Review of Victoria's integrity and anti-corruption system - IPAA Victoria

• identifying and managing high risk activities and areas, through tools such as the VictorianGovernment Risk Management Framework; and• enforcing integrity through investigations and sanctions for maladministration and misconduct.Under the Financial Management Act 1994 and ministerial directions, public sector body heads areaccountable for the sound financial management of their organisation. This includes:• ensuring proper accounts and records are kept to explain their organisation’s financialoperations and financial position;• establishing an audit committee and an internal audit function;• auditing and reporting on compliance with supply policies and ministerial directions to theVictorian Government Purchasing Board;• ensuring that risk is managed appropriately and effectively; and• providing any financial information that their Minister or the Minister for Finance requests.In December 2009, the Minister for Finance introduced the Public Finance and Accountability Bill2009 to Parliament. This legislation includes proposals, such as monitoring of all public bodies byportfolio departments, that are designed to strengthen the transparency and accountability ofpublic sector financial management.There are also mechanisms to promote integrity of elected officials in the form of a legislated codeof conduct for Members of Parliament and compliance requirements in the Local Government Act1989 for local government councillors.2.3.2 integrity and anti-corruption bodiesWhile public officials and employers form one part of the integrity and anti-corruption system,public sector bodies charged with oversight and investigation of standards and behaviours formanother. Across Australian jurisdictions, these bodies can include:• the Ombudsman, who investigates complaints about administrative actions (all jurisdictions);• the Auditor-General, who oversights the management of resources in the public sector (alljurisdictions);• a police oversight agency, charged specifically with overseeing the standards and behavioursof police (Commonwealth, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria);• an anti-corruption commission, responsible for investigating and exposing misconduct andcorruption (New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia); and• a crime commission, responsible for reducing the incidence of organised and other crime(New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and the Commonwealth). This may becombined with the anti-corruption commission (as is the case in Queensland and WesternAustralia).A list of the integrity and anti-corruption bodies in Australian jurisdictions is at Appendix F. Whilethere are many differences in the powers, jurisdictions and legislated functions across thesebodies, there are aspects of these bodies that are similar:• the primary focus of the body is to expose misconduct and corruption to public scrutiny(rather than prosecute);• the body adopts an inquisitorial rather than adversarial approach;• the body has strong coercive powers to support investigatory functions; and6 | Review of Victoria’s integrity and anti-corruption system