Taking the temperature of Commonwealth integrity initiatives – Reflections on the NACC in action

During December 2024, the NACC released the results of Australia’s first Commonwealth Integrity Survey. The NACC surveyed 58,309 public service employees responding from 171 of the 191 government service agencies. The results provide an indicator of the current general approaches to, and understandings of, corruption across the APS. This survey is important in assisting the maintenance of public confidence in government agencies and guiding identification of areas for targeted improvement.

Some key results from the participants are:

•  96% of the participants felt confident they can identify corruption in their area of responsibility;
•  88% indicate willingness to report corruption if they have direct access to specific details; and
• 79% have faith in the integrity of their agency.

However, the questions that tested the survey participants’ comprehension – measured in part by their responses to hypothetical scenarios – demonstrate that despite the high levels of confidence recorded and willingness to act with integrity, there may be some misunderstanding as to what constitutes corruption and what actions should be taken. Only 20% of survey participants provided the best response across all five scenarios.  

As the survey results imply, correctly identifying and managing conflicts of interest can sometimes be a difficult or complex task.

Indeed, the Inspector of the NACC found that the NACC itself could have better managed an apprehended conflict of interest in decision making concerning the NACC’s investigation of the Robodebt Royal Commission referrals. The NACC Commissioner identified and declared a potential conflict of interest in relation to one of the individuals person referred to the NACC by the Royal Commission for potential investigation.  A delegate was designated to make decisions concerning whether the referrals from the Royal Commission would be investigated, however the Commissioner remained involved in discussions and aware of information concerning the decision making. The Inspector ultimately found that this continued involvement amounted to “officer misconduct” within the meaning of that term in the NACC Act by the NACC Commissioner (see Inspector’s Report into the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s decision not to investigate referrals from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme | Inspector of the National Anti-Corruption Commission).

This finding underscores the complexity of managing conflicts of interest. It also illustrates the challenges that can attach to effectively managing these circumstances in the variety of organisational context and circumstances in which they may arise.

Commonwealth Integrity Maturity Framework

The NACC is the key sponsor of the Commonwealth Integrity Maturity Framework.  This is a set of 8 integrity principles with corresponding governance obligations and controls designed with the intent of supporting agencies to review and improve the design and effectiveness of their organisational integrity frameworks.  Each integrity principle is accompanied by a 4-level maturity scale, with each level of maturity building on the previous level. 

© Commonwealth of Australia.

The McCullough Robertson Government team drew some particular observations from the framework, based on our familiarity with corruption matters and experience in state public interest disclosure and anti-corruption jurisdictions.

• Principle 1 – Values and Code of Conduct – The higher level capabilities for Principle 1 draw attention to the need to close out individual investigations regarding misconduct with a centralised approach analysing trends and outcomes. This provides a basis for learning, systems improvement and refining of integrity policies and procedures.  It is this element of improvement and self-review that can often be overlooked in agencies where the ‘squeaky wheels’ of individual disciplinary outcomes, operational impacts and necessary rectifications take centre stage.  Much like the new orthodoxy of safety management, there is a real value in creating space for lesson-drawing and refinement across individual matters.
• Principle 2 – Integrity knowledge and performance management – The highest level maturity for the performance management indicator within Principle 2 anticipates that individuals will be assessed, both randomly and periodically, to determine if and how integrity knowledge is being applied in practice in the workplace. Our observation is that performance development in this area is often clouded by operational priorities and the necessary work of ‘doing government’.  Making this assessment effective, actionable and meaningful is an enduring challenge.
• Principle 4 – Integrity risk management – The higher level indicators within Principle 4 rightly identify the importance of a pro-integrity culture. We see a key way to develop such a culture to be, after ensuring the policy and procedural frameworks are sound (as required by Principle 3), to ensure policies that support integrity are well understood and that utilising them appropriately is destigmatised and promoted. For example, significant improvements to the integrity culture of an organisation could occur simply from ensuring that the communications from the agency regarding reporting and managing conflicts of interest are positively framed and encouraging of disclosure. If it is acknowledged by an agency that having a conflict of interest does not mean that someone is engaging in wrongdoing, but that conflicts simply need to be reported and managed, the decrease in stigma is likely to increase reporting of conflicts and in turn improve an agency’s ability to manage them proactively.