Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I am pleased to present the committee's report on the inquiry into integrity testing, entitled Inquiry into integrity testing. Since July this year, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has been conducting an inquiry to consider the possible introduction of a law enforcement integrity testing framework at the Commonwealth level. In that context, the inquiry addressed issues including types of integrity testing, its effectiveness both in corruption investigations and as a deterrent, the question of safeguards, the necessity of legislation and, of course, the likely role of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, under such a framework.

Integrity testing is a term that is used to describe a range of activities that are designed to assess compliance with the governing integrity requirements of an office or agency. In essence, integrity testing involves putting an individual in a simulated situation where corrupt behaviour can occur and then observing the individual's behaviour. Such a test can be arranged on a targeted basis, as a result of specific intelligence about an individual or group, or on a random basis in order to provide a general deterrent.

Simple examples of such a test in the context of police integrity might involve the leaving of valuable items at a crime scene in order to watch that the correct procedures for dealing with such property are followed or putting false information in a database to test whether a person suspected of unlawful disclosure of information would see that information and disclose it.

Integrity testing of police officers already occurs in a number of jurisdictions, including New York City, Hong Kong, London and most Australian states, although not currently at the Commonwealth level. Experience from those places has shown integrity testing to be a very effective tool. The introduction of integrity testing would complement Australia's existing integrity arrangements and would assist the government in its actions against serious and organised crime.

In its report the committee has recommended that a targeted integrity testing program initially apply to Commonwealth law enforcement agencies within ACLEI's jurisdiction. ACLEI was established in December 2006 to provide anti-corruption oversight of law enforcement at the Commonwealth level and currently oversees the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

In making its recommendations the committee does not allege the existence of widespread or serious corruption in Australian law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies take their governance and accountability requirements very seriously. However, the potential for corruption suggests the need for effective measures to combat corruption, and integrity testing is a useful tool to incorporate into the range of integrity measures that already exist. What is more, integrity testing is in keeping with the basic principle that corruption is best fought through prevention and vigilance. As the committee heard from witnesses to the inquiry, integrity testing can speed up investigations and enhance the ability of agencies to mitigate corruption risks.

The committee considered the dangers represented by entrapment, or inducement as it is known in the Australian context, and noted that the key test for avoiding inducement in integrity testing is to ensure that there is a clear and equal opportunity for any person who is the subject of a test to pass or fail the test. It is important to ensure that law enforcement officers or staff are not placed in situations that would not be expected to occur as part of their ordinary duties. The committee acknowledges that integrity testing may use significant law enforcement powers in some circumstances, which is why the committee has recommended appropriate legislation be put in place with safeguards including: the requirement for the Integrity Commissioner to be notified; the discretion for the Integrity Commissioner to be involved in or take control of integrity tests; and oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and reporting to the parliament.

The committee wishes to express its appreciation to all parties who contributed to the conduct of this inquiry, whether by making a written submission, by attending a public hearing or, as in many cases, by making both written and oral submissions. I particularly wish to thank the New York Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau and the New York City Commission to Combat Police Corruption for their valuable informal briefings on integrity testing during a personal visit to New York this year.

Finally, as the Chair of the PJC on ACLEI I would like to express my appreciation to my fellow committee members for their contribution to and enthusiasm regarding this inquiry, as well as the dedicated work and professionalism, as always, of the committee secretariat, including secretary Dr Jon Bell, senior research officer Bill Bannear, research officer Victoria Robinson-Conlon and administrative officers Rosalind McMahon, Hana Jones and Hannah Dibley.

See this speech in context