Research reports

Perceptions of corruption 2023: Councillors

In May 2023, all 632 Victorian local government Councillors were emailed to invite them to participate in a perceptions of corruption survey (noting that councils where Administrators were in place were excluded from the research).

Emails were sent by IBAC as well as the consultants who supported IBAC to undertake the survey. Reminder emails were sent over a three-week period to those who had not completed the survey. 

In total, 131 Councillors participated in the survey, representing a response rate of 21 per cent. The maximum margin of error on the total sample of n=131 is +/-7.6% at the 95% confidence level. For example, for a result of 50%, we can be 95% confident that extrapolating the survey findings to the true population result would lie within the range of 42.4% and 57.6%. However, as results get closer to the extremities (ie closer to findings reported as 0% or 100%), the margin of error decreases (eg for a result where agreement is 90%), the margin of error at the 95% confidence interval is +/-4.6%).

Where relevant, the findings from this survey have been compared against findings from the 2023 survey with Members of Parliament and the 2022 survey of local government employees, to contrast where views are similar or where these differ.

Summary of key insights
Theme Key findings Opportunities
Perceptions about corruption as a problem 
  • Almost three-quarters think corruption is a problem in Victoria; 59% think it’s a problem among elected officials
  • Three-quarters agree some elected officials behave inappropriately or unethically but this doesn’t necessarily extend to corrupt behaviour
  • There are ‘shades of grey’ that make it less clear when inappropriate behaviour becomes corrupt. As a result, corruption can go unreported. Training and education may be warranted.
Behaviours most likely to be a ‘high risk’
  • Breach of professional boundaries (eg bullying and harassment)
  • Favouritism/nepotism
  • Collusion
  • Misuse of government resources
  • Prioritise these behaviours for education and prevention and detection activities
Ethical culture of councils
  • Perceptions of the ethical culture of councils is varied 
  • Relatively few consider their Council is highly vulnerable to corruption (14%)
  • Regular monitoring of ethical health and integrity indicators
  • Suggested actions by respondents to reduce the risks of corruption and enhance integrity include ongoing education, capped terms and renumeration for Councillors, greater transparency, accountability and consequences
Reporting corruption and misconduct
  • Almost all would report corruption if they personally observed it 
  • Most claim to know how to report corruption 
  • Common reporting channels are the Council CEO, Local Government Inspectorate (LGI) and IBAC
  • Raise awareness of the mechanisms in place to protect ‘whistleblowers’ for those who have concerns about reporting corruption 
Information sources used when seeking advice on corruption
  • Half agree that it is difficult to find definite guidance when seeking advice on corruption
  • Advice from the Council’s Governance team is commonly relied upon 
  • Look at opportunities to provide mechanisms for independent, anonymous, definite advice, without any repercussions or actions
  • Ensure Council Governance teams have the necessary information to support Councillors
  • The survey findings reinforce the importance of several recommendations made in IBAC’s Operation Sandon Special Report, including the development of a Model Councillor Code of Conduct and the need for enhanced refresher training for Councillors on governance, leadership and integrity
  • IBAC can play a role in information dissemination and education

 

  • Ninety-four per cent agree that they know what behaviour constitutes corruption, five per cent neither agree nor disagree and two per cent strongly disagreeMost Councillors agree that they know what behaviour constitutes corruption.

    Ninety-four per cent agree that they know what behaviour constitutes corruption, five per cent neither agree nor disagree and two per cent strongly disagree. Perceived understanding is higher among those who have been in elected positions for longer – all respondents who have been a Councillor for six or more years agree they know what behaviour constitutes corruption compared to 88 per cent of Councillors who have served for five years or less.

    Councillors are more likely to agree they know what behaviour constitutes corruption compared to MPs (93%) and local government employees (90%).

    Councillors value honesty and integrity. 

    This is evidenced by the almost universal agreement that ‘behaving with honesty and integrity is important to me’ (99% agree, including 98% who strongly agree).

    Councillors agree that corruption happens, although fewer agree it is a problem among elected officials.

    Councillors were asked a series of questions to understand to what extent they believe corruption happens and is a problem. 

    • Overall, 89 per cent agree that corruption happens in Victoria and almost three in four (73%) agree that corruption is a problem in Victoria. Councillors (73%) are more likely than MPs (68%) and local government employees (62%) to think corruption is a problem in Victoria.
    • Fewer Councillors (59%) agree that corruption is a problem among elected officials (including Councillors), but only 10 per cent strongly disagree that it is a problem among elected officials. 
    • There is however a high level of agreement (76%) that some elected officials behave inappropriately or unethically although not necessarily corruptly. Respondents who have served as a Councillor for 5 years or less were more likely to disagree with this statement (16%) compared to Councillors who have served for six or more years (5%).
    Graph 1. Agreement with statements about local government corruption in Victoria (%)
    Graph 1. Agreement with statements about local government corruption in Victoria (%)

     

    Favouritism, breaches of professional boundaries and collusion are viewed as the most common risks facing Councillors.

    Councillors were asked to describe (through an open response question) the most significant ways in which elected representatives in their Council might be vulnerable to corruption. More than four in five respondents identified at least one vulnerability. The key areas identified include a conflict of interest, bribery or fraud or political interference. Comments also focus on breaches of confidentiality, inexperience and ignorance, as well as bullying and harassment.

    The top three improper behaviours that Councillors perceive to be a high risk of occurring are favouritism or nepotism, collusion, and breaches of professional boundaries – over 80 per cent of Councillors identified these behaviours as a high or medium risk. Around forty per cent considered a breach of professional boundaries (43%) or favouritism or nepotism (39%) to be a high risk.

    Graph 2. Likelihood or risk of improper behaviours occurring among individual Councillors (%)
    Graph 2. Likelihood or risk of improper behaviours occurring among individual Councillors (%)

     

    The extent to which Councillors had personally observed or suspected that improper behaviours are occurring in their Council varied by type of behaviour.

    Almost a third of Councillors (30%) have personally observed instances of favouritism or nepotism in the last 12 months at their Council and 31 per cent suspect this has occurred. More than a quarter (28%) have personally observed a breach of professional boundaries and 37 per cent suspect this has occurred. Fewer Councillors have suspected or observed occurrences of bribery, theft, fraud or extortion within their Council. Councillors under the age of 55 years are more likely than those aged 55 years and over to have personally observed favouritism/nepotism (38% compared to 22%) and collusion (28% compared to 8%). 

    Generally speaking, Councillors are more likely than other cohorts to have personally observed these behaviours compared to MPs or local government employees. For example, 64 per cent have personally observed or suspected a breach of professional boundaries compared to 39 per cent of MPs and 37 per cent of local government employees. 
     
     

    Graph 3.1. Suspicion or observations of improper behaviours occurring in Council in the past 12 months (%)
    Graph 3.1. Suspicion or observations of improper behaviours occurring in Council in the past 12 months (%)
    Graph 3.2. Suspicion or observations of improper behaviours occurring in Council in the past 12 months (%)
    Graph 3.2. Suspicion or observations of improper behaviours occurring in Council in the past 12 months (%)

     

    Councillors typically describe the ethical culture among elected local Councillors in their Council as ‘strong’ or ‘moderate’.

    Over three quarters of Councillors describe the ethical culture of their local Council as ‘strong’ or ‘moderate’. Among those who ‘agree’ that ‘corruption is a problem among elected officials (including Councillors)’, there is a higher than average incidence of rating the ethical culture of their Council as weak (30% compared to 21% on average). Councillors (21%) were more likely than MPs (11%) and local government employees (12%) to rate the ethical culture as ‘weak’.
     
     

    Graph 4. Ethical culture of the Council (%)
    Graph 4. Ethical culture of the Council (%)

     

    Councillors expressed a range of views regarding the ethical culture of their Council. Among those who consider their culture is ‘strong’, reasons include respect, teamwork, peer accountability, open discussions and transparency. Those who rate the ethical culture as ‘weak’ describe self-interest and personal agendas as undermining ethical values and culture, eroding the moral fabric of Council. 

    The factors that determine an ethical culture are to some degree influenced by an individual’s tolerance threshold. Individual ethical and moral values determine what is acceptable behaviour.

    More experienced, multi-term Councillors tend to have a different perspective of culture and the ‘opportunities’ to ‘behave unethically’. First-term Councillors, particularly those who are very early into their term, have an understanding of overtly corrupt behaviour but not necessarily the ‘shades of grey’ of unethical behaviour. First-term Councillors can be unaware that unethical or corrupt behaviour is occurring.

    Some Councils have worked as a team to formulate a code of conduct, and the values and expectations of the Council. This consultative approach appears to result in ensuring ethical behaviour and harmonious workings of the Councillors. Working on the culture is ongoing at these Councils.

    The availability of an organisation or a help line that Councillors could contact for advice about unethical and corrupt behaviour was suggested as a tool that would be valuable. There is evidence that some Councillors can at times feel isolated and in need of independent advice. A place where issues can be discussed without judgement, separate to Council and IBAC, was proposed.

    The majority believe their Council is ‘moderately’ or ‘highly’ vulnerable to corruption.

    When asked to consider the ethical culture, internal controls and any specific risks that the Councillors perceives relevant, 58 per cent of Councillors identified their Council as highly or moderately vulnerable to corruption. More than a third of Councillors (37%) rate their Council as ‘not vulnerable’ to corruption.

    Graph 5. Vulnerability of Council to corruption (%)
    Graph 5. Vulnerability of Council to corruption (%)

     

    Definite guidance can be lacking when advice is sought on corruption

    Half of Councillors (51%) agree that it is difficult to obtain definite guidance when seeking advice on corruption compared to thirty per cent who disagree. 
     
     

    Graph 6. Agreement that it is difficult to find definite guidance when seeking advice on corruption (%)
    Graph 6. Agreement that it is difficult to find definite guidance when seeking advice on corruption (%)

     

    Most Councillors frequently use Council-specific resources to better understand their role and conduct expectations.

    Internally developed Council-specific guidance and governance resources and Council’s own Code of Conduct are most frequently used by Councillors to understand their role and conduct expectations.  
     

    Graph 7. Frequency of use of different resources to understand the role and expectations of a Councillor’s conduct (%)
    Graph 7. Frequency of use of different resources to understand the role and expectations of a Councillor’s conduct (%)
  • There is strong agreement among Councillors that they would report corruption if they personally observed it and the majority say they know how to report it.

    More than nine in 10 Councillors (94%) ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that they will report corruption, if they personally observed it. This is significantly higher than MPs and local government employees (86% respectively). For the small number of Councillors who disagreed that they would report corruption, they were asked why not. The primary reason given for not reporting corruption is a lack of evidence to back up the allegation. 

    The majority of Councillors agree that they know how to report corruption (88%). This is significantly higher than all other cohorts (local government employees – 70%, MPs – 61%). 

    Most Councillors also believe their colleagues will be supportive of them reporting corruption (69%). Councillors in regional locations have a significantly higher incidence of agreeing that their ‘elected colleagues would be supportive if I chose to report corruption’ compared to those in metropolitan locations (78% and 60% respectively).

    Councillors have mixed views about whether they would only report corruption if they knew their report would be anonymous – 42 per cent agree with this statement while 39 per cent disagree. Councillors in regional locations are significantly more likely to strongly disagree that they would report corruption ‘only if they knew their report would be anonymous’ compared to those in metropolitan locations (32% and 15% respectively).
     

    Graph 8. Agreement with statements about reporting corruption (%)
    Graph 8. Agreement with statements about reporting corruption (%)

     

    Councillors identified a number of different parties to whom they would report corruption.

    Councillors claim they would report corruption to their Council’s CEO (69%), the Local Government Inspectorate (LGI) (68%), IBAC (65%) or Council’s Governance team/Officer (47%). Councillors aged 54 years and under (75%) have a significantly higher incidence of stating they would report corruption to IBAC compared to those aged 55 years and over (57%). Councillors who are or have been a Mayor have a significantly lower incidence of stating they would report corruption to other councillors compared to councillors who have never held the role of Mayor (19% and 38% respectively).

    Reporting corrupt behaviour is not always clear cut

    While the majority of Councillors (94%) will report corruption, some attach qualifiers, indicating there are ‘shades of grey’ and uncertainty as to what should be reported. Considerations that are identified on whether to make a report include: 

    • What constitutes corruption – there are often ‘shades of grey’. Unethical behaviour can be identified in the associations Councillors and/or Officers have, the pressure placed on others, behaviour such as delaying or interfering with processes, and avoiding transparency through decisions being made in closed meetings rather than open Council meetings. There are many unethical behaviours that are possibly corrupt but proving when that line is crossed is difficult.
    • Who to make a report to – Many regard IBAC and the Local Government Inspectorate (LGI) to be ineffectual – slow to investigate and, if they do, frequently dismissing the charges. The level of confidence in the ability of internal Council mechanisms (through the CEO or the Governance team) to investigate or remain impartial varies between Councils.
    • Some are unclear about appropriate processes and reporting lines – One Councillor indicated they would confront the person themselves before involving anyone else. 
    • Will it be acted on? – Suspected corruption can be reported but there are concerns as to whether any action will be taken or if there will be any consequences.
    • Retribution – will the person reporting the suspected behaviour pay the price rather than those involved in the behaviour? There needs to be protection for whistleblowers in place.

    The Governance team is relied upon to improve integrity and prevent corruption.

    Councillors were asked what actions they have taken in the last 12 months to improve integrity and prevent corruption. Briefings or advice from the Council’s Governance team is the action undertaken by the majority of Councillors (69%). Other methods include education and training (54%), seeking advice (53%) and receiving advice (52%) relating to ethical issues and integrity matters.
     
     

    Graph 9. Actions taken to improve integrity and prevent corruption (%)
    Graph 9. Actions taken to improve integrity and prevent corruption (%)

     

    Some Councillors indicate an interest in receiving information from IBAC, however others rely more heavily on their internal Governance team. The type of information Councillors seek include:

    • what is corruption and how to identify it
    • actions to take if corruption is identified
    • clarification on aspects of the Local Government Act (eg what is a conflict of interest).

    It is apparent that Councillors are often overwhelmed with the amount of work required to fulfil their duties. Therefore, a multi-pronged approach is required to meet individual needs. Based on responses received in the survey, this could include:

    • incorporation of information in the Councillor induction programs
    • presentations at forums run by organisations such as the MAV and/or other Councillor update sessions; these could be in-person, online and/or available to watch on-demand
    • a regular newsletter is useful for some, noting that Councillors typically have large volumes of information to read
    • case studies, which are considered relatable
    • an IBAC presentation or forum
    • disseminating information through the Council Officers and/or the Governance team.

    Corruption risks can be reduced by a range of actions from education and renumeration through to real consequences.

    Councillors were asked to nominate what their Council could do better to reduce risks of corruption occurring, three out of four provided a response. The themes include increasing ongoing training and education, capped terms for Councillors, creating a more responsive system when corruption is suspected, increased transparency and accountability of investigations, and enforcing consequences. The increasing demands on Councillors’ time and acting in a full-time voluntary role is perceived to heighten vulnerability to accepting ‘compensation’. 

    At the end of the survey Councillors were given the opportunity to provide additional comments or feedback, just over two out of five did so. The themes raised include:

    • IBAC being ineffectual resulting in the inability to achieve real change in behaviour
    • the lack of support for Councillors
    • better training required
    • poor response as well as handling of reports of corruption
    • misuse of the system to bully and intimidate Councillors
    • lack of co-ordination between the Local Government Inspectorate and IBAC and a lack of effectiveness of both organisations. 

    In addition to these themes, the issue of a focus solely on corruption among Councillors to the exclusion of Council Officers was raised.
     

  • Sex

    Male: 58%
    Female: 39%
    Prefer not to say: 3%

    Age

    Graph 10. Age of participants
    Graph 10. Age of participants

     

    Geographic location

    Work in metropolitan Melbourne: 42%
    Work in regional Victoria: 56%
    Prefer not to say: 2%

    Time working as Councillor

    Graph 11. Time working as a Councillor
    Graph 11. Time working as a Councillor

     

    Role of Mayor

    Graph 12. Role of Mayor
    Graph 12. Role of Mayor