Chapter 2Key issues
2.1The Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2021-22 (Annual Report 2021-22) was broadly positive regarding the performance of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). For example, Mrs Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, reported to the committee:
The 2021-22 year was a year of further maturing and development for ACLEI. Throughout the year we embedded the work that we'd undertaken in 2021 to bring the five new agencies into our jurisdiction and ended the year with our first prosecution before the courts of corruption offences involving an ATO [Australian Taxation Office] officer in Operation Barker.
2.2This chapter examines the following key issues relating to ACLEI’s performance in 2021-22:
key corporate developments; and
ACLEI’s performance framework and results.
2.3The chapter closes with the committee’s conclusion.
Key corporate developments
Workforce
2.4In previous years, ACLEI has experienced difficulties in attracting and retaining highly skilled and experienced staff needed to undertake its functions. ACLEI reported that its workforce grew rapidly during 2021-22, noting it had undertaken significant recruitment over the last two years to support its jurisdictional expansion and the implementation of a broader anti-corruption agency.
2.5Although ACLEI had a target staffing level of 110 during 2021-22, by the end of the reporting year the agency had a headcount of 103 employees. This included the Integrity Commissioner, ongoing, non-ongoing, casual, and seconded employees. 61 employees were based in the ACT, 36 in NSW and two in Victoria.
2.6At the public hearing on 8 February 2023, the Integrity Commissioner provided an update on recent recruitment activity:
A major focus for the 2021-22 year was recruitment. We ended the financial year with a headcount of 103 staff. This has continued to grow, and is now 112 staff. At the end of the 2021-22 financial year, we had two staff members in Melbourne. This has now grown to eight, and in December we opened our Melbourne office. You will see from the executive that I have here with me today the growth in staffing of ACLEI. When I started as the Integrity Commissioner nearly three years ago, I had two senior executives to support the work of ACLEI. I now have a deputy commissioner, which was recommended by this committee in the review of our annual report last year, and four branch heads. They are each supported by teams that are growing in their maturity of processes and systems.
2.7Mindful that ACLEI will transition to be part of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) around mid-2023, the committee asked about the challenge of recruiting officers with appropriate skill sets. The Integrity Commissioner took the committee through the work underway in this area:
[T]he Attorney-General's Department undertook the NPP [New Policy Proposal] process, which resulted in ACLEI receiving additional funds this financial year in relation to the establishment of the NACC, and part of that is in relation to recruitment for the NACC. We haven't received funds in order for the NACC to be fully staffed on 1 July, and I think that's entirely appropriate. We've received funding for an additional 23 ASL, which, given the budget was in October and the time it takes to recruit, we think amounts to about 45 to 50 additional staff that we can bring on this year, ready for the NACC. We expect the NACC will then receive additional funding and will grow further in the first two years.
2.8The Integrity Commissioner explained the current situation in relation to recruitment issues:
Some of the issues that we have seen previously have been in relation to recruiting particularly investigators and intel analysts, because it's a relatively small market, and we were a very small agency, so opportunities for promotion and opportunities for diverse work were not necessarily there. We have done a range of work within the organisation, including bringing lower level staff on, to provide career progression points, which helps with some of that. People are excited to potentially work on the NACC, so we are getting good fields that are coming in relation to our recruitment.
2.9However, Mrs Hinchcliffe also stressed that ‘in conversations with other integrity agencies’ across the Commonwealth, they are currently experiencing a tight labour market. Officers are being promoted out of ACLEI or ‘poached by other organisations that can pay better’ which means ACLEI ‘is constantly recruiting, not just to meet the additional ASL…but also because it’s being seen as a positive to have worked with ACLEI’.
2.10When asked about the factors leading to officers moving on, Mrs Hinchliffe listed people getting promotions quickly, noting that some other law enforcement agencies have ‘a lot of add-ons in some of their payrates’ which ACLEI, as a public service agency, cannot compete with. Mr David Swan, Acting Chief Operating Officer, reported on feedback from exit interviews:
It's primarily been around the opportunity to work elsewhere in those other agencies, which provide those benefits. We sit about midpoint in the APS in terms of salaries, so we're not at either extreme. But, yes, certainly it's been positive feedback that working at ACLEI has provided that opportunity to move on, and most have indicated they would come back and work for us. So that's a positive.
2.11Mr Swan added that apart from their Melbourne office which opened in 2022, as part of establishing the NACC, they will be opening offices in Brisbane and Perth which will assist with broadening the recruitment market.
Inaugural stakeholder survey
2.12ACLEI undertook its first biennial stakeholder survey during the reporting period. The survey aims to understand stakeholder perceptions and assess ACLEI’s performance against its activities. ACLEI reported that the survey results were ‘pleasing’, noting it received 89 per cent for overall stakeholder satisfaction.
2.13Stakeholders reported that ACLEI communicates well, and they also commented positively on ACLEI’s transparency and levels of engagement. Furthermore, stakeholders advised that ACLEI’s corruption prevention work is highly valued and should be a priority for the agency in the future.
2.14Regarding areas for improvement, stakeholders noted the following areas could improve: the timeliness of notifications, referrals, and investigations.
2.15ACLEI’s Internal Governance Board has created a Biennial Survey Action Plan to address the areas for improvement. Information from the stakeholder survey is also included below under ‘Performance framework’.
Corruption patterns and trends
2.16When asked about any patterns or trends in corrupt behaviour or corruption vulnerabilities, the Integrity Commissioner noted that ACLEI published its second Corruption Vulnerabilities Brief which arose ‘on the basis that the corruption vulnerabilities we are seeing, in my mind, have implications across the APS rather than just to the law enforcement agencies, and I want that to be a learning tool for other agencies as well’.Mrs Hinchcliffe added:
I see a continuum of behaviour that falls within the definition of 'corrupt conduct'. At one end of the spectrum is browsing for information on Commonwealth systems, particularly looking up family and friends and/or notable people on systems but not doing anything further with that information—that is at one very low end of the spectrum—right through to the unauthorised use of that information, particularly for commercial advantage or for the advantage of others, bribery—I mentioned Operation Barker, which is a significant bribery case we have before the courts at the moment—and abuse of office, whether it be in relation to the use of information or the making of decision-making powers to benefit self or others.
Establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission
2.17The Integrity Commissioner advised that one of ACLEI’s major priorities during 2022-23 will be ‘working closely with the Attorney-General’s Department to implement the NACC’. ACLEI has undertaken numerous projects to support its operations, which can be ‘scaled up for the NACC’. The Integrity Commissioner emphasised to the committee:
We have three clear priorities for the remainder of our time as ACLEI. They are: (1) to complete the legislative requirements for ACLEI; (2) to finish ACLEI well; and (3) to work with AGD on the establishment of the NACC. This means that there are some innovations we might like to pursue but we will put aside while we concentrate on these three priorities. While this might be difficult in the short term, as ACLEI is full of innovative thinkers, we understand the time will come for more of that innovative thinking once the NACC has commenced its maturity journey.
2.18The committee asked a number of questions in relation to the work underway to transition to the NACC. The Integrity Commissioner informed the committee:
The AGD [Attorney-General’s Department] is the portfolio department, and the establishment of the NACC is its responsibility, but we are working very closely with them, as ACLEI will go through a machinery-of-government process. All our resources, staffing and property will move and become the NACC's. There are things we are doing in terms of our own process, particularly around that intake and assessment and triaging, which is not as simple as simply upscaling to the NACC. It will be quite a different level, I suspect, of matters that will come in. We're concentrating on things like that—building the new ICT, bringing on new properties for the NACC for the various places where the NACC will have offices, and recruitment.
2.19Mrs Hinchliffe stressed to the committee that:
Most importantly, the NACC will be a new agency—so it's not an expanded ACLEI or ACLEI 2.0; it is a new entity in itself. But all of ACLEI's staff, property and resources will be MOG-ed into the NACC. There will be a new executive in relation to the commissioner, deputy commissioners and CEO; the AGD has been running that process in relation to those statutory offices. We are engaging at the moment in a piece of organisational design work which is looking at what the structure of the NACC looks like—because ACLEI's staff will move into the NACC, how do their positions connect over to the positions in the NACC? It will be a different entity from ACLEI.
2.20Mrs Petra Gartmann, Deputy Integrity Commissioner, ACLEI, added that ACLEI will not be a Branch of the NACC but will be disbursed through it.
Performance framework
2.21The Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget Statements 2021-22 outlined one outcome and one program for ACLEI:
Outcome 1: Independent assurance to the Australian Government that Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and their staff act with integrity by detecting, investigating and preventing corruption.
Program 1.1: Detect, investigate and prevent corruption in prescribed law enforcement agencies; assist law enforcement agencies to maintain and improve the integrity of staff members.
Performance targets and results
2.22ACLEI assessed its performance against four performance measures and 23corresponding performance targets. ACLEI reported it ‘performed well against its performance measures and targets in 2021-22’, with a success rate of 83 per cent (meeting 19 out of 23 of its performance targets).
2.23Discussion in this next section will focus on those targets not met.
Key activity 1: Assessments
Figure 2.1Key Activity 1: Assessments
Source: ACLEI Annual Report 2021-22, p. 37.
2.24In 2021-22, ACLEI reported that it received 544 allegations of corrupt conduct, including 107 notifications, 426 referrals and 11 own-initiative matters.
2.25ACLEI noted a sharp drop in the number of notifications received in 2021-22 compared to the previous year (365 notifications were received in 2020-21, compared to 107 in 2021-22). ACLEI suggested this may have been due to various factors, such as not receiving ‘bulk notifications’, which accounted for 47 per cent of notifications received in the previous year, among other reasons like the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.26ACLEI met two out of four performance targets, that is 1.1. and 1.2 relating to the number of notifications and referrals received and assessed. ACLEI fell short of meeting performance targets 1.3 (percentage of assessments completed within 30 days) and 1.4 (satisfaction with assessment timeliness).
2.27In 2021-22, the target for performance measure 1.3 was 90 per cent (described by ACLEI as a ‘stretch target’) and the result was 83 per cent.
2.28ACLEI noted that while the agency ‘is closer to meeting [its] target’ (for comparison, in 2020-21, it completed 64 per cent of assessments in 30 days), the result reflects the time necessary to review referrals from the public. ACLEI advised it has revised this performance measure (i.e., 1.3.) for 2022-23 ‘to focus on notifications as these are more likely to refer to serious and systemic corruption’. Furthermore, ACLEI will continue to refine its assessment process throughout 2022-23 to ensure that it is ‘efficient and that matters are triaged appropriately’.
2.29The Integrity Commissioner reported that the biennial stakeholder survey identified triaging assessment work as an area for improvement. MrsHinchcliffe indicated to the committee that they are currently building an assessment process that ‘will be capable of dealing with the number of matters that might come to the NACC’.
2.30In 2021-22, the target for performance measure 1.4 was 70 per cent and the result was 65 per cent. While ACLEI noted that the target was not met, it considered it is a good baseline for future reporting. ACLEI advised that qualitative data obtained from the inaugural stakeholder survey showed that ACLEI’s strength lies in staff support and continuous improvement; however, it could improve its timeliness and transparency of assessment work and clarify its referral criteria. ACLEI stated that it would implement process improvements in 2022‑23 in preparation for the establishment of the NACC.
Key activity 2: Investigations
Figure 2.2Key Activity 2: ACLEI Investigations
Source: ACLEI Annual Report 2021-22, p. 45.
2.31ACLEI reported that its performance regarding investigations in 2021-22 was positive, and highlighted the following:
ACLEI finalised investigations into 46 corruption issues;
five prosecutions concluded, with eight convictions and one defendant being conditionally discharged;
ACLEI submitted four briefs of evidence to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; and
on two occasions, ACLEI distributed information about serious breaches of duty identified during its investigations to agencies to enable appropriate disciplinary action.
2.32During 2021-22, ACLEI commenced investigations into 43 corruption issues (either alone or jointly with another agency), an increase of 10 from the previous reporting period. Investigations related to staff members of Home Affairs (31), the Australian Taxation Office (5), Australian Federal Police (4), Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (2) and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (1).
2.33At the public hearing on 8 February 2023, the Integrity Commissioner provided up-to-date data on active investigations:
We currently have 23 active investigations that relate to 35 corruption issues. We have one brief of evidence with the CDPP to assess; we have four matters before the courts, which involve six defendants; and we have 14investigations that are complete, which involve 24 corruption issues that are currently moving through our report writing process. In relation to investigation reports in 2021-22, I provided 12 reports to the Attorney‑General which related to 13 corruption issues. So far this financial year I have provided 11 reports to the Attorney-General which relate to 14corruption issues.
2.34During 2021-22 ACLEI met seven investigation-related performance targets and partially met another. ACLEI met part of performance target 2.8 (percentage of survey responses from agencies demonstrating a rating of satisfied or better with the timeliness and professionalism of investigations). With a target of 70percent, professionalism exceeded the target at 91 per cent but timeliness was 59 per cent.
2.35ACLEI’s open investigations (alone or jointly) have been trending down over the last three reporting periods. In 2019-20, ACLEI had 168 open corruption investigations, 108 in 2020-21 and 104 in 2021-22. ACLEI has made considerable effort to address its investigation backlog over the past three reporting years.
2.36While noting that ACLEI’s investigations team have recently grown, the Integrity Commissioner emphasised that ACLEI is a small agency and extensive investigations can require significant resources, impacting the agency’s ability to progress other investigations. For example, during Operation Barker, staff from across ACLEI were involved when covert investigation action was undertaken. The Integrity Commissioner advised that the agency continues to be ‘vigilant’ and ensure it does not over-commit its resources or create a backlog of investigations, as it had experienced in the past.
2.37With the establishment of the NACC due around mid-2023, the committee asked about efforts to reduce the backlog of cases. The Integrity Commissioner responded that ACLEI has introduced a number of initiatives since she started in the position three years ago which ‘work at each stage of an investigation's life cycle to ensure that we have capacity to do the work that is on hand, rather than to have a growing backlog of matters’. These have included:
…a 90-day review of our investigations and an operations board which oversights our investigative work, and we've particularly put a range of resources into the writing of our investigation reports. As you can readily appreciate, the 'doing the investigation' part takes lots of resources and is usually quite exciting, but the next part is incredibly important, which is writing the investigation report. I had a significant backlog of investigation reports when I commenced as Integrity Commissioner. We have been working our way through those and you can see that in terms of the numbers of reports which we have given to the Attorney-General as required by the LEIC Act and which have then gone through to publishing, which is a second process within the act. We are very close to completing that backlog now, and we will continue to invest resources in relation to that to make sure that we get through those investigation reports.
2.38Mr Peter Ratcliffe, Executive Director Operations (Southern), ACLEI provided the committee with further detail in relation to the focus on closing off old cases:
As of last month, we were down to 44 current cases and only seven of those are currently over two years. Given the remarks by the commissioner about the length of time it takes for the report writing process and sometimes for the court process to go, we feel that's a significant step forward. Over the next couple of months as well, we'll be looking to reduce that even further in preparation for the NACC.
2.39Mr Brendan Hough, Executive Director Operations (Northern), ACLEI, added:
We've developed quite a robust case categorisation model which is going to help us to get to that 1 July period. It's basically a way of ensuring that we're resourcing all our investigations appropriately to ensure that we can close down as many as possible before we get to 1 July—also, an objective criterion to determine which of those matters we could foreseeably transfer across into the NACC and continue investigation under that new entity.
2.40The committee sought further information on transitional processes in relation to investigations. Mrs Hinchcliffe responded:
Under the NACC legislation, in the transitionals, there are provisions for investigations to move into the NACC in one of two ways: either as a LEIC Act investigation—so it operates as if the LEIC Act continues—or the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner can decide to bring those investigations in under the NACC legislation. What we are doing…is making sure that we are reviewing our investigations in terms of the criteria under the NACC legislation to make sure that, when the commissioner starts, the matters that should be continued as LEIC Act matters are clearly identified—the matters that should continue or that could come under the NACC Act—but also making sure that, in terms of the matters that we've done all the investigations on where there's no further investigation that needs to be done, we close those off and that, where those investigations are unlikely to fall within the NACC test, we make sure that they are finished before the NACC commences.
Key activity three: supporting partner agency investigations
Figure 2.3Key Activity 3: Supporting partner agency investigations
Source: ACLEI Annual Report 2021-22, p. 60. Note: On 8 March 2023, the Integrity Commissioner wrote to the committee to correct the number of investigation reports received from partner agencies from 89 to 90.
2.41Throughout 2021-22, ACLEI supported agencies with joint investigations, agency-led investigations and by sharing corruption prevention information. ACLEI assesses its performance based on the support it provides agency-led investigations. At the end of an agency-led investigation, the agency must provide the Integrity Commissioner with a report under section 66 of the LEIC Act setting out its findings, actions taken or proposed actions to be taken.
2.42In 2021-22, the Integrity Commissioner referred 29 investigations (40 per cent of the 72investigations commenced) to partner agencies for investigation, a decline from 90 in the previous reporting year. Most investigations were referred to Home Affairs (17), followed by the AFP (8).
2.43ACLEI stated that the significant decrease in the number of investigations being referred to agencies for investigation over the past five reporting years ‘demonstrates the maturation of [its] approach in determining which matters should properly be dealt with by agencies as disciplinary matters’. It also noted that it recognises the capacity of partner agencies to investigate corruption issues and works closely with the agencies to ensure the most relevant matters are referred for investigations, while agencies deal with less serious matters outside of the LEIC Act.
2.44If the Integrity Commissioner decides that ACLEI should investigate a matter(s), that investigation can be undertaken by ACLEI alone or jointly with other agencies.
2.45At the hearing the committee examined how decisions are made around whether ACLEI or an agency conducts an investigation. The Integrity Commissioner explained:
…there's a constant tension between whether we take on an investigation or refer it back to an agency to do it. The majority of the matters we do refer back to agencies to conduct themselves and we do so usually through our assessment board process and then either Mr Ratcliffe or Mr Hough makes that decision. If it is being recommended that ACLEI investigate [a] matter, it comes to me, and I make that decision. There's a process that we go through at the moment through our assessment board where the allegation is considered and then a recommendation [is] made to either Mr Hough or Mr Ratcliffe about sending it back to the agency to investigate or whether ACLEI will investigate it.
2.46Mrs Hinchcliffe added:
I think we've matured over the last few years…there are matters, and one in particular that we've referred to in our annual report, such that, were it to come to the assessment board today it wouldn't be investigated by ACLEI; it would be investigated by the agency. Part of that weighing also reflects the fact that there are times at which agencies usually do code of conduct investigations, when we refer them back, and there are times when that is not only entirely appropriate but a better course than a corruption investigation undertaken by ACLEI. We make those decisions thinking about the capacity of the agency to do the investigation, the capacity of ACLEI to do the investigation, the seriousness of the allegation and whether it's dealt with better by the organisation. There's a list of factors in section 27 of the LEIC Act that we refer to. But, as I said, I acknowledge, and particularly there's one matter that we've reported on, that were it to go to our assessment board today it wouldn't be an ACLEI investigation.
2.47The Integrity Commissioner stressed that when an investigation is conducted by the agency, they do not lose sight of it. Mr Ratcliffe explained the process of tracking these investigations:
We track it on a three-monthly basis. We will have regular meetings with the integrity areas of each of the agencies that we have investigations out with. There are some obligations in the LEIC Act around their reporting back to us. For the majority of the cases that we send out under section 66 of the LEIC Act, the agency in question has to provide a final investigation report, which the commissioner then has to sign off on as showing that it's been an investigation which we have assessed under the LEIC Act as being up to standard. We can ask for more frequent reporting, but we've tried to move away from forcing those agencies to write to us and, rather than that, going to a more personal engagement on a quarterly or six-monthly basis.
2.48ACLEI met four out of five performance targets relating to supporting partner agencies. ACELI advised that 60 per cent of respondents to its stakeholder survey reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the quality of ACLEI’s contributions to supporting partner agency investigations. Although this was below ACLEI’s performance target of 70 per cent, it pointed out that the remaining 40 per cent of respondents selected a neutral response of neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Key activity 4: Prevention
Figure 2.4Key Activity 4: Prevention
Source: ACLEI Annual Report 2021-22 page 68
2.49All six performance targets in relation to prevention were met.
Committee conclusion
2.50The committee is satisfied that ACLEI performed well against its performance framework in 2021-22, achieving most of its performance targets. The committee appreciates the work undertaken to complete the expansion in 2021 to bring five new agencies into ACLEI’s jurisdiction. The committee also notes the first prosecution of a former staff member of the ATO through the Operation Barker investigation.
Performance measures
2.51The committee recognises that ACLEI has continued to enhance the performance measures introduced in the 2020-21 annual report, in response to feedback, including by this committee. The committee notes that a review of performance measures was undertaken in 2021-22 which will result in some changes that will be reported against in 2022-23. The committee understands that this will include measures that relate to a fifth key activity: detection. This will further proactive capabilities and assist partner agencies in identifying potential corruption vulnerabilities.
First biennial stakeholder survey
2.52The committee notes that as part of its performance measures, ACLEI conducted its first biennial survey of jurisdictional agencies in the reporting period. The overall results from the stakeholder survey are pleasing with 89 per cent of responders satisfied with their experiences with ACLEI. However, as noted in the annual report and at the public hearing, improvement in the areas of timeliness in assessment work and investigations will continue to be a focus for 2022-23.
Focus on timeliness
2.53The committee is pleased to see a particular effort in the area of timeliness with assessments and investigations, noting this has been brought into sharp focus by the stakeholder survey results and as ACLEI prepares for the establishment of the NACC. While the committee welcomes and appreciates the efforts to reduce the backlog of investigation reports, particularly those over two years, the committee notes that this will need to be a sustained effort in light of stakeholder survey feedback on timeliness and the number of matters that may be referred to the NACC.
Preparation for the establishment of the NACC
2.54The committee appreciates the need for ACLEI to also focus on preparing for the establishment of the NACC. This focus is not just in terms of finalising or transferring investigations but working with AGD to build an intake and assessment process able to deal with the number of matters that are likely to be referred to the NACC, considering organisational design and continued recruitment, among others.
Recruitment
2.55The committee notes the growth in ACLEI’s staffing, including the Deputy Integrity Commissioner position as recommended by the committee in its review of the 2020-21 Annual Report.
2.56Recruitment has been an ongoing issue for ACLEI in relation to some of the specialised skills required to conduct investigations. While investigation teams have grown, with the establishment of the NACC around mid-2023, recruiting specialised skills such as investigators and intelligence analysts in an already small market with a tight labour market will be a significant challenge. While the committee is pleased this issue has been taken into consideration by broadening the pool of ACLEI’s officers over time beyond a law enforcement background and opening offices outside Canberra, the committee recognises the significant challenge the NACC will face attracting sufficient specialised skills required in a timely way. The committee will continue to monitor the situation for the remainder of its time but expects the newly established Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission will also take a keen interest in this area.
Dealing with evidence of an offence
2.57The committee followed up its review of the 2020-21 Annual Report, where it highlighted that section 142 of the LEIC Act does not allow the Integrity Commissioner discretion to not provide a brief of evidence to the AFP or Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) if in the course of investigating a corruption issue, ACLEI obtains evidence of an offence against the Commonwealth. The committee heard this contrasts with other investigative agencies which can exercise such discretion. The Integrity Commissioner also submitted that referring a trivial offence that would not otherwise be referred can have unintended consequences including impacts on ACLEI’s and the CDPP’s resources. In its 2020-21 report, the committee encouraged the government to consider whether the current settings were appropriate. At the public hearing the committee was pleased to hear that provision will not apply under the NACC legislation.
Sharing information with a broader remit
2.58With the upcoming establishment of the NACC, the committee is pleased to see ACLEI sharing information with a broader remit beyond the agencies in its jurisdiction. ACLEI has published its second annual Corruption Vulnerabilities Brief which has been sent to all Australian Public Service Secretaries encouraging them to share it with their portfolio agencies and to start thinking about their corruption risks.
2.59The committee also notes the development of the Integrity Maturity Framework which is applicable across all Commonwealth entities. It provides information to support entities to design, implement and review the effectiveness of their integrity frameworks so that they are tailored to their risk profiles, size and contexts. This has also been provided to the Secretaries of all Australian Government portfolio departments, heads of Commonwealth integrity agencies and heads of entities subject to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
2.60The committeenotes the importance of this work as agencies will come under the NACC’s jurisdiction with differing levels of maturity in relation to their integrity framework. Conscious of her jurisdiction, the committee appreciates the efforts of the Integrity Commissioner to support agencies to assess the adequacy of their integrity frameworks, noting there is also a body of work underway led by AGD in relation to stakeholder engagement to prepare the public sector for the NACC.
2.61Finally, the committee thanks: the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI staff for their efforts and achievements in 2021-22; the agency for a comprehensive annual report; and the Integrity Commissioner for keeping the committee advised of the work of ACLEI in a timely manner.
Senator Catryna Bilyk
Chair