|
Year raised
|
Issue
|
Status in 2010-11 report
|
|
2009-10
|
The rate at which
external agencies conclude inquiries appears to significantly contribute
to the large number of unresolved issues at the end of each financial year,
with only 12.5% or 6 out of 48 being concluded in 2009-10.[6]
|
While more
investigations were completed by external agencies the proportion attributable
to external agencies of the issues carried over increased from 47% to 61%.[7]
|
|
2009-10
|
The effectiveness of the two-level approach which
involves information sharing about investigations into serious and organised
crime with agencies under ACLEI's jurisdiction.
|
In 2010–11, ACLEI
engaged closely with law enforcement agencies that collect information about,
and investigate, threats from organised crime. This interaction has informed
ACLEI’s operational and assessment decisions, and helped to direct ACLEI
investigations to best guard against serious and systemic corruption. ACLEI
has reciprocated by contributing intelligence about corruption methods to
inform relevant law enforcement operations.[8]
|
|
2008-09
|
The balance between transparency
and investigation integrity: The risk that disclosure of information can
present for investigations was raised.[9]
The potentially conflicting ideals of transparency arising from new FOI
requirements and investigation integrity were raised in the examination of
the 2009-10 annual report.[10]
|
In March 2010, in
response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs report Whistleblower protection: a comprehensive
scheme for the Commonwealth public sector, the government committed to
introducing a comprehensive scheme for handling public interest disclosures,
and for legislation to be developed accordingly.
During 2010–11, ACLEI
contributed to consultations about the potential shape of a public interest
disclosure regime and the development of draft legislation.[11]
|
|
2008-09
|
Efficient
intelligence sharing: In particular, concern regarding the requirement
that ACLEI pay a fee for intelligence held by other Commonwealth agencies.[12]
|
In 2010–11, ACLEI engaged closely with law enforcement
agencies that collect information about, and investigate, threats from
organised crime. This interaction has informed ACLEI’s operational and assessment
decisions, and helped to direct my investigations to best guard against
serious and systemic corruption. ACLEI has reciprocated by contributing
intelligence about corruption methods to inform relevant law enforcement
operations.[13]
|
|
2007-08
|
The balance between
ACLEI and agency investigations: The committee noted ACLEI's intention to
refer some issues back to law enforcement agencies and emphasised finding the
right balance between ACLEI investigating matters versus referring matters
back to law enforcement agencies.[14]
|
Since 2007-08, the
proportion of investigations conducted by other agencies has been about
two-thirds of the total numbers of investigations, e.g. 2007-08 – 60%[15],
2008-09 – 63%[16],
2009-10 – 68%[17],
2010-11 – 67%[18].
There were no corruption issues referred to government agencies for
investigation in 2010-11.[19]
|
|
2007-08
|
ACLEI's high-level
security measures.[20]
|
|
During
the year, ACLEI’s auditors, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, finalised an
internal audit of ACLEI’s information-handling practices. No irregularities
were observed. ACLEI’s minimum security classification for staff was reviewed
and adjusted.[21]
|
|
|
2007-08
|
Prevention and
education role: The committee noted its concern that ACLEI's did not
appear to be sufficiently developing its prevention and education role and
may not have sufficient resources to do so.[22]
The same concern was reiterated in the examination of the 2009-10 annual
report.[23]
|
The 2011 Hamburger review also noted that ACLEI did not have
capacity to deliver prevention and detection work and recommended securing an
agreement by which the law enforcement agencies would each transfer a small
amount of funds to ACLEI to strengthen its capabilities in areas other than
investigation, especially in relation to prevention activities.[24]
|
|
2006-07
|
The balance between
ACLEI's resourcing and its workload.[25]
The committee sought access to original costing for ACLEI establishment and
recommended funding review in the examination of the 2007-08 annual report.[26]
The committee noted additional resources, but remained concerned in its
examination of the 2008-09 annual report and reiterated its recommendation
for a funding increase.[27]
The committee examined trends in the ACLEI workload in its examination of the
2009-10 annual report and observed that the rate of referral and issues being
carried over continued to increase. The committee also noted the increased
resources.[28]
The impact on ACLEI's workload of the addition of Customs to ACLEI's
jurisdiction was also noted.[29]
The committee's recommendation for a review of ACLEI's funding level in its
inquiry into law enforcement integrity models was also noted in the
examination of the 2009-10 annual report.[30]
|
The committee is
pleased that growth the number of issues being carried forward has stopped,
and will continue to monitor this important metric in the future.[31]
The committee is
satisfied that ACLEI is taking appropriate steps to introduce Customs and
Border Protection to ACLEI's integrity regime and processes, and will
continue to observe developments in this area.[32]
The committee will
monitor the number of investigation reports delivered, given that ACLEI's
resources have grown and continue to grow.
|
|
2006-07
|
Trends in
Corruption: Issues and matters notified were raised in 2006-07[33],
and were consistent with those in 2007-08 though the potential impact of the
global financial crises was noted.[34]
|
Chapter 7 of the report
notes risks arising from the strength of the Australian dollar, steroid and
illicit party drug use leading to interaction with organised crime groups,
informal information-sharing cultures, conflicts of obligation, and
displacement of corruption. Importantly, the report notes that evidence was
apparent during investigations conducted by ACLEI in 2010-11 of corruption
risks arising from improper handling of "human sources".[35]
|
|
2006-07
|
Internal Governance
arrangements: The committee sought a status report on development on the
implementation of workplace and corporate initiatives and internal governance
mechanisms[36],
including the internal audit committee, ethical standards and operational
security, policies and procedures, and performance review.[37]
|
Covered in examination
of the 2007-08 Annual report.[38]
|