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

3.1.3 publicly funded employees of members of parliamentPublicly funded employees of members of parliament include:• ministerial officers – pursuant to section 98 of the Public Administration Act, they provideadvice and assistance to the Premier and ministers;• parliamentary advisers – pursuant to section 99 of the Public Administration Act, they provideadvice and assistance to non-government members of parliament, including the Leader of theOpposition; and• electorate officers – pursuant to section 30 of the Parliamentary Administration Act 2005, theyassist members of parliament in their electorate offices.Ministerial officers are a category of publicly funded staff of ministers. Under section 98 of thePublic Administration Act, ministerial officers are employees of the Premier. Their terms ofemployment are governed by employment contracts under the Ministerial Staff CollectiveAgreement 2007, which includes a Ministerial Staff Code of Conduct. Ministers or their chiefs ofstaff oversee the conduct of staff and any disciplinary action resulting from misconduct.Traditionally, ministerial officers have been considered accountable through the convention ofindividual ministerial responsibility, rather than subject to the same external scrutiny as publicservants. 25 However, in recent years the number of ministerial officers has increasedconsiderably. 26 This makes the traditional approach of ministerial accountability for the actions oftheir staff increasingly challenging and increases the likelihood that ministers could distancethemselves from the actions (or inactions) of their staff. It has resulted in suggestions thatministerial officers should be more directly subject to scrutiny. 27As ministerial officers, parliamentary advisers and electorate officers are publicly funded, theReview considers that they should be subject to external scrutiny to ensure they act with integrity.3.2 coordination between integrity bodiesThere are opportunities for Victoria’s integrity bodies to operate as a more collective and cohesivesystem. Fora for inter-agency coordination operate in New South Wales, Queensland, WesternAustralia, and Tasmania. The membership of these fora comprise ombudsmen, auditors-general,heads of anti-corruption bodies, heads of police integrity bodies and public sector standardscommissioners. They meet regularly to ensure activities do not overlap, that matters are referredproperly and effectively between agencies and that similar language and methods are used acrossinvestigations. Review consultations indicate that these arrangements work well.In Victoria, there is currently no collective forum for integrity bodies to coordinate their activities orshare information. The Review was advised that informal communication occurs, on a one-to-onebasis. One of the current constraints on coordination is legal requirements not to share information,including:• Sections 16 F and 20 A of the Audit Act 1994 put restrictions on the sharing of informationgained during the course or conduct of an audit. There is no power in the Act to cooperate ininvestigations with other independent officers or other audit offices.25Public Accounts and Estimates Committee 2010, Inquiry into Victoria’s Audit Act 1994: Discussion Paper, Parliament ofVictoria, Melbourne.26Strangio, P 2006, Incumbency dominance: An unhealthy trend? Papers on Parliament, no. 46, pp. 97–110.27Griffith University & Transparency International 2005, Chaos or coherence? Strengths, opportunities and challenges forAustralia’s integrity systems. National Integrity Systems Assessment Final Report, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice andGovernance, Griffith University & Transparency International, Australia, p. 86.14 | Review of Victoria’s integrity and anti-corruption system