Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Parliamentary Joint Committee—Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19—Report, September 2020


Download PDF Download PDF

September 2020

Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

Examination of the Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19

© Commonwealth of Australia

ISBN 978-1-76093-110-0

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License.

The details of this licence are available on the Creative Commons website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/.

Printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra.

iii

Members

Chair Senator Paul Scarr LP, QLD

Deputy Chair Senator Catryna Bilyk ALP, TAS

Members Senator Alex Antic LP, SA

Senator Tim Ayres ALP, NSW

Mr Pat Conaghan MP NATS, NSW

Mr Andrew Laming MP LP, QLD

Mr Tony Pasin MP LP, SA

Hon Justine Elliot MP ALP, NSW

Mr Tony Zappia MP ALP, SA

Secretariat Mr Sean Turner, Secretary Ms Emmie Shields, Senior Research Officer (from 6.7.2020) Ms Stephanie Gill, Administrative Officer (to 2.8.2020) Ms Alice Clapham, Administrative Officer (from 3.8.2020)

PO Box 6100 Telephone: (02) 6277 3419

Parliament House Email: aclei@aph.gov.au

CANBERRA ACT 2600 Committee web page

v

Contents

Members ............................................................................................................................................. iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vii

Chapter 1—Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

About ACLEI ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Presentation of ACLEI Annual Report 2018-19 ............................................................................. 2

Requirements for annual reports ....................................................................................................... 2

Requirements for special reports ....................................................................................................... 3

Corrections to the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19 ................................... 3

New Commissioner ............................................................................................................................. 3

Conduct of the inquiry ....................................................................................................................... 4

Committee Hansard............................................................................................................................. 4

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2—Key issues........................................................................................................................ 5

Achieving a manageable investigation workload ........................................................................... 5

Breakdown of investigations concluded ............................................................................... 7

Factors affecting delivery ......................................................................................................... 8

The Visa Integrity Taskforce ............................................................................................................. 10

Outcomes from the Australian National Audit Office report .................................................... 11

Response to recommendations 1 and 3................................................................................ 13

Response to recommendation 2 ............................................................................................ 14

Status of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission ................................................................... 15

The progress of the CIC ......................................................................................................... 16

Partial coverage of the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment ............... 16

Chapter 3—Performance framework ............................................................................................ 19

Delivery against strategic priorities and activities ....................................................................... 19

Annual performance statement ....................................................................................................... 21

Performance criterion one—the corruption notification and referral system is effective22

Performance criterion two-investigations are conducted professionally and efficiently, and add value to the law enforcement integrity system ........................................ 26

Performance criterion three—monitor corruption investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies .................................................................................................. 30

vi

Performance criterion four—insights contribute to accountability and anti-corruption policy development ..................................................................................................... 32

Performance criterion five—ACLEI’s governance and risk management controls are effective and take account of its operational role .................................................... 34

Ombudsman inspections .................................................................................................................. 35

Ombudsman report on controlled operations .................................................................... 35

Ombudsman report on surveillance devices ...................................................................... 36

Committee conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix 1—Public hearings ......................................................................................................... 39

Appendix 2—Additional information .......................................................................................... 41

vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACIC Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission

ACLEI Australian Commission for Law Enforcement

Integrity

AFP Australian Federal Police

AGD Attorney-General Department

ANAO Australian National Audit Office

Annual Report 2018-19 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19

Auditor-General Report No. 4 2018-19 Operational Efficiency of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

AUSTRAC Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre

CIC Commonwealth Integrity Commission

DAWR Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment

Home Affairs Department of Home Affairs

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LEIC Act Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006

ORAM Operational Risk Assessment Model

PBS Portfolio Budget Statements

the committee

Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

the taskforce The Visa Integrity Taskforce

TRAM

Threat, Risk and Assessment Model

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Paragraph 215(1)(c) of the LEIC Act requires the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (committee) to examine:

 each annual report prepared by the Integrity Commissioner;  any special report prepared by the Integrity Commissioner; and  report to the Parliament on any matter appearing in, or arising out of, any such annual report or special report.

1.2 This report presents the committee's examination of the Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19 (Annual Report 2018-19), and consists of three chapters.

1.3 This introductory chapter sets out background information regarding the role of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), the requirements for ACLEI's annual reports, and information regarding the committee's conduct of the examination.

1.4 Chapter 2 considers key issues raised in the course of the committee's examination of the Annual Report 2018-19. Chapter 3 summarises and assesses ACLEI's results against its performance framework in 2018-19, to the extent such matters are not addressed in chapter 2.

About ACLEI 1.5 ACLEI was established by the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (LEIC Act) and commenced operation on 30 December 2006. The LEIC Act established the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, supported by a statutory

authority, ACLEI.

1.6 The objectives of the LEIC Act, as set out in section 3, are to:

 facilitate the detection of corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies;  facilitate the investigation of corruption issues that relate to law enforcement agencies;  enable criminal offences to be prosecuted, and civil penalty proceedings to

be brought, following those investigations;  prevent corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies; and  maintain and improve the integrity of staff members of law enforcement

agencies.1

1 Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (LEIC Act), s. 3.

2

Presentation of ACLEI Annual Report 2018-19 1.7 The Annual Report 2018-19 was presented to the Attorney-General, the Hon. Christian Porter MP, on 30 September 2019. It was tabled in the Senate on 11 November 2019 and in the House of Representatives on 21 October 2019.2

Requirements for annual reports 1.8 Section 201 of the LEIC Act requires ACLEI’s annual reports to provide details on a range of matters, including:

 corruption issues that have come to the Integrity Commissioner via: notifications from heads of law enforcement agencies; referrals from the minister; and referrals from other people;3

 corruption issues that the Integrity Commissioner has: dealt with on his or her own initiative; investigated; or referred to a government agency for investigation;

 corruption issues investigated over the year and certificates issued under section 149 during the year;4  investigations conducted that ‘raise significant issues or developments in law enforcement’ and the extent to which ACLEI investigations have

resulted in prosecutions or confiscation proceedings;  trends and patterns including the nature and scope of corruption in law enforcement and other Commonwealth agencies that have law enforcement

functions;  recommendations for changes to Commonwealth laws or administrative practices of Commonwealth government agencies; and  details of court proceedings involving the Integrity Commissioner,

including applications made to the Federal Court.

1.9 The Annual Report 2018-19 includes an index that provides a guide to the report’s compliance with requirements set out under section 201 of the LEIC Act and associated regulations, as well as the requirements set out under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (including the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014).

2 House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings, No. 24, 21 October 2019, p. 364; Journals of the Senate,

No. 24, 12 November 2019, p. 726.

3 See sections 18, 19 and 23 of the LEIC Act.

4 Certificates issued under section 149 relate to the Attorney-General's ability under the LEIC Act to

certify that disclosure of information or document contents would be contrary to the public interest on one or more grounds. These include, but are not limited to: prejudicing the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth; or the disclosure of ministerial communications or relations between the Commonwealth and states and territories.

3

1.10 The committee is satisfied ACLEI has fulfilled its annual reporting obligations under the LEIC Act and other requirements as set out in the compliance index of the Annual Report 2018-19.5

Requirements for special reports 1.11 Under section 204 of the LEIC Act, the Integrity Commissioner may prepare special reports that relate to the operations of the Integrity Commissioner or any matter in connection with the performance of the Integrity Commissioner's

powers or functions under the LEIC Act.

1.12 In its report on ACLEI's Annual Report 2010-11, the committee suggested that future ACLEI annual reports 'clearly state whether any special reports have been provided to the Minister and make an appropriate reference in the compliance index'. 6 ACLEI adopted this suggestion.

1.13 The Annual Report 2018-19 states that the Integrity Commissioner prepared no special reports during the relevant year.7

Corrections to the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018- 19 1.14 On 11 June 2020, ACLEI advised of an amendment to the data contained in the Annual Report 2018-19 on page 18. ACLEI advised the reporting of two crime

referrals to the Australian Federal Police Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce during 2018-19 was incorrect and 'in fact … no referrals [were made] to the Taskforce during that year'.8

New Commissioner 1.15 On 10 February 2020, Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe commenced as the Integrity Commissioner and head of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.9

1.16 References to the Integrity Commissioner in the Annual Report 2018-19 are to then Integrity Commissioner, Mr Michael Griffin AM. The public hearing for the inquiry was held after Mr Griffin AM concluded his term as Integrity Commissioner, resulting in Ms Hinchcliffe appearing before the committee.

5 Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), Annual Report of the Integrity

Commissioner 2018-19 (Annual Report 2018-19), pp. 98-102.

6 Parliamentary Joint Committee on ACLEI, Examination of the Annual Report of the Integrity

Commissioner 2010-11, p. 2.

7 ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 103.

8 Ms Lucinda Atkinson, Executive Director Secretariat, ACLEI, correspondence received 11 June

2020.

9 ACLEI, About: Integrity Commissioner, www.aclei.gov.au/about/integrity-commissioner (accessed

21 February 2020).

4

Conduct of the inquiry 1.17 On 25 June 2020, the committee held a public hearing to examine the Annual Report 2018-19. During the hearing, the committee heard evidence from the Integrity Commissioner and other ACLEI officers. A list of witnesses is

provided in Appendix 1.

Committee Hansard 1.18 In this report, references to Committee Hansard are to proof transcripts. Page numbers may vary between proof and official transcripts.

Acknowledgements 1.19 The committee acknowledges ACLEI's ongoing co-operation and engagement with the committee. The committee welcomes the new Integrity Commissioner to her role, and thanks her for appearing at the public hearing on 25 June 2020.

1.20 On the basis of the well-considered and thoughtful answers given at the public hearing, the committee positively notes the speed with which the new Integrity Commissioner has familiarised herself with the key issues and taken positive steps to continually improve efficiency and effectiveness of the processes and procedures of ACLEI.

5

Chapter 2 Key issues

2.1 This chapter considers key issues raised during the committee's examination of ACLEI's Annual Report 2018-19. In particular, this chapter considers:

 the efforts of ACLEI to manage its increasing investigation workload, and reduce a backlog of investigations on hand in the reporting period;  the work of the ACLEI-led Visa Integrity Taskforce; and  the outcomes from the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report on

ACLEI's operational efficiency, and ACLEI's progress in responding to the ANAO's recommendations.

2.2 This chapter also briefly considers a matter that does not relate wholly to the 2018-19 reporting period, but that was nonetheless raised during the committee's examination—namely, the current status of the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC), and how it might impact the work of ACLEI going forward.

Achieving a manageable investigation workload 2.3 The expansion of ACLEI's jurisdiction to include the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection (now Home Affairs) in 2015-16 led to a substantial increase in ACLEI's workload. This increase was reflected in the

number of investigations ACLEI had on hand on a year-to-year basis. However, the Integrity Commissioner informed the committee that during the 2018-19 reporting period, ACLEI managed to significantly reduce the backlog of investigations it had on hand. In fact, during the 2018-19 reporting year, ACLEI concluded 116 investigations, the highest number of investigations concluded since it commenced operations in late 2006. The Commissioner reported that:

…while 252 corruption issues were worked on by ACLEI during the 2018-19 year, by the year end ACLEI had 136 corruption issues on hand. This was a significant reduction, and this trend has continued. As at 31 May this year we had 70 corruption issues on hand. This is a much more manageable workload for the agency, and while we still have some work to do to ensure that we are focusing just on the serious and systemic matters and to ensure that the number of corruption issues that we have on hand is manageable for us, we have taken significant strides in this regard.1

1 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 1.

6

2.4 ACLEI's progress in managing its workload was achieved in part through a consolidation process, which began in 2017-18 and continued in 2018-19, of reviewing and prioritising its existing caseload.2

2.5 Following ACLEI's stocktake of identifying investigations for closure (the bulk of which was undertaken in 2017-18), ACLEI finalised a significant number of investigations during 2018-19. ACLEI identified 113 investigations, of a total active caseload across the reporting period of 252 investigations (of which all but 28 were carried over from previous years), which could be discontinued under section 42 of the LEIC Act. Of these 113 investigations, 107 were discontinued at the discretion of the then Integrity Commissioner, and six were reconsidered and referred back to the jurisdictional agencies for investigation. ACLEI explained that its decision to close investigations was based on its assessment that either:

…there was little likelihood of obtaining a positive result given the evidence obtained to date and further investigation was not warranted in all the circumstances, or because all reasonable avenues of investigation had been exhausted and there were no indications of corrupt conduct or other conduct that should be referred to the agency in question.3

2.6 In the Annual Report, ACLEI emphasised that the process of reviewing and identifying investigations for closure itself takes time, and places further demands on ACLEI's resources. ACLEI pointed out that it needs to balance this process with competing priorities, such as ongoing investigations, and addressing the 'continuing intake of serious and systemic corruption issues that the Integrity Commissioner considers warrants investigation by ACLEI'.4

2.7 The reduction in ACLEI's investigation caseload was also achieved through a process of identifying matters that could be referred back to agencies for investigation, enabling ACLEI to focus its efforts on corruption matters of a serious and systemic nature that warrant ACLEI investigation. As set out in more detail below, six investigations were referred back to the relevant jurisdictional agency for investigation in the 2018-19 year. In total, LEIC Act agencies investigated 278 corruption issues in 2018-19, which accounted for approximately 53 per cent of all corruption issues investigated in the reporting year, and is the highest number of LEIC Act agency investigations conducted in the five years for which figures are provided in the 2018-19 Annual Report (these numbers are discussed in more detail in chapter three).5

2 Mr Dallas Rogers, Acting Executive Director, Operations, ACLEI, Committee Hansard, 20 September

2019, p. 3.

3 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 14.

4 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 26.

5 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 28.

7

2.8 According to ACLEI, the increase in LEIC Act agency investigations demonstrated 'greater confidence in the capacity of agencies to investigate allegations of corruption'.6 The Integrity Commissioner described the process, under section 66 of the Act, which requires an investigating agency to provide a report to the Integrity Commissioner at the conclusion of an investigation, and how this process provides ACLEI with confidence that agencies conducting investigations are doing so in a timely and effective manner.7 This process is discussed in greater detail in chapter 3.

2.9 The focus on only investigating matters of a serious and systemic nature also meant that ACLEI commenced fewer investigations in 2018-19 than in previous years, which further helped it manage its investigation workload through the year. According to the Annual Report, in 2018-19 ACLEI commenced 28 investigations, which was the lowest number of investigations commenced in the five years for which the Annual Report provides data.8

Breakdown of investigations concluded 2.10 In response to a question on notice, ACLEI provided the committee with a breakdown of the outcomes of the 116 investigations concluded in 2018-19. It reported that of those 116 investigations:

 six were reconsidered and referred by the Integrity Commissioner to a jurisdictional agency for investigation pursuant to section 42 of the LEIC Act.9 Of these matters:

− four agency investigations are still ongoing, and − two have been concluded. One resulted in a finding of a breach of the APS Code of Conduct and one resulted in a finding that the allegation was not established.

 three were the subject of reports to the Minister prepared under section 54 of the LEIC Act (that is, where a corruption issue has been fully investigated and a report is prepared for the Minister). Of these matters:

− one involved a referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, who decided not to prosecute. The Integrity Commissioner also made a finding of corruption against one individual and made

6 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 25.

7 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, pp. 2-3.

8 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 26.

9 The Integrity Commissioner can exercise discretion to reconsider how a corruption issue should be

dealt with under section 42—including by deciding to take no further action (and discontinue the investigation) or to refer the matter for investigation by the law enforcement agency the corruption issue relates to.

8

recommendations to the agency head as part of a report under section 54 of the LEIC Act. − one involved a corruption finding but no prosecution or recommendations. − one involved no corruption finding or prosecution but the Integrity

Commissioner made recommendations in the section 54 report.10

2.11 The remaining 107 investigations were concluded as a result of the then Integrity Commissioner exercising his discretion under section 42 of the LEIC Act to take no further action and thus discontinue the investigation. ACLEI further advised that it:

…does not currently collect data in a readily accessible form on the reasons matters are discontinued after reconsideration under s42. ACLEI will consider how it may be able to capture this data in a suitable form to support greater transparency in future.11

Factors affecting delivery 2.12 Although ACLEI is on track to a more manageable workload, the Annual Report 2018-19 highlighted two primary factors impacting its capacity to deliver outcomes during the year: first, the complexity of its investigations;

and second, its ability to recruit and retain staff.12

2.13 ACLEI identified a number of factors that contribute to the complexity of ACLEI's investigations. These included:

 investigations showing the involvement of organised criminal entities;  the need to deploy specialist resources;  the requirements for a high degree of coordination across ACLEI's investigative, intelligence, legal and corruption prevention areas and other

key stakeholders; and  the challenge of investigating individuals well versed in the use of covert capabilities. 13

2.14 ACLEI also noted that:

…as ACLEI's jurisdiction changes, new types of corruption issues may arise that require different methods of investigation. A key example, but not the only one, is the investigation of allegations of visa fraud.14

2.15 ACLEI further reported that it can find it difficult to recruit and retain suitably qualified and experienced staff. This difficulty, as the Annual Report noted,

10 ACLEI, answers to written question on notice, 25 June 2020 (received 9 July 2020).

11 ACLEI, answers to written question on notice, 25 June 2020 (received 9 July 2020).

12 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 33.

13 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 33.

14 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 33.

9

can be explained by a highly competitive labour market in a specialised industry, the need for staff to obtain a high-level security clearance, as well as the challenge for a small organisation to offer sustained career progression, particularly at more senior levels.15

2.16 ACLEI met its maximum average staffing level of 48 in the reporting period, despite the difficulties with the recruitment and retention of staff outlined above. ACLEI noted that with the opening of the Sydney office it expects a wider recruitment pool and a 'greater range of work opportunities' for staff.16

Committee comment 2.17 The committee commends the efforts of the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI staff members to conclude or discontinue older investigations, where it is appropriate to do so, and focus its investigation efforts on matters relating to

serious or systemic corruption. The committee notes that this approach, and a willingness to refer less serious matters back to the relevant agency for investigation when appropriate to do so, has resulted in a more manageable investigation workload for ACLEI.

2.18 Of the 116 investigations concluded in 2018-19, 113 were discontinued under section 42 of the LEIC Act—this number includes six investigations that were reconsidered and referred back to jurisdictional agencies for investigation, with the remaining 107 discontinued at the discretion of the then Integrity Commissioner. In relation to the investigations discontinued at the discretion of the Integrity Commissioner, the committee considers that transparency would likely be enhanced if the reasons for such decisions, at least at a high level, could be captured and reported on an ongoing basis. Such data could, potentially, also provide new opportunities for thematic analysis of the referrals received by ACLEI, and patterns of referrals, even where investigations are discontinued.

Recommendation 1

2.19 The committee recommends that the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) consider how it can collect data on investigations that are discontinued under section 42 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, and report at a high level the reasons why investigations have been discontinued in ACLEI annual reports going forward.

15 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 33.

16 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 13 and 82.

10

The Visa Integrity Taskforce 2.20 The Visa Integrity Taskforce (the taskforce), funded under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), was led by ACLEI and was established in 2017-18, and concluded its work in 2019-20. The taskforce's activities related to alleged

corruption in visa processing. In the reporting period, the taskforce:

 dealt with 46 corruption issues related to visa processing;1  identified and advised senior staff in the Department of Home Affairs on corruption risks and vulnerabilities within the visa processing system; and  educated overseas staff about what constitutes corruption, how to identify

corrupt behaviour and how such behaviour can be reported.2

2.21 The purpose of the taskforce was to 'assure the integrity of Australia's visa system by investigating allegations and intelligence about visa fraud involving law enforcement officers'.3 However, the former Integrity Commissioner, in his foreword to the Annual Report, stated that the taskforce went 'beyond investigating individual allegations of corruption in the visa processing system'.4 The taskforce incorporated corruption prevention activities into its work by drawing on findings regarding the vulnerabilities identified in investigations. As outlined above, the taskforce educated staff in overseas posts on the corruption risks and vulnerabilities in the visa processing system. It also assisted the Department of Home Affairs to strengthen its ability to investigate corrupt activity in visa processing.5

2.22 The work of the taskforce has been integral in helping to strengthen the visa processing system within Australia and overseas, particularly in identifying the vulnerabilities related to the use of local staff in processing visas offshore.6 The taskforce also provided ACLEI with an opportunity to strengthen its relationships with other agencies, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.7

2.23 The Integrity Commissioner advised the committee on the lessons drawn from the taskforce operation. Ms Hinchcliffe stated the taskforce demonstrated how to integrate corruption prevention into investigation operations effectively. She

1 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 1.

2 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 2.

3 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2017-18, p. 27.

4 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 2.

5 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 9 and 26.

6 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 1.

7 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 3, 13 and 26.

11

also highlighted the need to ensure adequate resourcing of taskforces as investigations can continue for long periods.8

Committee comment 2.24 The committee congratulates ACLEI on the successful work of the Visa Integrity Taskforce. The taskforce integrated corruption prevention into operational activities that provided timely advice on corruption risk to key

stakeholders. It exemplified how working in partnership with other law enforcement and integrity agencies can build capability and capacity to combat corruption-enabled crime.

Outcomes from the Australian National Audit Office report 2.25 In August 2018, the ANAO released its report, Operational Efficiency of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (Auditor-General Report No. 4 2018-19). The report outlined the ANAO's findings from its examination

of ACLEI's efficiency in detecting, investigating and preventing corrupt conduct.9

2.26 The audit considered if ACLEI had 'established appropriate arrangements to assess its efficient use of resources', and how ACLEI's efficiency compares with comparable entities and against its own past performance. The audit did not consider ACLEI's operational effectiveness or ACLEI's adequacy of resourcing.10

2.27 The ANAO found that as ACLEI had not 'measured, benchmarked or reported on its efficiency in detecting, investigating and preventing corrupt conduct', it could not conclude whether ACLEI had been operating efficiently. The ANAO further found that its own analysis, and work then underway within ACLEI, indicated that:

…improving case management and prioritisation practices is key to improving ACLEI's operational efficiency as well as aligning its resource allocation with the legislative obligation to focus on serious and systemic corruption.11

8 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 4.

9 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Operational Efficiency of the Australian Commission for

Law Enforcement Integrity, Auditor-General Report No. 4, 2018-19, p. 7.

10 ANAO, Operational Efficiency of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Auditor-General Report No. 4, 2018-19, p. 7.

11 ANAO, Operational Efficiency of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Auditor-General Report No. 4, 2018-19, p. 8.

12

2.28 The ANAO made three recommendations, which are listed in Table 1. ACLEI agreed to recommendation 1 with qualifications, and agreed to recommendations 2 and 3.12

Table 1: ANAO Recommendations

Recommendation no. 1 Paragraph 2.21 ACLEI develop performance measures focussed on the efficiency

of its operations and collect additional data to report on its performance against those measures.

ACLEI's response: Agreed with qualifications.

Recommendation no. 2 Paragraph 2.41 ACLEI investigate whether it could introduce a more structured review

process to support the prioritisation of available resources on a risk basis to the highest value investigations, including time or milestone based intervals to trigger decisions on the ongoing allocation of resources.

ACLEI's response: Agreed.

Recommendation no. 3 Paragraph 3.38 ACLEI periodically compare and benchmark its operational efficiency

against comparable organisations including other anti-corruption bodies, and with its own performance over time, to determine whether changes to its current processes are required.

ACLEI's response: Agreed.

Source: ANAO, Operational Efficiency of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Auditor- General Report No. 4, 2018-19, p. 9.

12 ANAO, Operational Efficiency of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Auditor-General Report No. 4, 2018-19, p. 8.

13

Response to recommendations 1 and 3 2.29 In response to recommendation 1, ACLEI agreed but noted that developing universally agreed measures in a law enforcement context is challenging. ACLEI stated it would gather additional performance data to the extent that

this proves to be an effective and efficient use of its limited resources.13

2.30 ACLEI agreed with recommendation 3 and stated it would periodically compare and benchmark its operational efficiency against comparable organisations and its performance over time, while cautioning that this was unlikely to be a straight comparison. The Integrity Commissioner reiterated this point to the committee, advising that while it is difficult to compare ACLEI's performance with other anti-corruption organisations, there is nonetheless value in undertaking this work. As the Commissioner explained:

This is always a vexed issue for agencies. I can remember when this discussion was happening with DPPs when I was with the Commonwealth DPP many years ago. It was interesting to come and see the same arguments here. We're all a little bit different. We do slightly different things. Our jurisdictions are different, and the way we're set up is different. It is true that it's not the same as comparing apples with apples; however, there are things that we can definitely learn from the other integrity agencies and anticorruption bodies. We can look at the way we're doing things and see how that compares with how they're doing things. In looking at our KPIs, we have looked at the KPIs that other integrity agencies have had, and we've drawn heavily from those. It might not be a straight comparison, but there are ways that we can compare ourselves to other agencies. More importantly, I think, and particularly for small agencies, there are ways we can look at our fellow agencies, both at the Commonwealth and state level, that do similar tasks to us to see how we can draw on some of their learnings so that we are not reinventing the wheel.14

2.31 To address recommendations 1 and 3, ACLEI engaged an external consultant to review its performance reporting. The consultant examined ten comparable organisations and found that:

 applying efficiency measures to assess the performance is difficult because of a lack of consistency between activities, particularly those that involve complex investigations;

 one comparable organisation had an efficiency measure for the average cost of operations; and  there was no evidence of international or industry benchmarks for performance reporting.

13 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 80.

14 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, pp. 5-6.

14

2.32 The consultant provided ACLEI with ten suggestions on how it could improve its performance reporting. ACLEI's management agreed with eight suggestions, either wholly or in part.15

Response to recommendation 2 2.33 ACLEI agreed with recommendation 2 and has taken significant steps to address it. ACLEI has developed two decision and risk tools to determine the priority, risks and potential costs of investigations: the Threat, Risk and

Assessment Model (TRAM), and the Operational Risk Assessment Model (ORAM). The tools enable ACLEI's executive team to monitor operational priorities and resourcing projections.16

2.34 In 2018-19, TRAM was implemented across ACLEI's operational areas. TRAM is applied during the early stages of an investigation and allocates a numerical score to indicate the level of threat and risk. A high TRAM score corresponds to a high threat and risk and allows ACLEI to prioritise investigations and allocate resources accordingly.17

2.35 ORAM was trialled in 2018-19, and aims to inform ACLEI of the operational risk and potential lifetime costs of an investigation. The tool considers several factors relating to an investigation, such as the nature of the target, the location and management of information, and the complexity of the investigation. The Annual Report 2018-19 indicated that the ORAM was expected to be fully implemented in 2019-20.18

2.36 The Integrity Commissioner outlined other measures ACLEI has undertaken to improve its operational efficiency. ACLEI has revised its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for investigations, by considering commencement and completion rates, and investigation timeliness. ACLEI is considering if it can also benchmark the number of investigations finalised in a year to ensure it does not experience a backlog of work. ACLEI has also reached out to LEIC Act agencies to gain an understanding of satisfaction levels with ACLEI's services. Summarising the steps ACLEI has taken in response to the ANAO report, and more broadly the work the agency is doing to better prioritise and manage its investigation workload, the Integrity Commissioner advised the committee:

We have reconsidered all of our KPIs to think about how we can better use the data at our disposal to manage exactly this issue—the case management and prioritisation of our matters—and to see we are getting through the work so we don't end up in a position where we have a

15 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 80.

16 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commission 2018-19, pp. 27 and 31.

17 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commission 2018-19, p. 27.

18 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commission 2018-19, p. 27.

15

backlog, like we had previously. We've been through a process, drawing on the work the ANAO did and some work that we had conducted by an external consultant, to look at our KPIs afresh and some quantitative measures, noting that currently we have very strong qualitative measures but not very many quantitative measures.

We've looked at things like how many investigations we commence in a year, how many investigations we complete in a year, and having the completion rate as a proportion of how many we commenced to make sure that we're not commencing too many and we're actually completing matters, getting them done. We've looked at measures including timeliness measures—measuring the amount of time that investigations are taking us. We're looking at measures including satisfaction surveys. We're also reaching out to agencies and seeing their satisfaction with the way that we are doing our work, noting that we do provide a service. While we're oversight, we do provide a service to other agencies.19

2.37 The Integrity Commissioner also advised that ACLEI has also implemented a 90-day and 180-day review of investigations. At the 90-day review, ACLEI considers 'where the investigation is up to, what the next steps are and whether it should continue with the investigation.' At the 180-day review, investigations are assessed with the intention for it to be finalised. ACLEI will begin to measure against the revised KPIs in the 2020-21 reporting period.20

Committee comment 2.38 The committee considers that the ANAO audit was valuable and instructive. The committee recognises ACLEI's efforts, in part in response to the ANAO audit, in improving its processes for case management and resource allocation,

as well as its methods to measure and report on its performance.

2.39 The committee acknowledges that ACLEI has implemented two tools—the TRAM and ORAM—to prioritise matters of high impact risk and allocate resources to operations appropriately, and welcomes the introduction of the revised KPIs relating to 90-day and 180-day reviews of investigations.

2.40 The committee considers the process of improving and measuring ACLEI's efficiency remains an ongoing one. The committee looks forward to learning about the other changes ACLEI has adopted to improve its ability to collect data, monitor the efficiency of investigations and report on its activities.

Status of the Commonwealth Integrity Commission 2.41 At the end of 2018, the Australian Government announced that it would establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission (CIC) to strengthen integrity arrangements across the federal public service. The proposed CIC, according

to the government, will detect, deter and investigate alleged corruption, and

19 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 5

20 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 5

16

work with agencies to 'build their resilience to corruption and their capability to deal with corrupt misconduct'.21

2.42 The CIC would be an independent statutory authority, led by a Commonwealth Integrity Commissioner with assistance from a Deputy Commissioner for Public Sector Integrity and a Deputy Commissioner for Law Enforcement. The Law Enforcement Division would retain the powers and functions of ACLEI. However, the jurisdiction would expand to cover additional agencies with law enforcement functions and access to sensitive information. The establishing legislation for the CIC is yet to be introduced to the Parliament.22

The progress of the CIC 2.43 The Integrity Commissioner advised the committee that the establishment of the CIC is the responsibility of the Attorney-General Department (AGD), and emphasised that her role is to ensure ACLEI is prepared to be absorbed into

the CIC when required. Ms Hinchcliffe further advised that the $2.2 million ACLEI received as part of the Federal Budget in April 2019 will form part of ACLEI's surplus in the 2019-20 reporting year.23

2.44 In response to a question on notice, ACLEI advised the committee that the Attorney-General, the Hon Christian Porter MP, discussed options for reform to Australia's integrity frameworks with the former Integrity Commissioner, Mr Michael Griffin AM on several occasions. The AGD has continued to correspond with ACLEI on technical points about the practical operation of the LEIC Act to inform the preparation of the draft legislation to establish the CIC.24

Partial coverage of the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment 2.45 At the public hearing, concerns were raised about longstanding issues regarding the fact that ACLEI's jurisdiction covers only parts of the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWR), and how this

can sometimes complicate its investigative efforts. The Integrity Commissioner noted that ACLEI raised the difficulties it experienced with DAWR's partial inclusion in its submission to the committee's inquiry into the integrity of Australia's border arrangements in 2019.25 The matter was also raised in the

21 Attorney-General's Department, Consultation paper - A Commonwealth Integrity Commission -

proposed reforms, 13 December 2019, (accessed 27 July 2020).

22 Attorney-General's Department, Consultation paper - A Commonwealth Integrity Commission -

proposed reforms, 13 December 2019 (accessed 27 July 2020).

23 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Hansard Committee, 25 June 2020, p. 6.

24 ACLEI, answers to written question on notice, 25 June 2020 (received 9 July 2020).

25 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 7.

17

2016 committee inquiry into the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.26

2.46 Currently, ACLEI's jurisdiction includes prescribed aspects of DAWR. However, it has been proposed that the law enforcement division of the CIC will extend its jurisdiction to cover the whole of DAWR, rather than only the current prescribed aspects. This expansion will overcome the difficultly ACLEI has experienced as a result of only having jurisdiction over parts of DAWR stipulated in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Regulations 2017, which are based on the performance of border-related functions and access to coercive powers.27

Committee comment 2.47 The committee acknowledges that the Attorney-General's Department has responsibility for establishing the proposed CIC and that ACLEI is actively assisting AGD to inform the draft legislation for the CIC.

2.48 The committee notes that the proposed structure of the CIC could see the law enforcement division extend its jurisdictional coverage to include the whole of DAWR. Therefore, it is likely that concerns regarding ACLEI's partial coverage of DAWR could be addressed and overcome. The committee considers this approach would likely be welcome, given the concerns the committee and ACLEI have raised regarding this jurisdictional matter over many years now.

26 Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Inquiry into the

jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, May 2016, pp. 13-14.

27 Attorney-General's Department, Consultation paper-A Commonwealth Integrity Commission-proposed

reforms, 13 December 2019 (accessed 27 July 2020).

19

Chapter 3

Performance framework

3.1 The Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) 2018-19 set out the following outcome and corresponding program for the Australian Commission on Law Enforcement and Integrity (ACLEI):

 Outcome 1: Independent assurance to the Australian Government that Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and their staff act with integrity by detecting, investigating and preventing corruption.

 Program 1.1: Detect, investigate and prevent corruption in prescribed law enforcement agencies; assist law enforcement agencies to maintain and improve the integrity of staff members.1

3.2 The PBS also outlined five key performance indicators and correlating targets, which track how ACLEI is progressing toward meeting its outcome.2

3.3 This chapter summarises and assesses ACLEI's results against its performance framework in 2018-19, to the extent such matters were not addressed in the previous chapter on 'key issues'.

Delivery against strategic priorities and activities 3.4 ACLEI’s Corporate Plan 2018-22 identifies ten strategic priorities, with five each listed under 'capability' and 'delivery'.3 These priorities specify ten key activities (each aligned to a priority) for ACLEI to undertake to meet its

performance criteria in 2018-19. The ten activities below have evolved from the 2017-18 activities. 4

Table 1: ACLEI 2018-19 activities to achieve strategic priorities

Strategic priority 2018-19 activities

Integrity leadership Place a focus on Integrity Leadership as a driver of culture and mitigator of risk. Continue to engage with [Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (LEIC Act)] LEIC Act agency heads—and, as appropriate, across government—to focus and align

1 Commonwealth of Australia, Attorney-General’s Portfolio, Portfolio Budget Statements 2018-19,

pp. 61-62.

2 Commonwealth of Australia, Attorney-General’s Portfolio, Portfolio Budget Statements 2018-19,

pp. 62-63 and Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), Corporate Plan 2018-22, p. 8.

3 ACLEI, Corporate Plan 2018-22, p. 3

4 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 7.

20

anti-corruption efforts. Encourage innovation and sharing of insights and methods between anti-corruption practitioners.

Government strategy Respond to priorities of Government, including the implementation of the Home Affairs Portfolio, the strengthening of whistle-blower protections, and continuing reviews of ACLEI's jurisdiction and resources. Contribute to external reviews and dialogues about ACLEI's role in the public sector integrity framework.

Corruption-enabled crime Engage with relevant agencies to strengthen joint understandings of corruption methods and

motivations—including in administration of biosecurity, anti-money laundering and visa arrangements—and the role of corruption as an enabler of serious crime types. Continue to partner with State-based law enforcement and integrity agencies to share criminal intelligence relating to law enforcement and border corruption.

Internal culture Maintain and reinforce a professional, adaptive culture across ACLEI's Canberra and Sydney locations—focussing on efficiency, accountability and delivering value. Strengthen measures of resource allocation and undertake regular case management reviews to ensure agency resources are directed effectively. Look for opportunities to automate workflow and digitise records.

Priority setting Integrate decision and risk tools into everyday practices that better support operational case selection and resource allocation in a more complex organisational environment. Undertake a feasibility study to improve case data management, intelligence linking and statistical reporting.

Intelligence gathering Further invest in ACLEI's ability to detect serious and systemic corruption through the enhancement of ACLEI's intelligence collection capability— including through human intelligence collection and undercover operations—as well as targeted detection projects and investigation task forces with other agencies.

21

Technical capabilities Consolidate gains already made in ACLEI's key operational capabilities—namely, forensic financial analysis, law enforcement data access, and legal service delivery—to enhance operational efficiency and effectiveness, and to better manage operational risk.

Prevention Proactively disseminate information about corruption risks and vulnerabilities to assist LEIC Act and other relevant agencies to disrupt insider threat. Work with LEIC Act agencies to continue to attune their integrity systems to a dynamic risk environment.

Relationships Explore new or strengthened relationships with counterpart agencies, and more broadly, to build capability and capacity to combat corruption-enabled crime. Assess the feasibility of establishing additional interstate taskforces or offices, where such a measure would lead to breakthroughs or otherwise improve outcomes.

Facilities Commission a fit-for-purpose secure operations facility in Sydney.

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 3.

3.5 The Annual Report 2018-19 lists various projects, actions and deliverables undertaken throughout the reporting period which correspond to the planned 2018-19 activities. 5 As the committee also noted in its examination of the Annual Report 2017-18, the activities do not have quantitative or qualitative measures, making it difficult to ascertain whether they met expected outcomes.

Annual performance statement 3.6 ACLEI's Annual Performance Statement 2018-19 presents ACLEI's results against each PBS performance criteria. For the 2018-19 reporting period, ACLEI concluded it had 'performed well or strongly against its performance

measures'.6

5 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 8-13.

6 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 23.

22

Performance criterion one—the corruption notification and referral system is effective 3.7 Criterion one relates to the effectiveness of ACLEI’s corruption notification and referral system and is measured against the following:

 law enforcement agencies notify ACLEI of corruption issues and related information in a timely way;  other agencies or individuals provide information about corruption issues, risks and vulnerabilities to ACLEI;  partner agencies indicate confidence in sharing information or intelligence

with ACLEI;  ACLEI prioritises credible information about serious or systemic corruption; and  ACLEI supports awareness-raising activities in agencies within the Integrity

Commissioner’s jurisdiction, including by participating in joint initiatives. 7

3.8 ACLEI reports that the heads of LEIC Act agencies are notifying ACLEI of corruption issues as required, demonstrating an effective notification and referral system. The Annual Report 2018-19 highlights that LEIC Act agencies 'engage positively with their obligations to notify the Integrity Commissioner of corruption issues' and that a majority of notifications are provided in a timely manner.8

3.9 The then Integrity Commissioner, Mr Michael Griffin AM, held meetings with all LEIC Act agencies during the reporting period to ‘reinforce the importance of timely notifications’, and to inform the respective agencies of specific corruption vulnerabilities identified through investigations and how these vulnerabilities might be addressed.9

3.10 Partner agencies, according to the Annual Report, 'continue to indicate confidence in sharing information and intelligence with ACLEI', shown through their willingness to share corruption issues and take part in joint investigations. As a majority of ACLEI investigations are conducted with partner agencies and with a number of staff seconded between ACLEI and partner agencies, cooperative relationships are crucial to the success of the investigations. 10

3.11 During the reporting period, ACLEI staff delivered 26 presentations to both LEIC Act agencies and the broader public service to support awareness-raising activities. ACLEI also held a number of training sessions for agencies under its

7 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 23.

8 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 23-24.

9 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 23.

10 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 24.

23

jurisdiction to strengthen and refine integrity systems and the notification process.11

Notifications from LEIC Act agencies 3.12 In 2018-19, the number of notifications from LEIC act agencies to ACLEI decreased slightly from the previous year. The number of notifications from LEIC Act agencies from 2014-15 to 2018-19 is detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Notifications from LEIC Act agencies, 2014-15 to 2018-19

Year 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Number 71 185 135 128 115

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 24.

3.13 A total of 88 notifications were received for abuse of office in 2018-19.12 Although this total has fallen from the previous two reporting periods, abuse of office remains the primary driver of corruption notifications.

3.14 Corruption issues notified in 2018-19 remained more or less stable for the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC). Corruption notifications increased for the then Department of Agriculture13 and decreased for the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs). Further detail is provided in Table 3, below. The notifications for 2018-17 are indicated in brackets.

Table 3: Corruption issues notified in 2018-19 under section 19—by corruption class, as assessed upon receipt ACIC AFP Dept

Ag

AUSTRAC Dept Home Affairs

Total

Abuse of office 4 (2) 42 (48) 10 (2) 0 (0) 32 (51) 88 (103)

Pervert the course of justice

0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 3 (1)

Corruption of any other kind

0 (1) 22 (18) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (5) 24 (24)

11 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 24.

12 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 67.

13 The Department of Agriculture is now known as the Department of Agriculture, Water and the

Environment.

24

Total 4 (3) 66 (66) 10 (2) 0 (0) 35 (57) 115

(128)

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 67.

Referrals from other sources 3.15 ACLEI reported that other government agencies continue to provide credible information about corruption to ACLEI. This information often arises incidentally when these agencies are conducting criminal investigations. The

number of referrals fluctuates year to year, dependent upon the operational focus of these external agencies. In 2018-19, 87 per cent of corruption issues referred from other sources concerned 'abuse of office'.14 The number of referrals provided by other sources for 2018-19 is detailed in Table 4.

Table 4: Referrals from other sources

Referrals from other sources

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Government agencies only

24 39 18 24 12

Total referrals (all sources)

30 48 19 28 31

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 24.

3.16 ACLEI states it fosters inter-jurisdictional partnerships to support a continued flow of referrals and sharing of credible information, including by holding regular meetings with state-based law enforcement agencies. 15

Own-initiative investigations 3.17 Under the LEIC Act, the Integrity Commissioner has the power to commence investigations without a notification or referral. In 2018-19, ACLEI commenced three such investigations—two for Home Affairs and one for

AUSTRAC, and all related to an alleged ‘abuse of office’.16

14 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 69.

15 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 24.

16 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 71.

25

Assessment notifications 3.18 ACLEI assesses notifications and referrals against the Integrity Commissioner's guidelines on assessing priority concerning serious or systemic corruption. In 2018-19, 141 assessments were completed within 90 days of receipt. Further

details are in Table 5.

Table 5: Assessment statistics, 2014-15 to 2018-19

Assessment statistics 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Total assessments completed

120 190 193 167 141

Number that met the 90-day benchmark

100 120 172 167 141

% that met the 90-day benchmark (against the target of 75%)

83% 63% 89% 100% 100%

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 24.

3.19 At the public hearing on 25 June 2020, the Integrity Commissioner was asked if the key performance indicator (KPI) for assessing notifications had changed. The Integrity Commissioner responded that a new KPI—90 per cent of assessments to be completed within 30 days—had been implemented and the results will be reflected in the 2019-20 reporting period. A KPI has not been implemented for the remaining 10 per cent of assessments. However, the Integrity Commissioner also advised that:

We haven't put a second KPI on about the additional 10 per cent but I'm happy to go away and have a think about that. Yes, I would be expecting that it would be outliers that can't be done in the 30 days and it would be because there was some particular technical issue that we needed some advice on. For example, sometimes there can be difficult technical issues about whether a matter actually falls within our jurisdiction—those types of issues—which need some legal advice.17

3.20 The Integrity Commissioner further advised that ACLEI has recently implemented a new assessment board to support the assessment of matters

17 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 4.

26

within a shorter timeframe. The board meets weekly to review assessments and make recommendations to the Integrity Commissioner. Ms Hinchcliffe emphasised that assessments need to be completed 'as quick as possible' so the matter can be investigated or referred to another authority if it constitutes criminality.18

Committee comment 3.21 The committee supports ACLEI’s continued effort to work closely with LEIC Act agencies to encourage prompt notification of corruption issues, and the sharing of integrity risks and vulnerabilities.

3.22 The committee also commends ACLEI on its achievement of completing 141 assessments within 90-days of receipt and acknowledges ACLEI has implemented a new KPI for the next reporting period—90 per cent of assessments to be completed within 30 days of receipt. The committee notes that the Integrity Commissioner indicated she is willing to consider implementing a KPI for the remaining 10 per cent of assessments. The committee looks forward to learning of the results against this KPI in future reporting years.

Performance criterion two-investigations are conducted professionally and efficiently, and add value to the law enforcement integrity system 3.23 Criterion two relates to the professional and efficient conduct of ACLEI’s investigations and the value that ACLEI adds to the law enforcement integrity

system. Criterion two requires that:

 each investigation considers corruption risk and the broader impact on law enforcement outcomes;  operational resources are actively managed and targeted for maximum effect; and  risks relating to the operating context of law enforcement agencies are taken

into account and, in appropriate circumstances, mitigation strategies are agreed with the agency concerned.19

3.24 ACLEI reported positive operational results for 2018-19. These included:

 five prosecutions concluded with convictions;  three final investigation reports provided to the Minister;  the Visa Integrity Taskforce's success in investigating allegations of corruption in visa processing; and

 a number of disseminations of information were completed, providing criminal intelligence, vulnerability assessments or to enable disciplinary action concerning serious breaches of duty.20

18 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 4.

19 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 25.

27

Decrease in investigations 3.25 ACLEI's total active investigations decreased from a historic high of 282 investigations in 2017-18, to 252 in 2018-19. As discussed in chapter 2, ACLEI's workload had been trending upwards since 2015-16, when its jurisdiction

expanded to include the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection. This expansion resulted in an increase in the number of investigations commenced by ACLEI and the number of investigations carried forward into later years. However, the number of investigations commenced in 2018-19, at 28, was the lowest it has been in the five years for which the Annual Report has observed. Refer to Table 6 and Table 7 below.

Table 6: Corruption issues investigated by ACLEI (including joint investigations), 2014-15 to 2018-19

Corruption issues investigated by ACLEI

2014-15 2016-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Number commenced 42 76 107 55 28

Total active in the year 75 144 242 282 252

Number concluded 7 8 14 52 116

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 25.

3.26 As noted in the previous chapter, by the end of 2018-19, ACLEI had 136 investigations under investigation, a notable reduction from the high of 230 at the end of 2017-18. Of the 136 investigations, 92 concerned Home Affairs (approximately 68 per cent). Notably, there was a 91 per cent reduction in the number of investigations carried forward relating to the Australian Federal Police, from 82 investigations in 2017-18 to 18 in 2018-19. 21

20 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 2, 17 and 26.

21 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 74.

28

Table 7: ACLEI investigations carried forward to 2018-19, by year of notification or referral22

ACLEI or joint investigations [(s. 26(1)(a) and s. 26(2)]

ACIC AFP Dept

Ag

AUSTRAC Dept Home Affairs

Total

2009-10 3 (3) 0 (0) N/A N/A N/A 3 (3)

2010-11 0 (0) 2 (2) N/A N/A 0 (0) 2 (2)

2011-12 2 (2) 2 (4) N/A N/A 1 (1) 3 (5)

2012-13 0 (0) 0 (0) N/A N/A 0 (2) 0 (2)

2013-14 0 (0) 2 (9) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (4) 3 (15)

2014-15 1 (2) 1 (8) 0 (1) 0 (0) 5 (8) 7 (19)

2015-16 3 (4) 3 (31) 3 (3) 0 (0) 11 (25) 20 (63)

2016-17 2 (2) 5 (23) 3 (7) 0 (0) 38 (46) 48 (78)

2017-18 1 (3) 3 (7) 2 (2) 0 (0) 27 (31) 33 (43)

2018-19 3 3 1 1 11 19

Total under investigation by ACLEI as of 30 June 2019

15 (16) 18 (82) 10 (15) 1 (0) 92 (117) 136

(230)

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 74.

Reviewing investigations for closure 3.27 In 2018-19, ACLEI concluded 116 investigations, a significant increase from the 52 investigations concluded in 2017-18; numbers in preceding years were smaller still—7 in 2014-15, 8 in 2015-26, and 14 in 2016-17. This notable

reduction, as discussed in chapter 2, was largely achieved through ACLEI's work to discontinue investigations where appropriate to do so.23 Refer to chapter 2 for further information on this process, including a breakdown and discussion of the outcomes of these 116 concluded investigations.

22 Figures in brackets are investigations carried forward into 2017-18.

If a matter is closed and subsequently re-opened, or the Integrity Commissioner reconsiders how a matter should be dealt with, the original date of the notification or referral is retained.

23 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 14.

29

Positive operational work 3.28 In 2018-19, three investigation reports were provided to the Minister (accounting for three of the 116 investigations concluded during the year). These included:

 Operation Volker—an investigation into alleged false document production by a staff member of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources;  Operation Delaney—an investigation into whether an Australia Border Force officer improperly disclosed sensitive information; and  Operation Chloris—an investigation into the conduct of a staff member of

the Home Affairs concerning a corruption issue.24

3.29 Additionally, five prosecutions arising from ACLEI investigations were concluded. Four of the five individuals prosecuted were employed by agencies within ACLEI's jurisdiction at the time of offending—one by Home Affairs, one by the Department of Agriculture, and two by the AFP—and a fifth person prosecuted had been a member of the then Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, but not at the time of offending.25

3.30 ACLEI highlighted the work of the Corruption Prevention and Intelligence Assessments Team. The team was integrated into operational teams to 'identify vulnerabilities observed in the course of investigations, disseminate information to agencies and provide insight into current and emerging integrity risks.'26 Additionally, ACLEI completed a 'successful covert project assessing the corruption vulnerabilities in one element of a jurisdictional agency' and detected early indicators of corruption and high-risk individuals. The project proved the methodology for detecting early indicators of corruption and high risk individuals and provided useful information for the agency involved.27

Committee comment 3.31 The quantitative results from this reporting period demonstrate ACLEI is working towards a more manageable workload, with investigations dealt with in an effective and efficient manner to reduce workload backlog.

24 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 64-65.

25 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 17.

26 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 27.

27 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 11 and 27.

30

Performance criterion three—monitor corruption investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies 3.32 Criterion three considers ACLEI's support to LEIC Act agencies undertaking internal investigations, specifically that:

 all agency corruption investigation reports provided to ACLEI for review are assessed for intelligence value and completeness; and  ACLEI liaises regularly with the agencies' professional standards units about the progress of agency investigations.28

Corruption issues investigated by LEIC Act agencies 3.33 In 2018-19, LEIC Act agencies investigated 278 corruption issues, which accounts for approximately 53 per cent of all corruption issues under investigation (noting that 252 corruption issues were investigated by ACLEI,

including joint investigations). This was the highest number of LEIC Act agency investigations conducted in the past five reporting years, as shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Corruption issues investigated by LEIC Act agencies, 2014-15 to 2018- 19

Corruption issues investigated by LEIC Act agencies*

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

Number referred to agencies during the year

42 54 54 88 79

Total active in the year 134 136 183 232 278

Number concluded in the year

57 21 70 30 66

Source: ACLEI, Annual Report 2018-19, p. 28.

3.34 Home Affairs and the AFP conducted the majority of the internal investigations for 2018-19 (approximately 45 per cent each). ACLEI conducted

28 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 27.

31

regular review meetings with these agencies to discuss the progress of these internal investigations. 29

Section 66 reports 3.35 When an LEIC Act agency completes a corruption investigation, the agency head is required under section 66 of the LEIC Act to prepare and provide a report to the Integrity Commissioner setting out, among other things, the

agencies findings, and actions taken or proposed to be taken. In 2018-19, the Integrity Commissioner reviewed 65 section 66 reports, compared to 26 in 2017-18.

3.36 While the Integrity Commissioner may, under section 67 of the LEIC Act, make comments or recommendations back to the agency head on a section 66 report, in 2018-19 the then Integrity Commissioner did not comment on any of the 65 section 66 reports reviewed. During the public hearing, the current Integrity Commissioner stated that ACLEI has several processes to support ‘well-rounded investigations’ including a senior investigator to review draft section 66 reports, and a point of contact for LEIC Act agencies to seek advice and feedback. She assured the committee that if section 66 reports came to her that were deficient, she would not hesitate to notify the agency head under section 67 of the LEIC Act.30

3.37 The Integrity Commissioner also acknowledged that ACLEI had improved the process of managing section 66 reports by tightening the procedures over the reporting process, following up with agencies to ensure they investigate and send through section 66 reports. The Integrity Commissioner predicted that agencies would undertake more investigations in 2019-20 and ACLEI will retain oversight to ensure that they are completed on time.31

3.38 ACLEI advised in the Annual Report that in 2019-20 it would:

…review its processes for monitoring the progress of investigations by LEIC Act agencies and for the consideration of section 66 reports. The aim of the review is to put in place more effective processes with improved monitoring, and to maximise the value obtained from review of section 66 reports.32

Committee comment 3.39 The committee notes that in 2018-19 LEIC Act agencies investigated a historically high number of corruption issues. The committee acknowledges that ACLEI has continued to prioritise the investigation of serious and

29 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 28.

30 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, pp. 2-3.

31 Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, Integrity Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 25 June 2020, p. 2.

32 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 28.

32

systemic corruption issues and refer lower risk matters back to LEIC Act agencies for investigation. The increase in LEIC Act agencies conducting their own investigations over the past five years demonstrates ACLEI’s growing confidence in these agencies to appropriately manage corruption matters.

3.40 The committee also recognises the important role the Integrity Commissioner has in reviewing LEIC Act agencies section 66 reports. The committee is comfortable the Integrity Commissioner will use section 67 under the LEIC Act to provide feedback and recommendations on reports to heads of LEIC Act agencies, if required.

3.41 The committee looks forward to ACLEI's findings from its review of how it monitors the progress of investigations by LEIC Act agencies and how to maximise the value of section 66 reports.

Performance criterion four—insights contribute to accountability and anti-corruption policy development 3.42 Criterion four addresses ACLEI's accountability and anti-corruption policy development, particularly:

 the Integrity Commissioner makes recommendations for improvement in corruption prevention or detection measures;  submissions that relate to corruption prevention or enhancing integrity arrangements are made to government or in other relevant forums;  targeted presentations about integrity are made to diverse audiences; and  the Integrity Commissioner's Annual Report or other publications contain

analysis of patterns and trends in law enforcement corruption.33

Promote anti-corruption and corruption detection measures 3.43 In 2018-19, ACLEI shared insights into corruption methods and motivations and engaged with stakeholders on anti-corruption work. Activities included:

 the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI staff delivered 39 presentations to domestic and international audiences on integrity risks, vulnerabilities within systems and processes, and corruption prevention;

 ACLEI staff attended a number of forums with a host of international law enforcement counterparts;  ACLEI published a major report, International Deployments: corruption risks for law enforcement, that provided 20 recommendations to mitigate potential

corruption risk across the deployment cycle, and released a number of awareness-raising factsheets and short videos;  ACLEI contributed to a joint submission with other integrity agencies to the inquiry by the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

33 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 28.

33

Review of the Telecommunication and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 in April 2019; and,  ACLEI staff participated in three meetings of the Community of Practice for Corruption Prevention and provided input on amendments to the Crimes

Act 1914 (Cth).34

Patterns and trends in law enforcement 3.44 ACLEI's investigations and intelligence operations provide insights into patterns and trends in law enforcement corruption. ACLEI shares these insights with stakeholders to strengthen anti-corruption frameworks and to

educate stakeholders about corruption methods and motivations, including how agencies can respond to corruption threats.

3.45 In 2018-19, a large portion of ACLEI's investigation activity related to 'potential corruption-enabled border crime, such as the importation of illicit drugs, visa fraud, and attempts to gain commercial advantage through the circumvention of Australia's biosecurity processes'.35 ACLEI found criminal entities, companies and individuals using 'sophisticated methods' to corrupt law enforcement officers and obtain sensitive information.36

3.46 The personal circumstances of law enforcement officers, such as problem gambling and illicit drug use, can increase their vulnerability to exploitation or lead to corrupt conduct. ACLEI has reported that social capital is an emerging driver of corruption vulnerabilities. Social capital, defined by ACLEI as the 'non-monetary benefit and/or improved social standing that can be gained through corrupt conduct' may motivate officers to act corruptly.37 For example, ACLEI identified social capital motivators within the visa-processing environment where locally engaged staff in overseas posts may face social pressures to make favourable decisions when granting visas. 38

3.47 ACLEI reported that in 2018-19, it devoted resources to investigate allegations of corruption by senior staff of LEIC Act agencies. While the number was small, the seniority of the staff involved makes it sensitive and requires monitoring by the Integrity Commissioner. Investigations into administrative activities continued, and as noted in ACLEI's previous annual report, most behaviours were misconduct rather than corruption. Still, they could be classed as corruption if rampant, contributing to a toxic workplace.39

34 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 8, 13, 29 and 30.

35 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 18.

36 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, pp. 18-19.

37 ACLEI, Corruption Prevention Concepts: Social Capital, November 2019, p. 1.

38 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 19 and ACLEI, Corruption Prevention

Concepts: Social Capital, November 2019, p. 1.

39 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 19.

34

Committee comment 3.48 The committee commends ACLEI for its effort to reinforce anti-corruption measures throughout 2018-19. The committee recognises that ACLEI’s anti-corruption strategies such as sharing research analysis and resources, engaging

with relevant agencies, and contributing to the development and strengthening of integrity structures, are essential to prevent corruption in law enforcement agencies.

3.49 The committee notes the trends and patterns that ACLEI has described in its Annual Report 2018-19. Of particular interest are the insights (including those drawn from the Visa Integrity Taskforce operation, which was discussed in the previous chapter) to understand and educate others on how social capital can expose law enforcement officers to corruption risk. The committee considers that this will likely be an increasing risk going forward, and will continue to monitor with interest how ACLEI responds to it.

Performance criterion five—ACLEI’s governance and risk management controls are effective and take account of its operational role 3.50 Criterion five considers ACLEI’s internal risk management processes to ensure:

 systems are in place to ensure ACLEI officers act ethically, comply with legislative requirements and adhere to standards set by the Integrity Commissioner; and

 regular reviews and audits indicate effective governance, risk management and integrity.40

3.51 During the reporting period, ACLEI reviewed its risk management framework and controls. ACLEI stated the agency updated its:

 Standard Operating Procedures which guide 'staff members on best practice when performing administrative and operational tasks';  Fraud and Corruption Control Plan;  Risk Management Framework;  Business Continuity Plan; and  property and security plan to include the Sydney office.41

3.52 ACLEI's Annual Report 2018-19 outlined several strategies it has in place to ensure its operations are supported by effective governance, risk management and integrity. These strategies include various recruitment practices, reviews and audits of operations and guidance and governance-related boards and committees.

40 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 30.

41 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 31.

35

3.53 ACLEI noted that its Internal Governance Board meets monthly and receives reports about 'ACLEI's governance, performance, human and financial resources, corruption prevention and outreach activities, and to monitor operational risks and resources and compliance with legislation'.42 ACLEI's Audit Committee meets five times a year. It provides 'independent assurance and assistance to the Integrity Commissioner on ACLEI's risk, control and compliance framework and its financial performance statement responsibilities'. 43

3.54 Potential ACLEI employees underwent a number of integrity checks including one-on-one interviews, criminal background checks, psychological assessments and a security questionnaire. Once employed, staff must comply with the integrity reporting scheme and maintain an appropriate security clearance. Staff members also undertake general and ACLEI-specific training according to a mandatory training calendar.44

Ombudsman inspections

Ombudsman report on controlled operations 3.55 The Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) annually releases the Report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities in monitoring controlled operations. To date, no report has been released for the 2018-19 period.

However, in the first half of 2020, the Ombudsman released two reports covering the periods 1 July to 2017 to 30 June 2018 and 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017, which address ACLEI's involvement in controlled operations. As these reports could not be discussed in the committee's examinations of the Annual Report 2016-17 and the Annual Report 2017-18, they are included here for the sake of completeness.

3.56 The Ombudsman's Report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s activities in monitoring controlled operations (1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018) states the Ombudsman conducted two inspections on ACLEI's premises and assessed three controlled operations authorities during 2017-18. The findings state that no compliance issues were identified during the inspections, and ACLEI had a number of good administration practices including, 'contemporaneous record keeping for each controlled operation.'45

3.57 In accordance with section 15HM of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ACLEI provided the Ombudsman with its six-monthly reports for the periods 1

42 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 76.

43 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 76.

44 ACLEI, Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19, p. 31.

45 Commonwealth Ombudsman, A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s activities in monitoring

controlled operations-1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, January 2020, p. 6.

36

January to 30 June 2017 and 1 July to 31 December 2017, and its Annual Report 2016-17 under Part 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The Ombudsman noted it was satisfied ACLEI provided the required information in all reports, except for two instances in the report from 1 July to 31 December 2017 where it identified information was incorrect. However, ACLEI rectified the incorrect information and provided an amended report to the Minister and the Ombudsman.46

3.58 The Report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities in monitoring controlled operations (1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017) states that no inspections of ACLEI's controlled operations records were conducted in 2016-17, as ACLEI advised the Ombudsman that no controlled operations authorities expired or were cancelled from 1 January to 31 December 2016. It further states that in 2015-16, no compliance issues were identified regarding previous inspections. The Ombudsman was satisfied ACLEI provided the required information in its reports submitted under section 15HM for the periods 1 January to 30 June 2016 and 1 July to 31 December 2016, as well as its Annual Report 2015-16 according to Part 1AB.47

3.59 Section 218 of the LEIC Act requires the Commonwealth Ombudsman to provide a briefing to the committee at least once each year about the Integrity Commissioner’s involvement in controlled operations under Part 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) during the preceding 12 months. The committee must meet in private to receive such a briefing.

Ombudsman report on surveillance devices 3.60 The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report to the Minister for Home Affairs on agencies’ compliance with the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (1 January to 30 June 2019) details the outcomes from an inspection of ACLEI’s surveillance records

which took place on 13 and 14 May 2019. The inspection assessed records from 1 January to 31 December 2018 and identified two issues: a retrieval warrant issued twice by an issuing authority and non-compliance with section 49 reporting obligations, and inaccuracies in section 49 reports to the Minister. Following the inspection, ACLEI advised the Commonwealth Ombudsman it had amended and provided the Minister with revised reports.48

46 Commonwealth Ombudsman, A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s activities in monitoring

controlled operations-1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, January 2020, p. 6.

47 Commonwealth Ombudsman, A report on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s activities in monitoring

controlled operations-1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017, August 2018, p. 5.

48 Commonwealth Ombudsman, Report to the Minister for Home Affairs on agencies’ compliance with the

Surveillance Devices Act 2004-1 January to 30 June 2019, September 2019, pp. 5-8.

37

Committee conclusion 3.61 The committee is satisfied ACLEI has performed strongly against the five performance criteria for 2018-19. ACLEI has shown it has made significant progress in addressing its increasing workload by reducing work on hand and

ensuring it is focusing on matters of serious and systemic corruption, and allocating resources appropriately. Simultaneously, ACLEI delivered positive investigative and operational results, such as five prosecutions all resulting in convictions, and productive outcomes from the Visa Integrity Taskforce.

3.62 The committee appreciates that ACLEI is increasingly managing more complex investigations and that corruption risks rapidly evolve. ACLEI demonstrated that its ability to manage this increasing complexity is increased through integrated approaches to operations and corruption prevention. Integrating corruption prevention capability into investigations has allowed ACLEI to monitor and respond to emerging risks and vulnerabilities promptly, allowing agencies to be more proactive in their response to the threats identified.

3.63 Throughout the year, ACLEI continued to foster and strengthen its relationships with key stakeholders and share information about corruption vulnerabilities to build anti-corruption expertise. A variety of corruption prevention strategies are vital in creating environments where it is difficult for corruption to occur. The committee encourages ACLEI to explore how it can further assess and report on the outcomes of its prevention work.

3.64 The committee is confident ACLEI will continue improving case management and prioritisation to deliver better operational effectiveness and efficiency. The committee looks forward to learning about the progress and outcomes from a number of positive initiatives in this regard, as highlighted in the Annual Report 2018-19 and by the Integrity Commissioner at the public hearing.

3.65 Finally, the committee commends the Integrity Commissioner, Ms Hinchcliffe, and the staff of ACLEI for their work over the reporting period and for a comprehensive annual report.

Senator Paul Scarr Chair

39

Appendix 1 Public hearings

Thursday, 25 June 2020 Committee Room 2S3 Parliament House Canberra

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity  Ms Jaala Hinchliffe, Integrity Commissioner  Ms Lucinda Atkinson, Executive Director Secretariat  Mr Malcolm Nimmo, Acting Executive Director Operations  Ms Carolyn Nixon, Director Corruption Prevention and Intelligence

Assessments

41

Appendix 2 Additional information

Additional Information 1 Ms Lucinda Atkinson, Executive Director Secretariat, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), correspondence 11 June 2020.

Answer to Question on Notice 1 ACLEI, answers to questions on notice, 25 June 2020 (received 9 July 2020). 2 ACLEI, answers to questions on notice, 25 June 2020 (received 9 July 2020).