8 | <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong>’s <strong>integrity</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>anti</strong>-<strong>corruption</strong> <strong>system</strong>
3 findings<strong>Victoria</strong>’s <strong>integrity</strong> bodies hold, collectively, broadly similar functions <strong>and</strong> powers to those in otherAustralian states. They appear to be resourced reasonably <strong>and</strong> operate comparatively efficiently.Figure 4 shows that <strong>Victoria</strong>’s expenditure on <strong>integrity</strong> bodies, as a proportion <strong>of</strong> public sectorexpenditure, has increased over time, <strong>and</strong> by 2008, it was comparable to expenditure in NewSouth Wales <strong>and</strong> Queensl<strong>and</strong>. The reviewed <strong>integrity</strong> bodies did not submit that they wereinsufficiently resourced to perform their existing functions. However, the Ombudsman requiredadditional funding during 2008-09 as a result <strong>of</strong> a higher than expected workload. The Auditor-General also required additional funds in 2008-09.16 17Figure 4, core <strong>integrity</strong> body resourcing as a proportion <strong>of</strong> public sector expenditure 1990-20080.250.200.150.100.050.001990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-002000-012001-022002-032003-042004-052005-062006-072007-08per cent <strong>of</strong> public sector expenditureQldVicNSWWASATasYearGiven the essentially invisible nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>corruption</strong>, it is difficult to determine the extent <strong>of</strong> anyunderlying problem <strong>and</strong> measure the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> interventions. Internationally, Australiaperforms well on <strong>integrity</strong> measures <strong>and</strong> indicators. In 2009, Transparency International rankedAustralia in equal eighth position on their annual Corruption Perception Index, along with Canada<strong>and</strong> Icel<strong>and</strong>. New Zeal<strong>and</strong> was ranked number one, while the United Kingdom <strong>and</strong> United States<strong>of</strong> America were ranked 17th <strong>and</strong> 19th, respectively. 18 Similarly, the World Bank scored Australia’s‘control <strong>of</strong> <strong>corruption</strong>’ as 96.1 out 100 in 2008. 1916The Griffith University research included the Auditor-General’s Office, the Ombudsman’s Office <strong>and</strong> the Office <strong>of</strong> PoliceIntegrity as ‘core’ <strong>integrity</strong> bodies for <strong>Victoria</strong>. The LGICI expenditure is not included, as it did not yet exist in 2008. Thepublic sector <strong>integrity</strong> function <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong> Police is also not included in the estimates for <strong>Victoria</strong>. Across jurisdictions,various <strong>integrity</strong> bodies are considered ‘core’ <strong>and</strong> the dataset is not fully comparable. Public sector expenditure’ is takenfrom ABS 2009, Government Finance Statistics, Australia, 2007-08. Cat. No. 5512.017Brown, AJ <strong>and</strong> Bruerton, M 2010, ‘Staffing, financial resourcing, <strong>and</strong> averaged overall resourcing for select core <strong>integrity</strong>agencies – all Australian federal <strong>and</strong> state jurisdictions compared 1990-2009’, unpublished report, Griffith University.18Transparency International 2009, Corruptions perceptions index 2009, viewed 9 May 2010,.19Kaufmann, D, Kraay, A & Mastruzzi, M 2009, Governance matters VIII: Aggregate <strong>and</strong> individual governance indicators,1996-2008, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978.<strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Victoria</strong>’s <strong>integrity</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>anti</strong>-<strong>corruption</strong> <strong>system</strong> | 9
Change language