Australian Commission forLaw Enforcement IntegrityCorporate Plan2015 –16

ISSN 2205-3654 (online); 2205-3662 (print)

Contact ACLEI

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
GPO Box 605
Canberra ACT 2601
AUSTRALIA

Phone: (02) 6141 2300; +61 2 6141 2300
Fax: (02) 6230 7341; +61 2 6230 7341
Corruption Hotline: (02) 6141 2345; +61 2 6141 2345
Email:

Copies of this document are available on ACLEI’s website, , at About ACLEI.

Enquiries about the content of this document should be directed to .

Acknowledgements

Produced by: Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
Designed by: GRi.D Communications, Canberra, ACT
Printed by: Union Offset, Canberra, ACT

© Commonwealth of Australia 2015

With the exception of the Coat of Arms and where otherwise stated, all material presented in this document is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (). Thislicense only applies to material as set out in this document.

This publication should be attributed as the
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity 2015–16 Corporate Plan.

The terms under which the coat of arms may be used can be found on the It’s an Honour website, at .

Statement of preparation

GUIDEACLEI 2015–16 Corporate Plan

This Corporate Plan sets out the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI)’s strategic priorities and describes how its performance will bemeasured.

ACLEI’s enabling legislation, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (the LEIC Act) provides the basis for ACLEI’s purpose and activities. The Portfolio Budget Statements specify the outcome, programme, objective and deliverables that government expects ACLEI to achieve in a given year and in forward years. The Corporate Plan links those documents and the Annual Performance Statement in each of the Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Reports by setting out ACLEI’s priorities forthefour-year term of the plan.

Performance reporting: line of sight

Table of contents

Statement of preparation

PART 1 ACLEI’s Purpose

PART 2 Strategic context

PART 3 Strategy

PART 4 Performance measures

Compliance index

PART 1ACLEI’s Purpose

Part one provides an overview of ACLEI’s objectives, functions and role under the LEICAct and as set out in the 2015–16 Portfolio Budget Statements.

ACLEI’s role under the LEIC Act

The office of the Integrity Commissioner, and ACLEI, are established by the LEIC Act. The Integrity Commissioner’s functions under the LEIC Act are to detect, investigate and prevent corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies within his or her jurisdiction. The objects of the LEIC Act (at section 3) are:

a)to facilitate:

  1. the detection of corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies; and
  2. the investigation of corruption issues that relate to law enforcement agencies; and

b)to enable criminal offences to be prosecuted, and civil penalty proceedings to be brought, following those investigations; and

a)to prevent corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies; and

b)to maintain and improve the integrity of staff members of law enforcement agencies.

To achieve those objects, the LEIC Act charges the Integrity Commissioner with duties and obligations and provides a range of law enforcement powers.

ACLEI’s function is to support the Integrity Commissioner to provide independent assurance to government about the integrity of prescribed law enforcement agencies and their staff members by detecting, investigating and preventing corrupt conduct. ACLEI also collects intelligence about corruption in support of the Integrity Commissioner’s functions.

The agencies subject to the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction are:

  • the Australian Border Force*
  • the Australian Crime Commission (and the former National Crime Authority)
  • the Australian Federal Police (including ACT Policing)
  • the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)
  • the CrimTrac Agency
  • prescribed aspects of the Department of Agriculture, and
  • the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.*

*The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (including the Australian Border Force) joined the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction on 1 July 2015, in place of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. Other agencies with law enforcement functions may also be added by regulation.

More-detailed information about the Integrity Commissioner’s functions under the LEIC Act can be found at under About Us.

The 2015–16 Portfolio Budget Statements

The Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) specify the outcomes, programmes, objectives and deliverables that government expects each agency to achieve in a given year.

ACLEI has one outcome, programme, objective and deliverable in 2015–16, as shown.

The Integrity Commissioner’s strategic focus, as recorded in the 2015–16 PBS, is to gather and share information about—and, when appropriate, investigate—serious and systemic corruption issues that:

  • may indicate a link between law enforcement and organised crime
  • involve suspected conduct, such as the private use of illicit drugs, which would undermine an agency’s law enforcement functions
  • bring into doubt the integrity of senior law enforcement officers and managers
  • relate to law enforcement activities that have a higher inherent corruption risk
  • warrant the use of the Integrity Commissioner’s information-gathering powers, including hearings, or
  • would otherwise benefit from independent investigation.

In this way, ACLEI’s resources and the Integrity Commissioner’s coercive and other powers are targeted to those corruption issues in which there would be benefit in ACLEI’s direct and active involvement.

To achieve its outcome, ACLEI has defined six output and activity groups, linked to the deliverable outlined in the PBS. These groups are set out in this diagram and explained in the following pages.

More information about how ACLEI’s performance will be measured is contained in Part 4 of this Plan.

ACLEI’s programme outputs and activities

The Integrity Commissioner aims to ensure that indications and risks of corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies are identified and addressed, to strengthen those agencies against compromise. The LEIC Act establishes a framework whereby the Integrity Commissioner and the relevant agency headscan prevent and deal with corrupt conduct jointly and cooperatively.

The following programme outputs and activities summarise ACLEI’s contribution and impact, namely to: detect indications of corrupt conduct and corruption vulnerabilities, disrupt corrupt conduct throughinvestigations and mitigating corruption risk, and deter corrupt conduct by strengthening anti‑corruption arrangements.

Detect

  • Instances of possible corrupt conduct are identified
  • Vulnerabilities and corruption risks are identified
  • The LEIC Act provides that law enforcement agency heads must notify the Integrity Commissioner of any information or allegation about possible corrupt conduct in their agencies.
  • Other people, including the Minister, other government agencies, members of the public or staff members of agencies in jurisdiction may also refer matters to the Integrity Commissioner.
  • ACLEI works with the LEIC Act agencies and other partners to bring together and analyse information about the factors that may allow or indicate, corrupt conduct and to target areas at risk.

Disrupt

  • Instances of possible corrupt conduct are addressed
  • Information is given to partner agencies to mitigate corruption risk and vulnerabilities
  • The Integrity Commissioner determines independently how each notification and referral should be dealt with and may initiate an investigation on his or her own initiative.
  • The Integrity Commissioner has the authority to investigate a corruption issue independently or jointly, to refer issues back to the agency—or to another agency—for investigation, or to decide that investigation is not warranted in the circumstances.
  • The Integrity Commissioner also brings forward evidence for prosecution or disciplinary action, and disseminates information to address or prevent corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies.

Deter

  • Insights about corruption risk contribute to strengthening anti‑corruption frameworks
  • The Integrity Commissioner may make recommendations for improvements to laws of the Commonwealth or the administrative practices of law enforcement agencies.
  • Drawing on lessons learned from investigations, ACLEI captures and shares anti corruption insights as broadly as possible.
  • ACLEI contributes to agency corruption detection and prevention initiatives, to address possible systemic vulnerabilities.

ACLEI’s enabler outputs and activities

The Integrity Commissioner is the Accountable Authority for ACLEI under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (the PGPA Act) and is required to govern ACLEI in a way which promotes the proper use and management of public resources, the achievement of ACLEI’s purposes and its financial sustainability.

The PGPA Act requires the Integrity Commissioner to establish and maintain systems relating to risk and control, encourage cooperation with others (including by taking into account the risks and effects of imposing requirements on others) and to keep the responsible Minister and Finance Minister informed.

The following enabler outputs ensure that ACLEI’s governance, financial and management arrangements support its goal of making it more difficult for corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies to occur or remain undetected, and that the Integrity Commissioner’s focus remains directed to the strategic aspects of corruption control.

Capable and Strategic

  • Operational resources are matched to the task and targeted for maximum effect
  • Cooperative arrangements with partner agencies make effective use of resources and specialistskills
  • ACLEI places emphasis on ensuring it has the skills, powers andtechnical capabilities required to investigate corruption in lawenforcement.
  • The Integrity Commissioner must give priority to issues that constitute serious corruption or systemic corruption, and has the ability to agree with agency heads what types of issues may be significant in the context of each agency’s risk environment.
  • Joint initiatives are an important part of the ACLEI business model. For example, ACLEI may enter into joint investigations to ensure the most appropriate combination of skills, knowledge and resources is applied to each issue.

Well-governed andEfficient

  • Governance and risk management arrangements take account of ACLEI’s operational role
  • Staff maintain high professional standards
  • Financial and management controls ensure the proper use ofresources
  • Particular governance risks arise from ACLEI’s role of investigating corrupt conduct in law enforcement agencies. For instance, the harm which would be caused by fraud or corruption within ACLEI could be direct and long lasting, affecting ACLEI’s relationships, investigations, and its ability to perform its functions.
  • ACLEI places emphasis on developing and meeting sound integrity protocols and governance arrangements, which are overseen by its Governance Board and independent Audit Committee.
  • Robust financial and management controls assure the government that ACLEI’s resources are directed to the achievement of its legitimate objectives.

Lawful and Fair

  • Legislative obligations for use of powers are met
  • Powers are used ethically and proportionally
  • Sensitive and personal information is managed securely andrespectfully
  • Various laws hold the Integrity Commissioner accountable for ACLEI’s proper use of a range of investigation powers—for example, coercive hearings, telecommunications interception, technical surveillance, controlled operations and integrity testing.
  • Any proposal to use powers under the LEIC Act is subject to review by the General Counsel, an Executive Director or the Integrity Commissioner. Each approval is accompanied by a record of the reasons for the decision.
  • Mechanisms are in place to ensure ACLEI handles information accountably, securely and respectfully.

PART 2Strategic context

Seven factors will continue to affect ACLEI’s work in 2015–16 and for
the term of thisPlan.

1.The economic environment

Globally, Australia remains one of the most lucrative markets for illicit drugs. A combination of tough economic conditions and high illegal profits from organised crime activities—such as the importation or supply of illicit drugs—may mean that some law enforcement officers could be more susceptible to corruption or compromise.

Corruption-enabled border crime creates an incentive for criminals and corrupt officials to form networks across different agencies (horizontal collusion) or between Commonwealth and State jurisdictions (vertical collusion). ACLEI seeks to identify and dismantle such networks and connections and—for this reason—fosters cooperative partnerships with law enforcement and integrity agencies in the States and Territories.

2.Changing criminal objectives

Corruption has a central role in enabling or facilitating other types of serious and organised crime. However, the types of organised criminal activity giving rise to attempts to corrupt law enforcement officers changes over time. Corruption could be used to undermine law enforcement investigations, frustrate immigration and border controls, or take advantage of regulatory or identity document security systems. In the organised crime milieu, corruption is a simple cost of doing business. ACLEI’s role in this context is to ensure that corruption is not a barrier to the achievement of law enforcement agencies’ legitimate objectives.

3.Corruption is a moving target

The ways in which organised crime operates are constantly changing, in part as a result of what ACLEI refers to as the effectiveness paradox. For example, as intelligence-driven law enforcement agency and border protection activities become more effective, there is a greater incentive for organised crime to corrupt government officers to gain knowledge and capability to evade them. Additionally, as ACLEI and its law enforcement partners become more successful at detecting and preventing corruption, it drives organised crime to seek alternative, new and sometimes harder-to-detect means to achieve their illegal ends.

Accordingly, ACLEI must continue to develop new partnerships and capabilities—including human source, cyber and forensic accounting and data analytic capabilities—to enable it to have an effect on the corruption environment. Re-skilling or up-skilling existing staff, sharing resources and capabilities across agencies, capitalising on goodwill in industry and other areas of government and forging new connections outside the public sector could all form part of this approach.

4.Other corruption enablers

The Australian Crime Commission has identified money laundering to be an important enabler of serious and organised crime, which involves using professional facilitators to exploit legitimate business structures. This situation may mean that further investment in ACLEI’s capability to examine financial records would be required in future years. Forging strong operational relationships with agencies that have law enforcement roles relating to the movement and reporting of funds—for example, AUSTRAC and the Australian Taxation Office—will remain at the heart of this strategy.

5.Jurisdiction

As part of a suite of measures to strengthen and enhance Australia’s border services, the Government integrated the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service from 1 July 2015. The Australian Border Force was also established within the DIBP. This integration will continue to require close attention to counter the corruption opportunities that could arise during and after that significant structural change.

On 1 July 2015, both the DIBP and Australian Border Force joined the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction. The DIBP is likely to bring new forms of law enforcement corruption issues to the Integrity Commissioner’s attention—for example, corrupt conduct which could facilitate identity, migration or visa fraud. There will be inevitable challenges for ACLEI in understanding this new operating environment.

The quantum and complexity of corruption issues arising from the DIBP jurisdiction is also unknown. Accordingly, an implementation review is planned after 18 months, to inform the 2017–18 Budget. Another review—relating to the Integrity Commissioner’s jurisdiction of AUSTRAC, the CrimTrac Agency and prescribed aspects of the Department of Agriculture—is anticipated to inform the 2019–20 Budget.

In addition, at July 2015, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ACLEI is conducting an inquiry into the LEIC Act jurisdiction, and—separately—into the integrity of Australia’s border arrangements. These inquiries may lead to further changes in ACLEI’s operating context.

6.Lessons from experience

While ACLEI’s statutory object includes any corrupt conduct by designated staff members of law enforcement agencies, ACLEI applies its resources to the corruption issues where it can have the most impact on strengthening the system overall. This approach is mandated by the LEIC Act which directs that the Integrity Commissioner must give priority to serious corruption and systemic corruption.

The Integrity Commissioner’s leadership in this area will become increasingly important as its jurisdiction changes, the number of notifications and referrals increases and the complexity and scope ofinvestigations evolves.

ACLEI’s experience has been that it is important not to finalise an investigation until all appropriate avenues of inquiry have been pursued. A broad focus on corruption and its harms—rather than on more limited criminal offences—provides opportunities to disrupt entire corrupt networks, capture both the corrupted and the corruptors and, most importantly, to harden law enforcement agencies against compromise.

7.Dealing with change

The resources and expertise needed for any individual investigation changes daily. Additionally, ACLEI may have a fluctuating number of investigations and operations of differing sizes and complexity in progress at any point in time. ACLEI achieves its objectives in part through the willing cooperation of the agencies within its jurisdiction and, on occasion, of other Australian law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies.

Due to its size, ACLEI is susceptible to productivity, operational and business continuity risks associated with changes in staffing. A particular challenge for 2015–16 will be to manage change as ACLEI grows from 38 to 52 staff members, across two geographic locations. One important aspect of this challenge will be to convey ACLEI’s values and operating ethos to new staff members and operational partners.

PART 3Strategy

To achieve its aims, ACLEI must manage uncertainty, engage with risk, and be flexible, agile and capable.

ACLEI’s strategic priorities for 2015–16 and twelve priority groupings to 2019 are intended to build and maintain an agency with these characteristics—one which will make the best use of set resources for maximum effect.