Research reports

Perceptions of corruption 2023: Members of Parliament (MPs)

In May 2023, all 128 Victorian Members of Parliament (MPs) were emailed to invite them to participate in a perceptions of corruption survey.

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, 28 MPs participated in the survey, representing a response rate of 22 per cent. The maximum margin of error on the total sample of n=28 is +/-16.4% 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 33.6% and 66.4%. 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 +/-9.9%. As a result, some caution should be exercised in interpreting the results.

Where relevant, the findings from this survey have been compared against findings from the 2023 survey with Councillors and the 2022 survey of Victorian Public Service 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 
  • Two in three MPs think corruption is a problem in Victoria; 61% agree it’s a problem among elected officials
  • Almost 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’
  • Favouritism/nepotism
  • Misuse of resources
  • Breach of professional boundaries (eg bullying and harassment)
  • Prioritise these behaviours for education and prevention and detection activities
Ethical culture of State Parliament
  • Perceptions of the ethical culture of State Parliament is varied 
  • Relatively few consider State Parliament is highly vulnerable to corruption (11%)
  • MPs are motivated by a desire to serve the community; the imperative is to ensure that these actions of advocating for the people they represent remain ethical
Reporting corruption and misconduct
  • Most would report corruption if they personally observed it 
  • Six in ten MPs know how to report corruption 
  • Most common reporting channel is to IBAC
  • Raise awareness about how to report corruption (eg different reporting channels)
  • Raise awareness of the mechanisms in place to protect ‘whistleblowers’ for those who have concerns about reporting corruption 
  • Enhance confidence in IBAC’s investigative capabilities and further educate MPs about IBAC’s role to assist with managing expectations about what the organisation delivers 
Information sources used when seeking advice on corruption
  • Half agree that it is difficult to find definite guidance when seeking advice on corruption
  • MPs often turn to other MPs or Ministers to better understand their role and the expectations of conduct
  • Look at opportunities to raise awareness and increase confidence in more formal mechanisms that provide information on the role of a MP and code of conduct

 

  • Most MPs agree that they know what behaviour constitutes corruption. A circle graph that says 93%. Indicating how many MPs know what corruption means

    Ninety-three per cent agree that they know what behaviour constitutes corruption, four per cent neither agree or disagree and four per cent don’t know. This finding is similar to the Councillor cohort who were also surveyed in 2023.

    MPs value honesty and integrity. 

    This is evidenced by the universal agreement that ‘behaving with honesty and integrity is important to me’ (100% strongly agree).

    Over three in five believe corruption is a problem in Victoria and is also a problem among elected officials.

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

    • Overall, 79 per cent agree that corruption happens in Victoria and almost seven in ten (68%) agree that corruption is a problem in Victoria. 
    • Slightly fewer MPs (61%) agree that corruption is a problem among elected officials (including MPs), with only 11 per cent strongly disagreeing. This result is similar to the percentage of Councillors reporting corruption is a problem among elected officials (including Councillors) (59%).
    • There is however a relatively high level of agreement (71%) that some elected officials behave inappropriately or unethically although not necessarily corruptly. 
    Graph 1. Agreement with statements about public sector corruption in Victoria (%)
    Graph 1. Agreement with statements about public sector corruption in Victoria (%)

     

    Favouritism, misuse of resources and breaches of professional boundaries are viewed as the most common risks facing MPs.

    MPs were asked to describe (through an open response question) the most significant ways in which elected representatives in State Parliament might be vulnerable to corruption. The key areas cited include a conflict of interest, political interference and control, bribery and fraud, and misappropriation of funds. Comments also focus on financial pressures, being misleading and ignorance.

    The top three improper behaviours that MPs perceive to be a high risk of occurring are favouritism or nepotism, misuse of resources, and breaches of professional boundaries – over 86 per cent of MPs identified these behaviours as a high or medium risk. Over sixty per cent considered favouritism or nepotism to be a high risk.
     

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

     

    The extent to which MPs have personally observed or suspected that improper behaviours are occurring in State Parliament varies by type of behaviour.

    Close to one in five MPs (18%) have personally observed instances of favouritism or nepotism in the last 12 months in State Parliament and 36 per cent suspect this has occurred. The same percentages report having personally observed or suspected misuse of resources. Eighteen per cent also reported having have personally observed bribery or inducements. This is higher compared to the Councillor cohort (5%) and no public sector employees reported having observed bribery or inducements in the previous 12 months.

    Fewer MPs have suspected or observed occurrences of theft, fraud or extortion within State Parliament. However compared to other cohorts, MPs are more likely to have personally observed or suspected fraud or extortion (eg 21% of MPs has observed or suspected fraud compared to 8% of Councillors and 11% of public sector employees).
     
     

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

     

    The majority of MPs describe the ethical culture of State Parliament as ‘strong’ or ‘moderate’.

    Ninety per cent of MPs describe the ethical culture of State Parliament as ‘strong’ or ‘moderate’. This is higher than public sector employees (84%) and Councillors (78%).
     
     

    Graph 4. Ethical culture of the State Parliament (%)
    Graph 4. Ethical culture of the State Parliament (%)

     

    MPs express a range of views regarding the ethical culture of Parliament. Among those who consider the culture is ‘strong’, the reasons are based on individual integrity and ethics coupled with the desire to serve the community. Those who rate the ethical culture as ‘weak’ describe self-interest, personal agendas and the behaviour of others as undermining ethical values and culture.

    The majority perceive State Parliament to be ‘highly’ or ‘moderately’ vulnerable to corruption.

    When asked to consider the ethical culture, internal controls and any specific risks that the MPs perceive as relevant, 79 per cent identified State Parliament to be highly or moderately vulnerable to corruption. Only 14 per cent rated it as ‘not vulnerable’ to corruption. MPs were significantly less likely to consider there was no vulnerability (14%) compared to Councillors (37%) and public sector employees (32%).
     
     

    Graph 5. Vulnerability of State Parliament to corruption (%)
    Graph 5. Vulnerability of State Parliament to corruption (%)

     

    Definite guidance can be lacking when advice is sought on corruption.

    Half of MPs (54%) agree that it is difficult to obtain definite guidance when seeking advice on corruption, compared to 25 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 (%)

     

    The Members Guide and other MPs or Ministers are most commonly used to better understand their roles and conduct expectations.

    When asked what resources they most commonly use to understand their role and expectations regarding conduct, MPs most frequently reported using the Members Guide (39% of MPs use this frequently), followed by other MPs or Ministers (29%). This indicates informal mechanisms are used to understand expectations of conduct.    
     

    Graph 7. Frequency of use of different resources to understand the role and expectations of a MP’s conduct (%)
    Graph 7. Frequency of use of different resources to understand the role and expectations of a MP’s conduct (%)
  • Most MPs would report corruption if they personally observed it but fewer indicate they know how to report it.

    Almost nine in 10 MPs (86%) ‘somewhat agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that they will report corruption, if they personally observed it. This is comparable to the finding for public sector employees (83%) but slightly less than for Councillors (94%). For the small number of MPs 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 and a perception that it may not be worth it. 

    Approximately two-thirds of MPs (64%) agree that their ‘elected colleagues would be supportive if I chose to report corruption’, 11 per cent strongly disagree.

    While the majority of MPs would report corruption if they personally observed it, fewer agree that they know how to report corruption (61%) and a quarter disagree they know how to report. MPs (61%) were significantly less likely than Councillors to agree they know how to report corruption (88%) and were slightly less likely than public sector employees (64%). 

    MPs have mixed views about whether they would only report corruption if they knew their report would be anonymous – 43 per cent agree with this statement while 32 per cent disagree.  
     

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

     

    MPs are most likely to report corruption to IBAC.

    Almost all MPs claim they would report corruption to IBAC (89%). The next most common avenues are the Victorian Ombudsman (50%) and Victoria Police (32%). 
     

    Graph 9. Who to report corruption to (%)
    Graph 9. Who to report corruption to (%)

     

    Advice is relied upon to improve integrity and prevent corruption.

    MPs were asked what actions they have taken in the last 12 months to improve integrity and prevent corruption. Receiving advice (57%) is the most common action that MPs have undertaken in the last twelve months to improve integrity and prevent corruption. Other methods include education and training (50%) and seeking advice (46%) relating to ethical issues and integrity matters. 
     

    Graph 10. Actions taken to improve integrity and prevent corruption (%)
    Graph 10. Actions taken to improve integrity and prevent corruption (%)

     

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

    MPs were asked to nominate what can be done better to reduce the risk of corruption occurring. Themes discussed include increasing ongoing training and education, clarifying the reporting lines by having a ‘clearing house’ concept for suspected corruption, set-up of systems and guidance, increased transparency of donations and fundraising, accountability of investigations and enforcing consequences. 

    At the end of the survey, MPs were given the opportunity to provide additional comments or feedback to IBAC. Feedback is individual and diverse with some focusing on a need to look beyond elected officials to their staff, as well as a perception of corrupt behaviour being deliberately ignored. Other comments relate specifically to IBAC including the need to focus on ‘real’ corruption, holding MPs and staff to account, prosecuting wrong doers, as well as redressing the power imbalance that corruption causes.
     

  • Sex

    Male: 54%
    Female: 21%
    Prefer not to say: 21%

    Age

    Graph 11. Age of participants
    Graph 11. Age of participants

     

    Geographic location

    Work in metropolitan Melbourne: 50%
    Work in regional Victoria: 18%
    Prefer not to say: 32%

    Time working as a Member of Parliament

    Graph 12. Time working as a Member of Parliament
    Graph 12. Time working as a Member of Parliament

     

    Role of minister in State Government

    Graph 13. Role of minister in State Government
    Graph 13. Role of minister in State Government