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

JH

As the accountable authority for the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), I am pleased to present ACLEI's Corporate Plan 2022–26, covering the 4 financial years from 2022–23 to 2025–26, 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 5 key activities:

  • We detect corruption and enhance our partner agencies' capability to detect corruption.
  • 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 the:

  • Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC)
  • Australian Federal Police (AFP)
  • Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
  • Department of Home Affairs (including the Australian Border Force)
  • prescribed parts of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)
  • 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)
  • Australian Taxation Office (ATO; in relation to conduct by staff members that relates to the performance of a law enforcement function of ATO)
  • Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).

While we perform an oversight role in relation to the 10 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 corruption 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 recommendations, lessons or vulnerabilities that are identified from an investigation are accepted and shared as appropriate.

2021 was a year of change and growth for ACLEI. As new agencies came within our jurisdiction, we expanded rapidly, introduced more specialist officers in key areas and undertook preparatory work to support the creation of a broader anti–corruption commission.

This process of evolution will continue in 2022 and 2023 with the Government's commitment to legislate to establish the National Anti–Corruption Commission (NACC) in 2022. ACLEI will continue our work to prepare for the implementation of the NACC while ensuring we deliver on our core functions under the LEIC Act.

Finally, even though we have grown considerably over the last year, ACLEI is still a small agency. Given this, it is timely to recognise our dedicated and expert staff who enable us to achieve all that we have at ACLEI.

Signature

 

 

 

 

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 that 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.

Our values

At ACLEI, we believe that culture is not something that happens to us but is the outcome of the way we behave and interact with one another. The ACLEI values guide our behaviours and attitudes in the workplace. The ACLEI values are:

Values

 

Our jurisdiction

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, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).

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:

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

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 follows:

  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
    2. is, or may be, engaging in corrupt conduct
    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 DAFF, the LEIC Act provides 2 limbs that need to be satisfied for an allegation to be a corruption issue.

For the ATO, ACCC, ASIC, APRA, and the OSI, the LEIC Act provides 3 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 DAFF

1. Is the allegation about a person who is or was a staff member of a law enforcement agency?

  • s 10 of the LEIC Act sets out the definition of staff members for each agency.
  • For DAFF staff, consideration must also be given to regulation 7 of the LEIC Regulations 2017.

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 s 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 2 limbs are satisfied, then the allegation is a corruption issue and within ACLEI's jurisdiction.

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

The ATO, ACCC, ASIC, APRA and the OSI have been prescribed by the regulations to be a law enforcement agency under s 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?

  • s 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.
  • Regulation 7A of the LEIC Regulations 2017 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 s 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 s 6(2) of the LEIC Act). Law enforcement function is defined in s 5 of the LEIC Act and 'relates to' the investigation into:

  • whether an offence has been committed against the law of the Commonwealth; or
  • whether there has been a contravention of a law of the Commonwealth to which a civil penalty proceeding may be brought.

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 3 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. In support of our expansion, ACLEI's average staffing level doubled from 54 in 2019–20 to 110 in 2021–22. Such a large increase in staff numbers required a significant change in our operating model, commencing with the creation of a second operations branch.

Since February 2021, the Integrity Commissioner has been supported by 3 Executive Directors. In 2022, the Integrity Commissioner established a Deputy Integrity Commissioner position, which was filled in the second half of 2022.

Jaala Hinchcliffe

Integrity Commissioner

JH

 

Petra Gartmann

Deputy Integrity Commissioner

Petra

 

David Swan (acting)

Executive Director,
Corporate Services and Governance

 

DS

 

Peter Ratcliffe

Executive Director,
Operations Southern

PR

 

Judith Lind

Executive Director,
Operations Northern

 

JL

 

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 and support scalability, responsiveness and resilience.

In June 2021, ACLEI established a new strategic intelligence and data analysis function, which has now been staffed with intelligence and data analysts. This function enables ACLEI to identify themes, trends and intelligence gaps across our ambit, enhancing our investigative work and our provision of detailed analysis, to assist our corruption prevention function in providing advice to partner agencies as well as internally.

The Strategic Intelligence and Data Analysis team liaises closely with partner agencies and state and territory integrity agencies to enhance overall understanding of corruption themes and trends. In addition, in the second half of 2021, ACLEI undertook bulk recruitment activity to fill lawyer, investigator and intelligence analyst roles.

These important additions to our capability have led to the inclusion of Detection as a separate and additional key activity for ACLEI in this Corporate Plan. Detection is a cornerstone of ACLEI's purpose and objective, and can now be presented as a key activity in its own right.

Our core business 2020–21

  • 478 notifications and referrals of alleged corrupt conduct were received
  • 338 matters were assessed to be corruption issues
  • 33 investigations were commenced
  • 35 investigations were finalised
  • 91 investigation reports were received from jurisdiction agencies1
  • 11 s 54 reports were completed2

In 2021–22, our Corruption Vulnerabilities 2020 – 21 brief was published. It identified multiple corruption vulnerabilities in partner agencies, including:

  • misuse of information
  • abuse of office
  • grooming
  • integrity in high volume processes
  • employment suitability

Our planning framework

Planning

View Planning Framework

Our key activities

We deliver on our purpose and objective through 5 key activities:

1. Detection

Detection

 2. Assessments

Assessments

 3. ACLEI investigations

Investigations

 4. Supporting partner agency investigations

Support

 5. Prevention

Prevention

 These 5 key activities reflect ACLEI's prescribed functions as set out in the LEIC Act.

Detection

  • ACLEI may detect corruption through a variety of means, including proactive investigative techniques, covert and technical capabilities, media and partner agency reporting, or through identifying separate and additional corruption in an ongoing operation.
  • ACLEI's strategic intelligence and data analysis and corruption prevention functions provide information to partner agencies about themes, trends and indicators of corruption arising from particular subjects, environments and activities. This better enables agencies to detect corruption which can be referred to ACLEI for assessment.

Assessments

  • When ACLEI is made, or becomes aware of a potential corruption issue relating to a partner agency through a notification, referral (including own initiative referrals) or detection 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 at a glance

  • Established in 2006, ACLEI now has 10 agencies within its jurisdiction
  • More than 15,000 staff undertaking law enforcement roles or functions are employed by partner agencies
  • In the last three years our staffing has doubled from 54 to 110 ASL, including the establishment of a second Operations branch consisting of three Operations Directorates, as well as the establishment of Strategic Intelligence and Data Analysis, and Collections and Coordination teams.
  • ACLEI's dual focus includes both law enforcement and integrity frameworks and systems
  • ACLEI is one of fourteen Commonwealth integrity agencies www.apsc.gov.au/working–aps/integrity/integrity–agencies–group
  • ACLEI's work is challenging and complex, as demonstrated by the average length of our investigations (651 days in 2020–21), the complexity of the law enforcement function test for certain agencies, the international footprint of our jurisdiction and the diversity of conduct that may constitute corrupt conduct
  • In 2020–21, partner agencies: 91 investigations were completed and provided reports to the Integrity Commissioner under s 66 of the LEIC Act. 862 days was the average duration to finalise investigations
  • In 2020–21, the Integrity Commissioner disseminated evidence obtained in an investigation to heads of agencies within ACLEI's jurisdiction to enable them to take action in relation to misconduct issues on 8 occasions.
  • In 2020–21, the Integrity Commissioner made a specific recommendation (under s 67 of the LEIC Act) to an agency in response to that agency's investigation report.
  • The top corruption vulnerability identified through our investigations was misuse of information, characterised as either unauthorised access, unauthorised disclosure or modifying information and published for the first time in ACLEI's Corruption Vulnerabilities Brief 2020–21.
  • Our partner agencies' information is highly valued and must be protected.

Our roadmap to 2026

Roadmap

 *ACLEI will be implementing new case management and financial systems, and an enhanced website

Environmental challenges and opportunities

In delivering on our purpose across the 4 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 continues to create new corruption risks and a challenging operating environment for us and the agencies we oversee.
  • 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 are controlled, 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.

Since 2019–20, we have 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 must 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 4 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 s 15(f) of the LEIC Act).

The ongoing response to COVID–19

The COVID–19 pandemic is continuing to present challenges, both in terms of new corruption threats linked to economic stimulus measures and vaccine rollouts and the majority of the workforce continuing to work remotely from home, as well as the operating environment for our investigations across several years of this plan. We continue to monitor and assess corruption risks presented by pandemic response frameworks, and engage 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 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 achieve 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 thirteen other Commonwealth integrity 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 4 years of this plan with the establishment of the NACC. ACLEI will work over the course of this plan to support the establishment of the NACC, including the integration of existing ACLEI functions, people, processes and technology into the new Commission.

Our relationships

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

Relationships

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:

Partner agencies

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 security, 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.

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:

IF

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 collaborates with state and territory law enforcement and integrity agencies, mainly through the Corruption Prevention Practitioners' Forum and annual Integrity Commissioners' Forum. Through this collaboration we ensure Australia's integrity network has a consistent understanding of relevant issues and is equipped to deal with them. In 2022, ACLEI will co–host the Australian Public Sector Anti–Corruption Conference with the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC).

International counterparts and anti–corruption forums

ACLEI engages with other national anti–corruption agencies, including through participation in regional and international anti–corruption forums. ACLEI contributes to and remains informed of global anti–corruption developments through input to the Attorney–General's Department which leads Australia's international anti–corruption delegations.

The Australian public

The Australian public is also a key partner 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 4 years, we will focus on enhancing two key enablers, our people and our technology.

Key enablers

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 year as the NACC is established. Over the period of this plan, a workforce strategy focused on attracting and retaining highly skilled and experienced staff will be developed and implemented to ensure 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, our case management and financial management systems will be replaced. Not only is this essential to our ability to undertake investigations and manage our financial resources effectively and efficiently, but it will be an important step that enhances the way we record information about our performance. This will improve our ability to measure and analyse our performance data to ensure that we are maximising our impact. In due course, ACLEI will also support further consideration of the ICT requirements of the NACC.

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 we have access to the technical capabilities needed to conduct our own investigations. During the life of this plan, ACLEI will consider the efficiency of these technical capabilities being provided by third parties and, where it is appropriate to do so, will consider bringing capabilities inhouse.

Our risk oversight and management

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

We aim to promote and build a positive risk culture that encourages an open and proactive approach to managing risk, while recognising risk as both an opportunity and a threat. Our risk appetite articulates our tolerance against 6 key risk categories and assists staff to build competency in managing risk as part of their everyday work and in their decision making.

Risk

 

ACLEI's Governance Architecture

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

Arch

View Governance Architecture

Enterprise and operational risks

ACLEI manages risk across 4 risk profiles: enterprise, branch, operating and business, and implicit.

Our enterprise risks are risks that are derived from, or a threat to, ACLEI's strategic objectives.

Our branch risks are operational in nature, but require senior oversight and structured management. The Executive Directors have overarching responsibility for managing branch risks.

Operating and business risks relate to business unit objectives, projects, operations or investigations, or specialist risks such as work health and safety.

Implicit risks are those many day–to–day risks managed by staff that may never be formally captured within a risk register. Successful management of implicit risks reflects the strength of the overall risk culture as well as the individual attitudes, capabilities and competence of staff.

Any new and emerging risks are discussed at Internal Governance Board meetings along with regular review of enterprise risks, and an update on enterprise and operational risks is a standing agenda item for all Audit Committee meetings.

ACLEI has identified 7 enterprise risk events that may prevent the achievement of its objectives. These risks are regularly reviewed by the Internal Governance Board to ensure causal factors, potential consequences, significant controls and treatments required or in progress are considered, documented, monitored and reported.

Risk Event
1. ACLEI must maintain its influence and productive stakeholder relationships
2. ACLEI must be able to measure and demonstrate its outcomes and successes
3. ACLEI must be prepared to implement and integrate into the new National Anti–Corruption Commission (NACC) while continuing effective delivery of BAU activity until transition is complete
4. ACLEI must build and maintain its people capability and ensure their wellbeing and welfare
5. ACLEI must ensure the security and integrity of its operations and information
6. ACLEI must ensure its operational conduct is lawful, consistent, proportionate, effective and prioritised
7. ACLEI must ensure that its information and technology resources readily meet ACLEI's current and foreseeable future requirements

 

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 corruption and systemic corruption – 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 in a timely manner – noting the importance of addressing alleged corrupt conduct and ongoing corruption risk as quickly as possible.

The Internal Governance Board considers our performance results quarterly and these performance results are reviewed by the Audit Committee.

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 reviewed the appropriateness of our performance measures to determine if any changes were required to assist in measuring our performance. As a result, several performance measures have either been removed or amended.

Key activity 1: Detection

We detect corruption and enhance our partner agencies' capability to detect corruption through:

  • targeted, systematic intelligence collection
  • proactive analysis and assessment of a broad range of data sources, including media and public reporting
  • production of detailed analysis on indicators, themes and trends within the corruption landscape, and
  • responding to indications of separate corrupt activity identified during our ongoing investigations.
Performance Criterion Measure Target 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 2025–26
1.1 Number of 'own–initiative' investigations commenced under s 38 of the LEIC Act3 Annual count yes yes yes yes
1.2 Number of intelligence products produced4 Annual count yes yes yes yes

Key activity 2: 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.
Performance Criterion Measure Target 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 2025–26
2.1 Number of notifications and referrals of alleged corrupt conduct received by ACLEI5 Annual count yes yes yes yes
2.2 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
2.3 Percentage of assessments completed by ACLEI within specified timeframes 90% of s 19 assessments are completed within 30 business days yes yes yes yes
2.4 Percentage of survey responses from agencies indicating a rating of satisfied (or better) with the timeliness of our assessment work6 70% no yes no yes

Key activity 3: 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 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 2025–26
3.1 Number of investigations commenced7 Annual count yes yes yes yes
3.2 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
3.3 Average duration of finalised investigations Comparison against prior year results8 yes yes yes yes
3.4 Percentage of briefs of evidence where a charge is recommended after assessment by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) 75% yes yes yes yes
3.5 Number of reports under section 54 of the LEIC Act completed Annual count9 yes yes yes yes
3.6 Percentage of survey responses from agencies demonstrating a rating of satisfied (or better) with the timeliness and professionalism of our investigations10 70% no yes no yes

Key activity 4: 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 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 2025–26
4.1 Number of investigations referred to partner agencies for investigation (broken down by referred, referred with oversight and referred with management)11 Annual count yes yes yes yes
4.2 Percentage of reviews of s 66 reports completed within 30 days or the agreed timeframe as negotiated between the Integrity Commissioner and the relevant jurisdiction agency 80% yes yes yes yes
4.3 Percentage of survey responses from agencies demonstrating a rating of satisfied (or better) with the quality of our contributions12 70% no yes no yes

Key activity 5: Prevention

We prevent corrupt conduct in Commonwealth law enforcement agencies through:

  • tailored corruption prevention engagement with partner agencies including training and awareness raising events on preventing, detecting and reporting corruption and the role of ACLEI
  • convening a quarterly Corruption Prevention Community of Practice to share good practices in corruption prevention and address strategic priorities
  • developing targeted corruption prevention products based on research and analysis of corruption risks and trends
  • recommending corruption prevention measures (including identification of risks and vulnerabilities) following the conclusion of ACLEI investigations, and
  • increasing corruption prevention awareness and impact through ACLEI's website.
Performance Criterion Measure Target 2022–23 2023–24 2024–25 2025–26
5.1 Corruption prevention engagement with ACLEI partner agencies designed to address identified risks and vulnerabilities Annual count (2022–23 to set baseline for comparison purposes) yes yes yes yes
5.2 Commonwealth Corruption Prevention Community of Practice Meetings 4 meetings conducted annually yes yes yes yes
5.3 Number of corruption prevention products produced13 Annual count yes yes yes yes
5.4 Number of submissions made to, and appearances before, parliamentary committee processes14 Annual count yes yes yes yes
5.5 Percentage of survey responses from agencies demonstrating a rating of satisfied (or better) with the quality of our corruption prevention work15 70% yes yes yes yes

 

Footnotes

1 Under s 66 of the LEIC Act

2 Under s 54 of the LEIC Act

3 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.

4 As for note 3, above.

5 As for note 3, above.

6 This measure is assessed via a biennial stakeholder survey.

7 As for note 3, above.

8 2020–21 results established a baseline for comparison.

9 As for note 3, above.

10 As for note 6, above.

11 As for note 3, above.

12 As for note 6, above.

13 As for note 3, above.

14 As for note 3, above.

15 As for note 6, above.

ACLEI Corporate Plan 2022-2026 ACLEI Corporate Plan 2022-2026.PDF (1.47 MB)