processes to support a significantly larger organisation and building new functions including strategic intelligence and data analysis to enhance the capability of ACLEI and the CIC, once it is established.

I continue to be impressed by the dedication and expertise of ACLEI staff, as seen through the achievements of the Commission over the past 15 years. I look forward to working with the staff of the Commission to meet the ongoing challenges we face and build on our achievements over the course of this Plan.

 

 

 

Jaala Hinchcliffe
Integrity Commissioner

 

Our purpose and objective

Our purpose is to make it more difficult for corruption to occur or remain undetected in the Australian Government law enforcement agencies which we oversee.

Our objective is to provide independent assurance to the Australian Government that Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and their staff act with integrity by detecting, investigating and preventing corruption.

Under the LEIC Act, ACLEI investigates allegations of corruption in the following agencies:

  • Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC)
  • Australian Federal Police (AFP) including ACT Policing
  • Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
  • Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) including the Australian Border Force, and
  • prescribed parts of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE).

In addition, amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Regulations 2017 (LEIC Regulations) expanded ACLEI's jurisdiction to include conduct of staff members which relates to the performance of a law enforcement function of the following agencies from 1 January 2021:

  • Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
  • Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)
  • Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and
  • Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

 

Our jurisdiction

An allegation will fall within ACLEI's jurisdiction if it is a corruption issue. A corruption issue is defined in section 7 of the LEIC Act as:

  1. For the purposes of this Act, a corruption issue is an issue whether a person who is, or has been, a staff member of a law enforcement agency:
    1. has, or may have, engaged in corrupt conduct; or
    2. is, or may be, engaging in corrupt conduct; or
    3. will, or may at any time in the future engage in corrupt conduct.
  2. To avoid doubt, an allegation, or information, may raise a corruption issue even if the identity of the person is unknown, is uncertain or is not disclosed in the allegation or information.

For the AFP, Home Affairs, ACIC, AUSTRAC and DAWE, the LEIC Act provides two limbs that need to be satisfied for an allegation to be a corruption issue.

For the ATO, ACCC, ASIC and APRA, the LEIC Act provides three limbs that need to be satisfied for an allegation to be a corruption issue.

An allegation that relates to AFP, Home Affairs, ACIC, AUSTRAC or DAWE

  1. Is the allegation about a person who is or was a staff member of a law enforcement agency?
    • Section 10 of the LEIC Act sets out the definition of staff members for each agency.
    • For DAWE staff, consideration must also be given to section 7 of the LEIC Regulations.
  2. Is the allegation that the person, while a staff member, engaged, may be engaging or will engage in corrupt conduct?
    Engages in corrupt conduct is defined in section 6 of the LEIC Act. A staff member of a law enforcement agency engages in corrupt conduct if, while a staff member of that agency, they engage in:
    • an abuse of office
    • perverting the course of justice
    • corruption of any other kind.

If both of these two limbs are satisfied, then the allegation is a corruption issue and within ACLEI's jurisdiction.

An allegation that relates to ATO, ASIC, APRA or ACCC

The ATO, ASIC, APRA and ACCC have been prescribed by the regulations to be a law enforcement agency under section 5 of the LEIC Act. In these circumstances, there is an additional limb that needs to be satisfied before an allegation is a corruption issue and within ACLEI's jurisdiction.

  1. Is the allegation about a person who is or was a staff member of a law enforcement agency?
    • Section 10(4) of the LEIC Act sets out the definition of staff members for agencies that are prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition of law enforcement agency are the class of persons prescribed by the regulations.
    • Section 7A of the LEIC Regulations sets out the definition of staff members of each agency.
  2. Is the allegation that the person, while a staff member, engaged, may be engaging or will engage in corrupt conduct?
    Engages in corrupt conduct is defined in section 6 of the LEIC Act. A staff member of a law enforcement agency engages in corrupt conduct if, while a staff member of that agency, they engage in:
    • an abuse of office
    • perverting the course of justice
    • corruption of any other kind.
  3. Does the alleged conduct relate to the performance of a law enforcement function? The definition of engages in corrupt conduct provides that if a law enforcement agency comes into ACLEI's jurisdiction through regulation, the conduct must relate to the performance of a law enforcement function (see section 6(2) of the LEIC Act).
    Law enforcement function is defined in section 5 of the LEIC Act and ‘relates to':
    • the investigation into whether an offence has been committed against the law of the Commonwealth;
    • the investigation into whether there has been a contravention of a law of the Commonwealth to which a civil penalty proceeding may be brought;
    • dealing with information to assist with the enforcement of Commonwealth laws.

    Investigations about whether an offence has been committed against the law of the Commonwealth relates to the commission of criminal offences. Investigations about whether a civil penalty proceeding can be brought involves legislative civil penalty provisions. Civil penalties are distinct from other action which may be undertaken by an agency where they are the Decision Maker. Civil penalties, like criminal offences, are decided by a court.

If these three limbs are satisfied, then the allegation is a corruption issue and within ACLEI's jurisdiction.

Our expansion

In 2021–22, ACLEI received additional funding to support the further expansion of its jurisdiction. Our expanded jurisdiction gave effect to Phase 11 of the government's decision to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC). Once established, the CIC will have oversight of law enforcement agencies that currently fall within ACLEI's jurisdiction as well as the remainder of the public sector and ACLEI will form the basis of the law enforcement division of the CIC.

In support of our expansion, and in preparation for the CIC, ACLEI's average staffing level will double in size from 54 in 2019–20 to 110 in 2021–22, and 105 ongoing. This means a significant change to our operating model given such a large increase in staff numbers.

Our expansion commenced with the creation of a second Operations Branch and since February 2021, the Integrity Commissioner has been supported by three Executive Directors.

Additional positions at the director level have also been created and filled in the Operations Branches and Corporate Services and Governance Branch to provide direct leadership to sections across ACLEI.

In June 2021, ACLEI stood up a new Strategic Intelligence and Data Analysis function. Over the course of 2021-22, this team will be staffed with intelligence analysts and data analysts, enabling ACLEI to look across the totality of its work to identify themes, trends and intelligence gaps to better enable us to target our investigative work and provide detailed analysis to assist our Corruption Prevention function in providing advice. The Strategic Intelligence and Data Analysis team will liaise closely with jurisdictional agencies and state and territory integrity agencies to enhance overall understanding of corruption themes and trends.

Between July and November 2021, ACLEI will undertake bulk recruitment activity to fill lawyer, investigator and intelligence analyst roles.

Jaala Hinchcliffe

Integrity Commissioner

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucinda Atkinson

Executive Director, Corporate Services and Governance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Lind

Executive Director, Operations Northern

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pete Ratcliffe

Executive Director, Operations Southern

 

 

 

 

 

Our key activities

We deliver on our purpose and objective through four key activities:

  • 1. Assessments
  • 2. ACLEI investigations
  • 3. Supporting partner agency investigations
  • 4. Prevention

Our purpose:

To make it more difficult for corruption to occur or remain undetected in the Australian Government law enforcement agencies which we oversee.

Our key activities

  1. Assessments
    We receive and assess notifications and referrals of alleged corrupt conduct by members of Australian Government law enforcement agencies through:
    • providing clear reporting channels for agencies and members of the public
    • assessing reports of alleged corrupt conduct in a timely fashion, and
    • dealing with reports of alleged corrupt conduct in the most appropriate manner.
  2. ACLEI investigations
    We conduct investigations into serious and systemic corrupt conduct in Australian Government law enforcement agencies through:
    • using our expertise as investigators to fully investigate referrals and notifications of alleged corrupt conduct
    • effectively and efficiently analysing intelligence from a range of sources to further our investigations
    • ensuring investigations are completed in a timely fashion
    • working jointly with other law enforcement agencies where appropriate, and
    • acting within the bounds of our jurisdiction.
  3. Supporting partner agency investigations
    We support our partner law enforcement agencies to conduct their own investigations, including through:
    • the use of our powers to oversee and manage agency investigations under the LEIC Act, where appropriate
    • reviewing the progress of agency investigations, and
    • providing feedback and advice on agencies' final reports on their investigations.
  4. Prevention
    We prevent corruption through:
    • identifying and disseminating information on corruption vulnerabilities and risks to partner agencies and the public
    • providing tailored assistance to Australian Government law enforcement agencies to detect corrupt conduct and mitigate risks
    • specialist projects on emerging corruption threats and innovative approaches to prevention, and
    • engaging with the Australian Parliament, agencies and the public.

Our professional and multi-disciplinary corporate and governance services underpin the effective delivery of these key activities.

These four key activities reflect ACLEI's prescribed role as set out in the LEIC Act.

Assessments

  • When ACLEI is made aware of a corruption issue relating to a partner agency through a notification or referral, it is assessed and a decision is made as to how the corruption issue should be dealt with.
  • If the matter potentially involves serious corruption or systemic corruption (as defined in s 5 of the LEIC Act), then the Integrity Commissioner will prioritise investigation by ACLEI; if it does not then the Integrity Commissioner will decide how it should most appropriately be dealt with.
  • If the notification or referral nevertheless relates to a corruption issue, the Integrity Commissioner can refer the matter to the partner agency to investigate, or refer the matter to another agency that is best placed to investigate.
  • If the notification or referral does not relate to a corruption issue, the Commissioner may take no further action.
  • In some cases, the LEIC Act requires that our partner agencies stop all other action in relation to the alleged corrupt conduct while ACLEI's assessment of the referral or notification is underway. As such, it is imperative that our assessment process is completed as quickly as possible.

ACLEI investigations

  • If the Integrity Commissioner decides that ACLEI should investigate, that investigation can be undertaken by ACLEI alone, or jointly with other law enforcement agencies. ACLEI is focused on ensuring that its investigations are thorough, properly targeted and completed in a timely way. Where we investigate jointly with other agencies, we work closely to identify investigative priorities, ensure we have a targeted plan of action and are effectively managing joint risks.

Supporting partner agency investigations

  • If the Integrity Commissioner decides that a partner agency should investigate, ACLEI's role is to provide support and ensure the agency's investigation is undertaken in a thorough and timely manner.
  • The Integrity Commissioner can decide to oversee or manage the investigation by the partner agency, or for the agency to undertake the investigation independently, and provide regular progress reports to ACLEI.
  • Once the agency has completed its investigation, the agency must report to the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner may make comments or recommendations on the investigation, its outcome and/or preventive measures that have been or could be put in place to address ongoing corruption risk.

Prevention

  • ACLEI provides support to our partner agencies to prevent corruption and to address vulnerabilities, especially those identified through the investigative process.
  • Our engagement with the Australian Parliament and the public also serves an important purpose – both in providing assurance to the Parliament and the public about the integrity of Australian Government law enforcement agencies and in acting as a deterrent to those who might be tempted to engage in corrupt conduct.

 

Our environment

In delivering on our purpose across the four years of this plan, we are conscious of the following elements of the environment that we operate in:

Serious and organised crime syndicates and their use of technology to avoid detection presents key operational challenges.

The ongoing response to COVID-19 is likely to create new corruption threats and remain a challenging operating environment for us over several years of the plan.

Our workforce is a key enabler but it is also an area where we will experience challenges over the life of this plan.

Changes in the Australian Government integrity framework will require us to be agile, anticipate and adapt.

Serious and organised crime

Australia remains a profitable market for illicit importations. As Australia's border arrangements remain restricted, serious and organised crime syndicates increasingly rely on attempts at infiltration and corruption of law enforcement staff members to facilitate their operations. The ‘trusted insider' is an important business asset for serious and organised criminals in conducting their business, therefore creating corruption pressures for staff members of Australian Government law enforcement agencies.

In 2019–20 we recognised the impact of technological change as an ongoing challenge for ACLEI and all law enforcement agencies. We noted that most organised crime groups, and the corrupt officials who work with them, use encrypted communication platforms. Operation Ironside, the Australian Federal Police-led operation, highlighted the extensive use of encrypted communications platforms by organised crime.

While our use of telecommunication interception remains a critical investigative tool, its effect has been diminished in recent years by this increasing shift toward encrypted communications. As a result, ACLEI needs to rely more heavily on other investigative capabilities such as physical and technical surveillance and human source engagement in conducting our investigations.

We expect that over the four year life of this plan we will continue to see new technologies being adopted by the individuals we investigate. To respond to these new technologies, we will continue to adapt our approach and evaluate which, if any, of the investigative tools at our disposal are best used to investigate corruption. Where our current tools or investigative methods are unable to deal with new technologies, we will engage with government to consider the need for or the desirability of legislative change to support corruption investigations (see section 15(f) of the LEIC Act).

The ongoing response to COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to continue to present challenges, both in terms of new corruption threats linked to travel restrictions, economic stimulus measures, and vaccine rollouts, as well as the operating environment for our investigations across several years of this plan. We are continuing to monitor and assess corruption risks presented by pandemic response frameworks and engaging at an early stage with Commonwealth law enforcement agencies on early intervention to address these risks. Our operational work will continue to be guided by the advice that is provided by the Chief Medical Officer and the federal, state and territory governments.

Workforce

ACLEI is a very small agency. Our people are critical to our ability to perform our functions under the LEIC Act, and to fulfil our purpose efficiently and effectively for the benefit of the Australian public. Over the life of this plan, we expect to continue to see challenges in attracting and retaining the highly skilled and experienced staff we need to achieve our purpose. This is a challenge shared by other law enforcement agencies. We will work with those agencies to ensure we can acheive our planned increased staffing levels while providing opportunities for development and advancement of those people across the community of agencies.

Changes in the Australian Government integrity framework

The Australian Government integrity framework includes ACLEI and a number of other Commonwealth agencies. We work together, particularly to ensure that our investigations do not overlap or impinge on one another.

The integrity framework is set to change over the four years of this plan with the establishment of a CIC, which was announced by the Australian Government in 2018. The proposed law enforcement integrity division will continue ACLEI's current powers and functions, but with broader jurisdiction. The proposed public sector integrity division will represent a new aspect of the National Integrity Framework. ACLEI will work over the course of this plan to support the establishment of the CIC and the public sector integrity division.

 

Our relationships

ACLEI's collaborative relationships are set out in the diagram below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Partner agencies

To achieve our purpose and make it more difficult for corruption in designated Australian Government law enforcement agencies to occur or remain undetected, we work closely with the agencies that are within our jurisdiction.

While we investigate allegations of corruption within these law enforcement agencies, we also partner with them to strengthen their internal integrity frameworks. This partnership approach is established by the LEIC Act and reflects the general principle established by the PGPA Act that Australian Government agency heads are ultimately responsible for ensuring the integrity of their agencies, both in terms of people and processes.

In relation to investigations, this partnership involves:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like all law enforcement agencies, ACLEI also benefits from information shared between law enforcement agencies, which ensures that matters are investigated by the most appropriate agency.

Similarly, ACLEI shares information with other agencies in accordance with the LEIC Act, to enable matters to be appropriately dealt with. ACLEI also hosts a quarterly Corruption Prevention Community of Practice which is a collaborative forum for Integrity and Professional Standards units of Commonwealth law enforcement agencies to identify corruption risks, share good practices and innovative approaches, collaborate to counter threats to law enforcement integrity and strengthen their respective agency's integrity systems.

We will continue to work with the four agencies that came within our jurisdiction in 2021 as they establish their notification processes and corruption investigation capability. As discussed on pages 7 and 8, the determination of whether an allegation is within our jurisdiction for one of these agencies requires the application of an additional test, i.e. whether the alleged conduct relates to the performance of a law enforcement function. We will continue to work with these agencies and seek legal advice where necessary to apply this test to the allegations raised with us.

The Australian Government integrity framework

As ACLEI is a key part of the broader Australian Government integrity framework, we work closely with other Commonwealth integrity and oversight agencies, including:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Integrity Commissioner meets regularly with the heads of these agencies to discuss issues that are common to integrity and oversight agencies and to consider the ways that we can work together.

State and territory law enforcement and integrity agencies

ACLEI also collaborates with state and territory law enforcement and integrity agencies, mainly through the Corruption Prevention Practitioners' Forum. Through this collaboration we ensure Australia's integrity network has a consistent understanding of relevant issues and is equipped to deal with them.

International counterparts and anti-corruption forums

ACLEI engages with other anti-corruption agencies, including through participation in regional and international anti-corruption forums. ACLEI contributes to and remains informed of global anti-corruption developments.

The public

The public are also key partners in disrupting corruption. We receive allegations of corrupt conduct from members of the public, which we evaluate through our assessment process.

 

Our key enablers

Our people and supporting technology are critical to our ability to perform our key activities and achieve our purpose. To deliver on our purpose over the next four years, we will focus on enhancing two key enablers, our people and our technology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our people

ACLEI's success is entirely dependent on the quality and hard work of our staff. As a small agency with specialist functions, it can be difficult to attract and retain staff with the necessary skills and experience. This is a common challenge for agencies with specialist activities but a particular challenge for ACLEI over the next two years as it almost doubles in size and the CIC is established. Over the period of this plan, ACLEI will develop and implement a workforce strategy focused on attracting and retaining highly skilled and experienced staff and ensuring that ACLEI has access to the capabilities we will need in the future. We will also work with other agencies to identify opportunities for staff development and advancement through secondment and exchange programs. Such programs will also provide opportunities to advance diversity and encourage innovative approaches to our work.

Our technology

ACLEI relies on a shared services arrangement with the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) for its Information Communication Technology (ICT) services. Having access to appropriate ICT is critical to our ability to progress our work in a timely manner. We will continue to work closely with AGD to ensure we have access to the ICT resources we need.

During the life of this plan, ACLEI's case management system will be refreshed. Not only is this essential to our ability to undertake investigations effectively and efficiently, but it will be an important step for ACLEI in enhancing the way we record information about our performance. As a result, this will enhance our ability to measure and analyse our performance to ensure we are maximising our impact.

As well as working in partnership with the Australian Government agencies under our jurisdiction to prevent and investigate corruption, ACLEI also works in cooperation with partner agencies and other law enforcement agencies to ensure that ACLEI has access to the technical capabilities needed to conduct our own investigations. ACLEI is a very small agency and it is inefficient for ACLEI to maintain all of the technical capabilities it requires to perform its functions in house. For example, in some investigations, ACLEI relies on the use of telecommunication interception or surveillance devices to obtain evidence. These capabilities are resource intensive and expensive to develop and maintain. Accordingly, ACLEI acquires these technical capabilities from other agencies as required.

 

Our risk oversight and management

ACLEI is committed to managing risk through our Strategic Risk Management Policy and Framework, which provides a structured and consistent approach to identifying, analysing and mitigating risk.

ACLEI's Governance Architecture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We aim to promote and build a positive risk culture that encourages an open and proactive approach to managing risk, whilst recognising risk as both an opportunity and threat. Staff are encouraged to build competency in skills to manage risk as part of their everyday work.

ACLEI has in place a framework and governance architecture to identify, prevent, mitigate and report on enterprise and operational risks. Our governance architecture helps us to actively engage in our risk management process and ensure that we are continuously reassessing the risks that we are managing.

Enterprise and operational risks

Our enterprise risks are risks that could impact large areas of ACLEI, or prevent ACLEI from achieving its objectives. Our operational risks are risks that impact on a particular section within ACLEI. The Executive Directors have overarching responsibility of their respective operational risks.

Any new and emerging risks are discussed at the Internal Governance Board meetings and an update on enterprise and operational risks is a standing agenda for all Audit Committee meetings.

ACLEI has identified eight enterprise risk categories and the strategies we use to manage them.

Enterprise risks Mitigating strategies
1. Influence and relationships

Risks include that there is a breakdown in our relationship with our partner agencies
  • We lead and participate in a number of communities of practice and forums to share knowledge and experience.
  • We actively engage with all our stakeholders to safeguard and enhance our credibility.
  • We ensure that we have developed relationships at various levels with our partner agencies, from Integrity Commissioner to investigator. We regularly engage at these different levels to ensure the relationships are working well.
2. Measuring outcomes and success

Risks include that ACLEI does not have access to, or fails to maintain, accurate, complete and timely information
  • We have measures in place which are aimed at protecting and maximising the use of our data and information.
  • We actively engage and develop relationship with all partner agencies to facilitate the sharing of information.
  • We report to the Internal Governance Board and Audit Committee on our performance.
3. Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) transition and growth

Risks include that ACLEI fails to recruit, retain and adequately support an appropriately skilled workforce
  • The project to double ACLEI's size during 2021 has been planned and actively managed.
  • As an agency, we have prioritised our current recruitment activity to support our expansion.
  • We will take a planned approach to the transition to the CIC, including ensuring that the policies and processes used by ACLEI are fit for purpose for the larger CIC once it is established.
4. Policy and jurisdiction

Risks include that ACLEI is ineffective in implementing our broader jurisdiction
  • We manage this risk collaboratively with current and future jurisdictional agencies through strong project planning and building effective stakeholder relationships.
5. People capability and wellbeing

Risks include that ACLEI does not have the capability or capacity to achieve our purpose
  • We use secondment arrangements and joint investigations to ensure that the right skills are available for each operation.
  • We enhance our own capability through learning and development opportunities.
  • We utilise our data and our risk management framework to ensure capacity to undertake serious and systemic investigations.
  • We have embedded an inclusive and positive culture of teamwork and collaboration through engagement and consultation.
6. Security and integrity

The risks include that the security of our staff, witnesses, information or data is compromised
  • We have encouraged a security-conscious culture, where security plans and risk assessments are in place and followed.
  • We ensure that our systems are secure, access is auditable and we monitor use.
  • Our staff are fully conversant with current operations and information sharing protocols.
7. Operational conduct

The risks include a loss of confidence in ACLEI's ability to investigate corruption
  • We continually review our operational capabilities to respond to changes in our operating environment to ensure they are matched to emerging corrupt conduct.
8. Information management and systems

The risks include that ACLEI fails to maintain fit-for-purpose ICT services
  • We work in partnership with ICT providers to ensure we have access to the ICT resources that we need.
  • We have committed resources to review our current and emerging ICT needs, and establish arrangements to optimally meet these.

Operational activity risks

ACLEI considers risk when planning for all operational activities. The following activities assist ACLEI in this process:

  • A Consideration of Risk (COR) process is undertaken by the Assessment Board to inform the Integrity Commissioner's consideration of corruption issues when making a recommendation for a matter be investigated. This process is repeated during an investigation with an operational review every 90 days.
  • Some operational activities, such as warrants, hearings and interviews, can expose ACLEI and its staff to various physical and integrity risks. In order to appropriately consider potential risks that may be encountered, an operational risk assessment is conducted by staff prior to the activity occurring.
  • In the case of more significant activities such as an operational resolution, an Operational Order is completed by staff that captures the formal consideration of risk and mitigation strategies.

 

Our performance

Our performance criteria align with our key activities to create a direct line between our purpose, activities and performance, including:

  • focusing on investigating serious and systemic corrupt conduct – which the Parliament has decided should be the priority for the use of ACLEI's specialist expertise and significant investigative powers
  • ensuring that other corruption issues are appropriately dealt with by other agencies
  • supporting partner agencies to prevent and address vulnerabilities to corruption, and
  • undertaking our activities timeously – noting the importance of addressing alleged corrupt conduct and ongoing corruption risk as quickly as possible.

We continue to develop our performance framework with a particular focus on improving how we report against our purpose.

In 2019–20 we commenced work to refresh our performance framework, including our performance measures, to ensure that they provide a useful tool by which to manage the work of ACLEI and to ensure we are undertaking our activities in a timely and rigorous way in accordance with the requirements of the LEIC Act.

In 2020–21 we focused on embedding our performance framework, identifying new data sets and reporting capabilities that can assist us to accurately measure our performance.

In 2021–22 we will review the appropriateness of our performance criteria to determine whether there are any changes we need to make to assist in measuring our performance.

The executive team consider our performance results quarterly at the Internal Governance Board meeting; these performance results are reviewed by the Audit Committee.

Key activity 1: Assessment

We receive and assess notifications and referrals of alleged corrupt conduct by members of Australian Government law enforcement agencies through:

  • providing clear reporting channels for agencies and members of the public
  • assessing reports of alleged corrupt conduct in a timely fashion, and
  • dealing with reports of alleged corrupt conduct in the most appropriate manner.
Performance Criterion Measure Target 2021–22 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25
1.1 Number of notifications and referrals of alleged corrupt conduct received by ACLEI2 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
1.2 Number of completed assessments of notifications and referrals The equivalent of 90% of the number of notification and referrals received that year Yes Yes Yes Yes
1.3 Percentage of assessments completed within 30 days 90% Yes Yes Yes Yes
1.4 Percentage of survey responses from agencies indicating a rating of satisfied (or better) with the timeliness of our assessment work3 70% Yes No Yes No

Key activity 2: ACLEI investigations

We conduct investigations into serious and systemic corrupt conduct in Australian Government law enforcement agencies through:

  • using our expertise as investigators to fully investigate referrals and notifications of alleged corrupt conduct
  • effectively and efficiently analysing intelligence from a range of sources to further our investigations
  • ensuring investigations are completed in a timely fashion
  • working jointly with other law enforcement agencies where appropriate, and
  • acting within the bounds of our jurisdiction.
Performance Criterion Measure Target 2021–22 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25
2.1 Number of investigations commenced4 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.2 Number of investigations finalised, either through being completed, discontinued or reconsidered The equivalent of 80% of the number of investigations commenced that year Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.3 Average duration of finalised investigations Comparison against 20–21 results5 Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.4 Percentage of briefs of evidence where a charge is recommended after assessment by the CDPP 90% Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.5 Number of reports under section 54 of the LEIC Act completed Comparison against 20–21 results6 Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.6 Number of corruption findings made7 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.7 Number of times evidence is disseminated under section 146 of the LEIC Act8 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
2.8 Percentage of survey responses from agencies demonstrating a rating of satisfied (or better) with the timeliness and professionalism of our investigations9 70% Yes No Yes No

Key activity 3: Supporting partner agency investigations

We support our partner law enforcement agencies to conduct their own investigations, including through:

  • the use of our powers to oversee and manage agency investigations under the LEIC Act, where appropriate
  • reviewing the progress of agency investigations, and
  • providing feedback and advice on agencies' final reports on their investigations.
Performance Criterion Measure Target 2021–22 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25
3.1 Number of investigations referred to partner agencies for investigation (broken down by referred, referred with oversight and referred with management)10 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
3.2 Number of investigations by partner agencies finalised and report provided under section 66 of the LEIC Act11 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
3.3 Average duration of finalised investigations by partner agencies Comparison against 20–21 results12 Yes Yes Yes Yes
3.4 Percentage of reviews of section 66 reports completed within 30 days 80% Yes Yes Yes Yes
3.5 Percentage of survey responses from agencies demonstration a rating of satisfied (or better) with the quality of our contributions 70% Yes No Yes No

Key activity 4: Prevention

We prevent corruption through:

  • identifying and disseminating information on corruption vulnerabilities and risks to partner agencies and the public
  • providing tailored assistance to Australian Government law enforcement agencies to detect corrupt conduct and mitigate risks
  • specialist projects on emerging corruption threats and innovative approaches to prevention, and
  • engaging with the Australian Parliament, agencies and the public.
Performance Criterion Measure Target 2021–22 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25
4.1 Number of presentations provided13 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.2 Percentage of feedback from participants in presentations demonstrating a rating of ‘satisfied' or better 80% Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.3 Number of corruption prevention products published14 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.4 Trends are identified in:
  • notifications and referrals, and
  • s66 reports received from partner agencies
90% Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.5 Number of submissions made to, and appearances before, parliamentary committee processes15 Annual count Yes Yes Yes Yes
4.6 Percentage of survey responses from agencies demonstrating a rating of satisfied (or better) with the quality of our corruption prevention work16 70% Yes No Yes No

 

Footnotes

1 https://www.ag.gov.au/integrity/consultations/commonwealth-integrity-commission-consultation-draft

2 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

3 This measure is assessed via a biennial stakeholder survey.

4 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

5 2020–21 results established a baseline for comparison

6 2020–21 results established a baseline for comparison

7 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

8 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

9 This measure will be assessed via a biennial stakeholder survey

10 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

11 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

12 2020–21 results established a baseline for comparison

13 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

14 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

15 As provided by Rule 16E(2) item 5 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, it is not reasonably practicable to include targets for this measure and instead an annual count will be used. This is because the number will vary from year to year and is not within ACLEI's control. However, this number, when combined with other measures outlined, provides important information against which to assess the workload of the agency during the period and our efficiency and effectiveness in managing that workload.

16 This measure is assessed via a biennial stakeholder survey.