Events

(MUSIC PLAYS)

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Welcome everyone, and thank you for joining us for today's webinar, United Against Corruption to mark International Anti-Corruption Day, which takes place this Saturday, 9 December. I'm Kylie Kilgour, one of the Deputy Commissioners at IBAC, and I'll be facilitating this event today. And I'd like to start by acknowledging and paying respect to the Traditional Custodians of the land that we are broadcasting from. I'm on the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, and I pay respect to their Elders past, present, and emerging. I also respectfully acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waterways across Australia and pay respect to Elders past, present, and emerging, and to any First Nations people joining us today. 20 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the convention against corruption and designated 9 December as International Anti-Corruption Day to raise awareness of corruption and how to combat and prevent it. Australia ratified the convention in 2005.
The theme of this year's International Anti-Corruption Day is uniting the world against corruption. And today, IBAC has united with the NACC and the Victorian Ombudsman to bring you this webinar. We have three highly experienced corruption busters making up the panel today, the Honorable Paul Paul Brereton, the inaugural Commissioner of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, acting Commissioner Stephen Farrow, who's our acting Commissioner at IBAC currently, and the Victorian Ombudsman. Ms. Deborah Glass. Commissioner Brereton has been a solicitor barrister, senior counsel judge and judge of appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, deputy chair of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission and deputy president of the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal. Paul joins us via a live stream from his Canberra office today. Stephen Farrow joined IBAC in July, 2021 as a Deputy Commissioner, and he was appointed acting Commissioner in December, 2022. Stephen began his career as a solicitor and has extensive experience in public law and policy.
His previous roles include deputy chair person of the Adult Parole Board, chief executive officer of the Sentencing Advisory Council, and roles in the Department of Justice and Community Safety, focusing on terrorism and criminal law reform. And Deborah Glass began her ten year term as Victorian Ombudsman in March, 2014, and is the first woman to serve in this role. Before becoming Victoria's Ombudsman, she undertook roles overseas in banking, financial regulation, and police oversight most recently as the deputy chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission of England and Wales. So a couple of quick housekeeping things before we go any further. There is a button in the meeting controls to turn on closed captions if you'd like to use that tool. And you can also click the Interpretation button to see our Auslan interpreters who are helping us today. And a recording of the webinar will be made available on the IBAC website in the coming weeks. So first of all, I'd like to start off by asking Commissioner Brereton the first question for the panel.
So Commissioner Brereton noting the National Anti-Corruption Commission is able to investigate conduct that occurred both before or after your office was established. What are your immediate priorities and areas of focus and what are the challenges you face as a new commission?

PAUL BRERETON:
Thanks, Kylie. Before answering your question, I too would first like to acknowledge that I'm joining you from the land of the Ngunnawal people, the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waterways in and around Canberra. I pay my respects to their Elders past, present, and emerging. And I also acknowledge First Nations people participating today. So from the outset of the commission, we embraced as our mission enhancing integrity in the Commonwealth public sector by deterring, detecting, and preventing corrupt conduct involving Commonwealth public officials through education, monitoring, investigation, reporting, and referral. When we began in July, two things were in front of mind, the first was that we had to have the capability from day one to receive triage and begin assessing referrals. We achieved that and we continue to do so every day, this week we reported 2,247 referrals as of 1 July with 13 preliminary investigations now underway, nine new investigations opened in addition to six existing investigations we inherited from (UNKNOWN) The second priority was and remains engaging with and educating our jurisdiction about key concepts relevant to our functions.
Who is a Commonwealth public official? What is corrupt conduct? How do you make a referral? And our commission's powers? We've also been providing guidance for public officials in grappling with the difficult ethical questions and challenges that they'll inevitably encounter. I think this educational function is just as important as our work in corruption detection and investigation, which are on our turf. In that area, our focus on matters which are corruption investigation will add value in the public interest. So, as I've said elsewhere, the commission's more likely to be interested in matters involving senior public officials, in issues that have a significant impact, financial or otherwise on the public interest or matters that involve potentially systemic, corrupt conduct as opposed to one-off acts. That's not to say that one-off acts by less senior staff aren't important, but usually they can be appropriately addressed without requiring the intervention of the commission. And while, as you've observed, the commission has the power to investigate conduct that occurred before its establishment, we'll more likely be interested in investigating matters that have current practical relevance rather than those that are historical.
That's not to say that matters occurring before our establishment might not have current practical relevance. For example, if they concern individuals who are still in office. On the other hand, there may be little value in re-investigating a matter that has already been subject to a full inquiry in a different forum. Turning to the challenges, perhaps the greatest is posed by the very large expectations, which many hold of the commission. Many seem to believe that we can solve every problem in the public administration of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, we can't. Not every mistake or act of maladministration is corrupt. Generally, there needs to be an element of private benefit or dishonesty, not just negligence or even incompetence for conduct to be corrupt. We can only investigate a small proportion of the numerous matters that are referred to us, and we won't be able to investigate even every matter that crosses the threshold of been or involving serious or systemic corrupt conduct.
As I've said, we'll focus on the matters where we can add value in the public interest. The second challenge is that anti-corruption commissions have often become controversial and fallen out of favour with various of their stakeholders, sectors of the public, the media, or the government of the day. That's what the nature of our work dictates, that there'll be times that a decision we make, for example, on whether to open an investigation or to hold a public hearing or the outcome of an investigation will be unpopular in at least some and often all courts. This is inevitable. And that's an independent anti-corruption commission that accepts public scrutiny to the extent operational considerations permit, we must accept this and carry on, as I've said, fearlessly, but fair. Finally, we can't achieve our aim of enhancing integrity in the governances of the Commonwealth on our own. We need ethical leadership and a pro integrity culture. Above all, this means that the careers of people who do the right thing, particularly when it's unpopular to do so, must be seen to prosper and not perish on the wayside.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Thanks for that, Paul. And that all chimes beautifully actually with a lot of the work that we're doing here at IBAC. So I'm now gonna bring in Stephen Farrow acting Commissioner and we're gonna talk a little bit about the subject of the definition of corrupt conduct and the differences that there are in that definition. 'Cause It's often a subject that comes up about the IBAC jurisdiction, but also now we've got the NACC and other other jurisdictions are different. So Stephen, I'd just like to invite you just to comment a bit about your reflections on the definition of corrupt conduct under the IBAC Act and how that might differ to definitions for other integrity commissions.

STEPHEN FARROW:
Thanks Kylie. And it's certainly something that causes confusion because there are multiple different definitions. In fact because today is in honour of the United Nations convention against corruption, which was inaugurated exactly 20 years ago on Saturday. I had a quick look to see how that deals with the definition of corrupt conduct and interestingly it doesn't. So that convention has a series of definitions of key terms like public official, but it doesn't actually define corrupt conduct. I think that's a matter that's left to states parties. What it does is to set out a series of obligations about preventing such conduct, about exposing it, about having appropriate avenues to address it through criminal prosecution. It descends into specific obligations around things like transparent merit-based appointment processes for public officials, something that's very topical in Victoria. Things like transparent funding of candidates for public office, open and competitive procurement processes and so on.
Which give a sense of the intended meaning of corrupt conduct, but it isn't a defined term there. When we come to the definition in Victoria... Before going into the specific definition, I think it's useful perhaps to step back and think about the spectrum of undesirable conduct in public administration to orient us to where different definitions might place us on that spectrum. Paul earlier talked about maladministration. So at one end of the spectrum we've got things we could describe as maladministration. So they're generally things like poor decision making, bad judgement, misuse of public resources, gross negligence in the exercise of administrative functions. And the remedies for that sort of conduct might be disciplinary measures. When we move into the misconduct part of the spectrum there we're talking about more conscious departures from rules. So less about negligence or mistake and more about conscious departures, intentional or reckless conduct, but falling short of criminal conduct.
And appropriate remedies, again, are disciplinary, but might be things like demotion or dismissal from office. And at the further end of the spectrum, we have criminal conduct and that's where we are talking about offences like bribery or embezzlement. A key one for Victoria is the offence of misconduct in public office. That's a common law offence, and it's a little confusing because it uses the word misconduct in its title. But the elements of the offence make it very clear that it requires conduct that is so significant, it merits criminal punishment as distinct from those other sorts of remedies I've spoken about. And the remedies of course for criminal conduct are criminal sanctions, fines, community correction orders, suspended sentences or imprisonment so we've got that spectrum. In Victoria, in terms of our public sector jurisdiction, IBAC's jurisdiction is limited to criminal conduct, so that far end of the spectrum. And that's when we are dealing with governments, statutory agencies, local government, the courts.
So we have jurisdiction over courts, magistrates, judges, tribunal members as well as members of parliament and their staff. But in respect of all of those public sector officials it has to be criminal conduct. We do have a distinct jurisdiction in relation to police, and that's really because police have such significant powers that there's an additional level of oversight that's exercised by IBAC. And so in relation to police, we move into that misconduct part of the spectrum and we can look at conduct, for example, that involves disgraceful or improper conduct or conduct that might bring Victoria police into disrepute, falling short of criminal conduct. And in relation to criminal conduct when we're dealing with police, we've got jurisdiction where there's allegations of summary offences by police. So that's criminal offending at the lowest end of the criminal range. Whereas in the public sector, our jurisdictions limited not just to criminal conduct, but indictable criminal offences so the more serious criminal offences.
So our jurisdiction depends on criteria like dishonest exercise of public functions, breach of public trust, misuse of public information or information that's gathered in the course of performing duties as a public official. But it also has to constitute a relevant offence, which is an indictable criminal offence. That is different to some other jurisdictions in Australia and Paul might make some observations in relation to National Anti-Corruption Commission, which has a broader jurisdiction, which extends into that misconduct part of the spectrum. But it's certainly an area that is the topic of significant discussion and debate. Ultimately it's a matter for parliament exactly where the lines are drawn in any particular jurisdiction. But I guess what's key is that there's appropriate resourced and empowered bodies to deal with conduct at each point in that spectrum. In Victoria, our jurisdiction is focused on that criminal end of the spectrum.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And so I might just invite Deborah as well to speak about this, because it's almost like you pick up where we leave off that's the way I think about it.

DEBORAH GLASS:
We do, it's such an important area where the boundaries are quite porous so often and we do need to work very closely together. Classic example, Operation Watts. But I think it's also worth pointing out that if there is one area the public just does not get, especially here in Victoria, it's that there is a distinction between corruption and wrongdoing. I mean, people see the outcome of something like an Operation Watts or a Red Shirts case and say, "Well, people have done something wrong. It must be corrupt. What are you doing about it?" So there is I think, a really quite unfortunate mismatch between a perception of corruption and what the law says corruption is. And that is that area of gray corruption that we talked about in Operation Watts, where people have misconducted themselves, but it falls short of the criminal threshold. Now, the fact that there are so many different definitions of corruption around Australia, I think doesn't help. As a member of the public, you see somebody has done something wrong and you think something should happen as a result of that.
And then, we find ourselves in a really difficult position, as integrity agencies explaining, well actually there appear to be no consequences.

STEPHEN FARROW:
And there are really two dimensions, as you say. There's the dimension in terms of jurisdiction, so what is it that we as a body can investigate? There's also the dimension of what do we label what we've found? And often there's I think, confusion where people might be familiar with the findings of a body like the independent commission against corruption in New South Wales, which has a very different jurisdiction, but it labels what it found as corruption. I'm sure when the National Anti-Corruption Commission ultimately reports on its current investigations again there'll be issues around, well, that's corruption but is it different to what we find in Victoria?

DEBORAH GLASS:
It's not Victorian corruption, it's some somebody else's corruption. And I think that is genuinely confusing.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Yes. Well, and just to add to the confusion, can I bring Paul in now as well? Your reflections on the definition that you are working with under your legislation, any early insights into how that's working for you.

PAUL BRERETON:
So for us, the definition of corrupt conduct has four elements. The first, it's conduct by a public official in breach of the public trust. And that imports concepts like fraud on a power similar to the equitable notion of use of a power or a trust power for an improper purpose. That can cover conduct by a public official making a decision or exercising a discretion for a collateral purpose, not intended when the power is conferred. And in that way, it can capture conduct that is not criminal conduct. The second is a public official committing an act, or that is or involves an abuse of the public official's office. Generally speaking, that will overlap with the crime of misconduct in public office, but not necessarily because there can be an abuse office that doesn't satisfy that element of being, such as the merit criminal conduct. So that too can involve conduct that is not criminal as well as conduct that is. The third category is misuse by a public official or a former public official of official information.
And the fourth is conduct by any person that could affect the honest and impartial discharge by a public official of the public officials functions. I think breach of public trust lies at the heart of most of the corrupt conduct that we'll examine. And the conduct that we will examine is by no means necessarily criminal. A lot of corrupt conduct will be criminal, but it need not be, and I don't start from the position of asking whether conduct is criminal or not. That's a sort of byproduct of the exercise. Our starting point is, does it fall within our definitions of corrupt conduct? And then along the track we might say, well, actually we can identify these crimes as well and refer it if so minded.

STEPHEN FARROW:
Something that I think is useful to think about as well is the nature of our investigative powers. And partly as a function of our jurisdiction, IBAC's got very significant investigative powers. For example, we can apply to a court to obtain a search warrant, not to search public premises, but to search, for example, a private individual's home or other private premises. We can obtain telecommunications interception warrants, so to tap people's phones and so on. Surveillance device warrants so very, very significant powers to investigate serious criminal offending. And so we've developed expertise and capabilities in dealing with those sorts of criminal investigations. That's a sort of a distinct capability and a niche that we exercise for our part of that spectrum. Those powers aren't necessarily appropriate or proportionate to investigations as you move further along the spectrum into misconduct. And so in each jurisdiction deciding which bodies are appropriate to target different parts of the spectrum, I think there are some interesting questions around what sorts of powers and capabilities are appropriate for which types of conduct that are being investigated.
And certainly in Operation Watts which we jointly did with the Ombudsman we were investigating members of Parliament and their staff ultimately allegations of criminal conduct weren't substantiated. And we made some observations and recommendations around conduct by members of parliament that fall short of criminal conduct. Where there was really a gap in terms of a body that was suitably empowered to target that sort of conduct. And it's encouraging that the government's indicated its intention to accept our recommendation to establish parliamentary integrity commissioner to fill that gap in the suite of integrity bodies across the spectrum.

DEBORAH GLASS:
But just to pick up on one of Paul's points, I think the issue of public trust for me is crucial. Because forms of conduct that fall short of the criminal breach public trust. And it's really important for lawmakers to be aware of the consequences of that, so there needs to be somebody, whether it's an IBAC, an Ombudsman, a parliamentary integrity commission, whoever, somebody, there needs to be some independent agency that is able to address what people see as potential breaches of public trust.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And that is often at the heart of when the public are saying to us...

DEBORAH GLASS:
It's wrong.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Surely that's corruption. It is that breach of public trust issue that really is what the public are speaking out about. Sorry, Stephen.

STEPHEN FARROW:
And that's exactly what the United Nations convention against corruption was very much about, it was about that corrosion of trust, confidence in government and so on, and that sort of non-criminal, but breaching public trust is very corrosive of a confidence in government, good government.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Now I'm just gonna switch to a very particular question that we've got for Deborah, because Deborah, it's coming up to the end of your ten-year term. Congratulations on...

DEBORAH GLASS:
Surviving.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
All the work that you've done. And it's also 50 years of an Ombudsman in Victoria. So you've also got a massive body of work behind the institution as well. And so we really thought it was a great opportunity to ask you to reflect on your time in office and all the issues you've investigated and what advice you have for public servants about their role in combating and preventing corruption and improper conduct.

DEBORAH GLASS:
Well, thank you for that large question, Kylie. I will try and break it down into a few small elements, advice for public servants. Well, there are two aspects of that, one is what do you do if you see misconduct, wrongdoing, corrupt conduct, whatever. And I think that is genuinely difficult. So if I can just reflect for a moment on the report I put out yesterday to the alleged politicisation of the public sector, one of the things that was so difficult to deal with in that investigation were people who were afraid to speak to us. So the what is... And these are potential whistle-blowers. These are people who are concerned about something that has gone on in the public sector, that they don't feel comfortable, but they don't even feel comfortable talking to an integrity agency with a promise of anonymity. So what are we to say to whistle-blowers, to ensure that people feel confident about reporting corrupt conduct? I think that's genuinely difficult. And so one of the recommendations I made yesterday was shoring up the independence of the public sector and providing some degree of protection for the kind of at will termination of executive contracts that we know stands in the way of people speaking out.
But I think if we're talking about broadly whistle-blowing and reporting of poor conduct more broadly, it does depend on the level you are within an organisation. You can be anonymized as a middle manager, that's not difficult, when you're head of an agency, when you are very senior, then it is much, much more difficult. And I don't think there is an easy answer to that one, I really don't. I do think that something needs to change for that to address those very real fears that people have. But if I can perhaps just flip to the other side of the coin and say, well, what do we see? What would be my broader advice to public servants about, well, how do you... What issues have I seen in my nearly ten years in the job? There probably is a moment of deep sigh there, because if I look at the reports of my predecessor from, ten and more years ago, I'm still reporting on the same themes. And I suspect the next Ombudsman will be reporting on the same themes. I'm reporting on conflicts of interest.
I'm reporting on nepotism, on favouritism, on misuses of public funds. And sometimes you see areas where things are being done better, but then they pop up in some other way. And it's frustrating and occasionally a bit depressing that those themes just come through time and time again. So I put out a, I called it the misconduct case book last year. And the purpose of that really was to say, "OK, what are we seeing? What are we still seeing here? Why are we still seeing it?" And some of the answers are, because there are so many people in the public sector, so inevitably your work doesn't get through to every... There are hundreds of thousands of people working there. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep trying, sort of keep cranking it out, and they keep having seminars like this where we do talk about those things. So why do they happen? Well, sometimes and not infrequently, they happen because people come into the public sector from the private sector who simply don't get it.
They don't get that conflicts of interest actually are important, they need to be disclosed. An example in the case book was the chair of a cemetery trust who really didn't see a conflict in his own company being commissioned to dig graves from his standpoint, they were getting a good deal. So what was the issue? Similarly, somebody who, a manager who employed their friend in a recruitment process. Well, they were the best person for the job. Why did I have to follow due process? So there's a lack of understanding of why these things matter, that I think part of the education responsibility of all of us, all integrity agencies is to just have to explain that why do these things matter? So it's more often not devious. I mean, sometimes it's deliberate but more often than not, it's just people just don't get it. And it is an important but hard slog for integrity bodies and for public servants, particularly senior public servants, to model those values, those ethical standards to show why these things matter.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Yeah. Yeah. And just picking up on your point about whistle-blowers and turning to you again, Paul, I mean, whistle-blowers in the Commonwealth context has been quite, high profile issue recently. I was just wondering if you wanted to talk to the the audience a little bit about your approach to working with whistle-blowers in the NACC.

PAUL BRERETON:
Look, I think we've got world's best standard whistle-blower protections. So as far as people disclosing information or making referrals, or giving evidence to the commissioner, concerned they can incur no civil, no criminal, no administrative, no disciplinary liability, and reprisals against them is forbidden under penalty of imprisonment. So there's effectively all the protection you can have for someone who makes a referral or a disclosure for the NACC except of course, they can't get protection for their own wrongdoing. And they're still liable to prosecution for making a false or misleading statement to the NACC. So, yeah, I think we offer world's best practice in that area. And certainly the international scene, I think that's been recognised as better than a lot of the international standards, many of which are subject to a best or good faith requirement, which is seen as putting an onus on a whistle-blower to prove good faith as a condition of protection. We certainly don't have that.
By and large, overwhelmingly, our referrals come from members of the public, some of them identify themselves, many of them don't. And they're all treated confidentially so I think we give them not only a high level of protection, but I think it's very important to give them security that their information will be treated confidentially and that they won't be out as a result.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Thanks for that. And Stephen, do you wanna talk a bit about the Victorian Public Interest Disclosure scheme?

STEPHEN FARROW:
Certainly. Well IBAC has a role in stewarding the scheme. So public interest disclosures can be made to a range of different bodies, but then they'll ultimately come to IBAC to make a determination about whether they're what's called a public interest complaint. So even coming forward to make a disclosure someone gains protections under our legislation even if ultimately IBAC determines that their disclosure doesn't constitute what's called a public interest complaint. If it does constitute a public interest complaint, then there's an extra layer of protection. But the structure of the scheme is very much to very much protect those who do come forward. There's additional protection for some, if it meets those criteria, but really everyone coming forward should gain a degree of protection. Certainly I think challenges with the scheme are ensuring that people are aware of it. I think certainly IBACs done a lot of work and other partner agencies across the integrity system to build awareness of the avenues for making disclosures.
But there's also, I think, challenges to make sure that the legislation is applied so that people genuinely do get those protections, and that also that they feel that it was worth coming forward. I'm always impressed that the public spiritedness of people who do come forward to make a disclosure, knowing that there's always some risk in doing so. And so for agencies like ours, I think there's a significant responsibility to make sure that if there is valuable information that we can make use of it, and that people can feel that, it's very much worth their while coming forward.

(CROSSTALK)

DEBORAH GLASS:
I'm mindful that you asked me about my advice to my successor, and I don't think I answered that question.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Oh, yes. What advice are you gonna give your successor, Deborah?

DEBORAH GLASS:
Specifically about improper conduct? I mean, there's a lot of other advice that I might just leave for now. But improper conduct I think is a particularly important part of really all of our work, which is why we're having this conversation today. And I think all of us who work in the integrity will recognise that the kind of things that come to us, and I'm sure Paul, you have seen this in the thousands of matters that have been referred to your office, is that it ranges from the incredibly important, and this, we really need to dig into this one but there's a lot of dross. And there's a lot in there that does not require chasing a lot of rabbits down holes. And the importance of triage, the importance of applying really good judgement to what comes in. And it's something, I mean... Some of my, and you can call it the public interest, but actually I call it the so what factor? When somebody is alleged to have done or not done something, well, so what, what were the consequences of that?
How important was it? How serious was it? Now, that doesn't rule out the vexatious, the malicious, because there's always a chunk of those in any allegations that come to us. But sometimes we deal with a raft of things where somebody has done something wrong, but it had no consequences. And I think one of the things that we need to be aware of in integrity agencies is well, let's... We've always got limited resources. None of us ever have the amount of resources, we wanted, to do everything we always want. So we have to be judicious, we have to use our discretions, I think, really effectively. And applying those discretions, applying, what I call the, so what factor I think is what I would be encouraging my successor to do when they look at these allegations in improper conduct.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for that. So I'm going to turn now to, we've had a number of questions that people in the audience have sent into us. So we're not gonna be able to do all of them, but we've tried to pick some that are, I guess, representative of the sort of questions that people out there have for the panelists. So I'm gonna start with Stephen. And so this question is about what are your views about the relationship between corruption and organisational culture?

STEPHEN FARROW:
Look, I think culture is crucial it's really the most fundamental issue. When we look at all of our investigations, I think always there'll be individuals who are motivated to gain a personal benefit. But I think what we find in our investigations where things go wrong are often it's because of a lack of culture. A culture in terms of having clear systems and processes that are well understood. Actually a culture of following those processes and rules. Real rigour around any departure from the processes and rules, if there are exceptions, that they're applied rigorously. Proper documentation and a culture of speaking up about concerns. These sorts of factors mean that even if there are individuals who are motivated to try and get personal gain or to act corruptly, it's the organisations that are more resistant to corruption, if you've got all of these things in place, the appropriate checks and balances. A lot of our work is around prevention, so identifying red flags, the sorts of cultural features which can really enable corruption to flourish.
And that's really building on our experience of investigations where we've seen things that have gone wrong, but also consulting and working across different sectors. Particularly in areas like procurement, for example, where we can learn from good practice, we can learn from what are the things that make different organisations more resistant. And even in terms of the police jurisdiction and police misconduct looking at different police stations where there seem to be pockets of larger numbers of substantiated complaints, even looking at the demographics and so on. There seems to be often cultural factors about things that are tolerated where people don't speak out, the influence of particular individuals who can be quite influential in perpetuating or maintaining a culture that's encouraging of misconduct as opposed to making it resistant. And it's not necessarily complicated, we've got lots of checklists of things like red flags to watch out for, but I think ultimately so much depends on the culture and so much depends on leadership.
It's about setting the standard, modelling the behaviour from the top making sure that the expectations are understood and are followed through.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And Paul, at the national level, I mean, everyone's really conscious about the Robo-debt Royal Commission findings, some of which definitely spoke to the culture in the APS. I was reading the APSCs results about, their findings about how many public servants in Canberra and nationally have gotten themselves into strife in recent times. What are you seeing from your vantage point around the relationship between culture and corruption risks?

PAUL BRERETON:
It's culture that sets expectations and standards as to how people behave. So culture is fundamental as to how they will respond a particular situation, in particular in a stressful situation. So I think what's really important about culture is that in the public sector, people don't feel constrained to report other than honestly and accurately. They don't feel constrained to give advice or to make decisions other than on the evidence, on the merits, impartially and honestly. And they don't feel constrained from admitting their mistakes and remedying them. They're the key elements of the culture that we need to embed in our public institutions.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And Deborah, I mean, obviously you've had ten years in the Victorian Ombudsman chair. What are your views about how, I guess Victoria at least is tracking in terms of corruption and misconduct risk? Have things changed in the time that you've been in your role?

DEBORAH GLASS:
Well, what I see is allegations have gone up, but that doesn't mean that corruption has got worse. And this is, it's a particularly difficult point to address because there is no objective scientific assessment of actual corruption. There is perceived corruption we know we can assess that, reported corruption we can assess that. But actual, how can we possibly assess that? So my, and this is impressionistic because it must, it can only be impressionistic is that there is more confidence, despite what I said earlier about fear. 'Cause I think that fear is still there, but I think there is more confidence in the integrity agencies dealing with matters. It's more visible that corrupt conduct will be exposed. I think, public hearings assist that enormously, public reports assist that enormously. So what I see is that allegations increase and they have increased in the last ten years broadly for I think both of our agencies. But I think that speaks more to a higher level of confidence that something's gonna be done when people come forward.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And just on that topic of the importance of the public facing work that the integrity agencies do and how that actually encourages people to engage with the system and bring issues to the table. Can you just talk a bit about, like how do you pick, what do you do public reports about? And I'll ask Stephen and I'll ask Paul the same question.

DEBORAH GLASS:
It's public interest. Absolutely. Well that's a deciding factor, if it's not, is it systemic? Is it something. So for example, I put out public reports, I mean, I probably do about between 20 and 30 formal investigations involving whistle-blower matters every year. And I would put out perhaps two of those as public reports. So I don't do public hearings in my role, but I have a discretion as to what I report on publicly. So the reports I put out will be those that I think are relevant to a much broader audience than simply that agency. So it may be systemic or it may just be something that needs to be said. The examples would be the CEO, usually ones involving senior leadership. Making the point that Stephen has made earlier about ethical leadership and the importance of leadership driving culture. Where you point out, well if the CEO is hiring their mates and those lower downs see the CEO hiring their mates, then they will start hiring their mates. And then you have a very, you obviously have a very poor culture in that organisation.
So I will put out, and I have put out reports that involve senior people not getting it, and the consequences of that on public trust. And I do that because there is an important public interest message, not only to other local councils or heads of agencies, but also to those brave whistle-blowers who are prepared to say the CEO's doing something wrong.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And Steven IBAC and our special reports?

STEPHEN FARROW:
Well, perhaps just first touching on the question of, measuring corruption and the intrinsic difficulties. I suppose I do want to highlight the work that IBAC has been doing in building an evidence-based, we're only ten years old, so we haven't had a great deal of time to do so. But in terms of perceptions of corruption, the surveying that we do also asks quite specific questions. So, for example, if we survey suppliers of goods and services to government, "Have you personally experienced corrupt conduct? Have you seen it occur?" And gathering those results over time, likewise in local government, likewise amongst members of parliament, different sectors that we periodically survey so that over time we can build up a picture. Because relying on substantiated complaints, prosecutions and so on is intrinsically difficult. But I think we are doing something to try and get a bit of an evidence base around that. In terms of how do we prioritise we've all got finite resources. A question for us is always is there some other agency that's better placed to do this?
Or is there a particular reason why we should do this? So for example, because our jurisdiction covers criminal conduct in the public sector. If it's an instance of fraud is there any reason why, for example, this shouldn't be prosecuted by police, like any other matter of fraud? Or is there some extra dimension, the seriousness, the systemic nature of it? The fact that it potentially exposes some corruption vulnerabilities that part of our role is to investigate, but part of our role is also to identify systemic issues and to make recommendations to fix them. So often it's a question of is this investigation a vehicle to draw out some of those more systemic issues and make recommendations to ensure that there's a more enduring change to the culture.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And Paul, I mean, obviously it's early days for the NACC and you haven't had a chance to do a report yet, I don't think. But your initial thoughts at this stage in the evolution of the NACC around the public reporting and the public facing work that you'll be doing?

PAUL BRERETON:
I think the public facing work and the public reporting is absolutely crucial to achieving our end. Except where it's going to compromise further proceedings or jeopardise further proceedings or where it's going to unfairly tarnish reputations. I strongly favour publishing our work, and I'll have a strong predisposition to publish as many of our reports as we can. But we have to publish a report if we conduct a public hearing. But as I think, most know, the circumstances in which we can conduct a public hearing are limited. But even after investigations in which there is no public hearing, we can still publish a report if that's the public interest to do so. And I think ordinarily it will be in the public interest to do so.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And I think one of the interesting aspects of the NACC jurisdiction is you've got a power to hold public hearings into systemic issues?

PAUL BRERETON:
Yes.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
That's very different to any of the other integrity commissions. So I was just wondering if you'd like to just tell the audience a bit more about that function 'cause it is gonna be a quite, a specific different sort of function that you are gonna have.

PAUL BRERETON:
Well, it is about conducting an inquiry as distinct from a corruption investigation into corruption risks and vulnerabilities in an agency or more generically. So one of the issues that I've flagged I suppose in the past is, one area that might be of interest, that is the way in which contracted service providers deliver services on behalf of government to beneficiaries. That might be an area in which a public inquiry into corruption risks and vulnerabilities would be of considerable assistance. There are of course others. Now that public inquiry it is a bit like rather than an investigation into a specific allegation or issue of corruption, a more roving Royal Commission type inquiry into a subject matter which would produce recommendations at the end rather than corruption findings.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Thanks for that. I think it's gonna be really interesting to see how that bit of your jurisdiction evolves. And like I said, none of the rest of us have got it. So I'm looking on very jealously, I think some of us, but you're gonna get to do some of that work.

PAUL BRERETON:
I think New South Wales has similar

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Oh, do they? OK. Great. So Stephen, I'm gonna ask you a question now about how we at IBAC decide what are our priorities for investigations? I think you touched on some of that a bit before.

STEPHEN FARROW:
So perhaps they're very much based on the evidence that we gather. So it'll be informed by the investigations we've conducted. We've got a strategic intelligence area, so they monitor trends. We've got a lot of intelligence from our complaints about patterns. And from all of that we engage with a range of stakeholders as well about the matters that are of concern to them. And really to help with the triaging, we get three and a half, 4,000 or more complaints each year to process to make decisions about which of those might turn into the perhaps 30 odd preliminary inquiries or investigations we conduct each year. We have a set of strategic priority areas, strategic focus areas. And they're things like excessive use of force by police against vulnerable communities, high risk police units, divisions, and regions, which is based on our data or around where we find pockets of unusually large numbers of complaints and so on. It's things like improper influence as a theme. That's been a theme for a number of our more high profile special reports, high risk public sector agencies.
So, for example at the moment in Victoria, there's very significant volume of infrastructure work going on both in transport sector and public hospitals and in social housing. So where we get large value procurement, we'll have a particular focus on that. And these strategic focus areas are reviewed each year with a sort of a... They are relatively stable, but we adapt them over time as the information we gather unfolds.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Thanks for that.

STEPHEN FARROW:
So I should add that we're not limited to those, strategic focus areas. So if we receive a complaint that falls outside them, and yet we decide that there's a sufficient public interest we will obviously pursue that matter. But it helps as an organisation to sort of mark out the areas that we'll stream matters into. And it makes it easier to structure our decision making processes rather than going purely case by case.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And now this is another question from the audience, and I might start with you Paul. So the audience member has got a question for the panelists about what are the steps to returning our public sector institutions to more robust apolitical and professional organisations?

PAUL BRERETON:
Well, that's a great question. Thanks very much for it. I think I've touched on that already when I've spoken about culture. So I see instilling a new approach to decision making in the public sector in which people aren't afraid of the consequences of making the right decision, as really important. And part of that is instilling a culture of compliance so that legal compliance is seen as not an optional thing. The legal compliance is black or white, not a risk to be managed. I think that's an important step along the way that legal advisers are advising decision makers not about the risk associated with doing something, but whether it is thoughtful or not. And all of these messages, I think, are now well on the way to being instilled in the commonwealth public sector. They don't apply just to lawyers, they apply more widely to advisers and to decision makers. So I think they're a couple of key steps, but really as I concluded my opening remarks, the crucial step is that people who do the right thing, who give unpopular advice, who make unpopular decisions are seen to do well and not to suffer for the consequences of doing the right thing.
And if that is seen to happen, that will radically change the attitude to being prepared to do the right thing.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And Deborah, your views, many of which you've outlined in your reports that was released.

DEBORAH GLASS:
I think I broadly covered it actually. It's yeah, where to begin, 280 pages worth. I do think that there is some really important issues. We've seen these trends right around Australia so they're not unique to Victoria. The trend of over responsiveness, which is illustrated by the Robodebt Royal Commission. Something that has been seen in New South Wales, the Barilaro case, these are not unique Victorian problems. But you also see are steps being taken elsewhere around Australia to try and bring that back to the core principles of why do we always have this an impartial public service? Why does it matter? Well, it matters for a lot of very important reasons. So let's go back to basics here. Of course, governments evolve, of course, the role of the public sector evolves, but it should not evolve beyond the boundaries that were established for very good reasons many, many years ago. To get away from the principles of patronage that originally applied, of course, in the old civil service.
So, I mean, I do think that there are some really significant lessons that need to be learned here that starts with shoring up the independence of the key appointments right across the the public service.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And Stephen?

STEPHEN FARROW:
Oh, to take the spectrum analogy again. I think you'd have on one end the sort of overly responsive unwilling to provide unwelcome advice end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum, I suppose there's the public service that's unresponsive, indifferent to government priorities. And it's a question of nuance, I think it is about calibrating the expectations. And this is something that we've looked at in some of our operations, but calibrating within that spectrum something that's... And I think in Victoria, for example, the Victorian Public Sector Commission is some very good guidance and principles around this, but it's responsive, but it's also rigorous, impartial, frank, evidence-based and that's the key.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
OK. So we've got time for one last very quick and very easy question for you all. What's the number one thing organisations could do and should be doing to prevent corruption? And I'm gonna start with Paul.

PAUL BRERETON:
Having place... Well, I'll say two things. A sound conflicts of interest policy under which everyone understands that conflicts must be declared and then managed. And a rigorous mechanism for monitoring the use of information, particularly electronic information, so that everyone knows that their use of information can be monitored.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Excellent answer. I think you'll get seconded on that by IBAC, Stephen.

STEPHEN FARROW:
If we've limited to one thing, perhaps the thing that occurs to me is having an awareness amongst staff that there are avenues to come forward. So often, almost invariably, someone knows something and is uncomfortable, but the difference often between a matter being uncovered or not, is whether someone's prepared to speak out. Even if they haven't got the full story, even if they've only got a piece of information that turns out to be a crucial piece of information that can trigger an investigation. But I think if there's one thing, it's for people at whatever level of an organisation, and it could be someone very junior who just knows that this doesn't look right and who's confident that they can find an avenue to escalate their concern. And to feel that they can do so without retribution, I think that's the key.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
And Deborah, what's your top ask.

DEBORAH GLASS:
One thing, have a leader who models ethical values and who sets a tone across an organisation that behaviour must be ethical and that unethical behaviour will not be tolerated.

KYLIE KILGOUR:
Great. So thank you to the panelists, we've running out of time. I know there's a lot more questions that people have sent to us, and we will do our best to answer those in different ways after today's session. But I'd just like everybody to thank us for joining. Oh, sorry. I'd like to thank you all for joining us today and a big thank you again to Commissioner Brereton, Ombudsman Glass and acting Commissioner Farrow and to everyone who's attended today and our organisers backstage at IBAC for their contribution to today's webinar. We'll send you links to any of the resources that people have mentioned today, as well as a link to the recording of today's webinar so keep an eye out for that in your inbox. And to stay updated on the latest publications and information from IBAC, the NACC and the Ombudsman, you can subscribe to our e-newsletters through our websites, and we'll share the links in the chat. We're also regularly sharing updates on social media via X or Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube, so check those out as well.
Even my children are looking at that material, so I highly recommend it to you. Finally, as this webinar comes to an end and you exit Zoom, you'll see a link to complete a short feedback survey to help us plan future events. Or you can use the QR code on the screen to access the survey and we take your feedback seriously and we'll appreciate it, if you could please provide us with your thoughts on today's webinar, it will help us for future events that we'd like to hold. And we look forward to seeing you again at those future events. And very happy Anti-Corruption Day, everybody.

(MUSIC PLAYS)