Corrupt Conduct

As a unit of public administration (UPA) the University has legislative obligations under the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (CC Act) and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC).

It is the responsibility of the Integrity Unit to ensure that the University’s legislative obligations under the CC Act are met. This involves maintaining policies and procedures with regard to corrupt conduct matters, assessing and dealing with complaints or information about the conduct that may amount to corrupt conduct, and notifying the CCC of such matters if the conduct is reasonably suspected to amount to corrupt conduct as defined by the CC Act.

You can view the precise legal definition for corrupt conduct here but there are essentially two different types, "Type A" or "Type B".

Type A Corrupt Conduct

Type A corrupt conduct involves conduct by any person that affects, or could affect, how officers from a UPA (i.e. the University) perform their functions or exercise their powers. The conduct must satisfy three essential elements:

1.Effect of the conduct

The conduct adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the performance of functions or the exercise of powers of:

• a unit of public administration (UPA) or

• an individual person holding an appointment in a UPA.

2.Result of the conduct

The conduct results, or could result, directly or indirectly, in the performance of functions or the exercise of powers mentioned above in a way that:

• is not honest or is not impartial; or

• involves a breach of the trust placed in a person holding an appointment, either knowingly or recklessly; or

• involves a misuse of information or material acquired in or in connection with the performance of functions or the exercise of powers of a person holding an appointment.

3.Seriousness of the conduct

The conduct would, if proved, be:

• a criminal offence; or

• a disciplinary breach providing reasonable grounds for terminating the person’s services, if the person is or were a holder of an appointment.

For example…

Conduct	Type A corrupt conduct because…
A cashier steals $200 paid to the University by a student.	The conduct adversely affects the performance of the University through the misuse of resources (i.e. the $200). Is dishonest and a breach of trust. Is a criminal offence (i.e. a theft) and also grounds for termination (i.e. is serious misconduct).

Some other common examples of Type A corrupt conduct include fraud (e.g. misuse of a corporate credit card), unauthorised release of information and nepotism.

Type B Corrupt Conduct

Type B corrupt conduct involves conduct by any person that impairs, or could impair, public confidence in public administration. Again, the conduct must satisfy three essential elements:

1.Effect of the conduct

The conduct impairs, or could impair, public confidence in public administration?

2.Type of conduct

The conduct involves, or could involve, one of the following types of conduct:

• collusive tendering;

• fraud relating to an application for a licence, permit or other authority under an Act that has any of the following purposes or objects:

− protecting people’s health or safety

− protecting the environment

− protecting or managing the use of the State’s natural, cultural, mining or energy resources

• dishonestly obtaining, or helping someone to dishonestly obtain, a benefit from the payment or application of public funds or the disposition of State assets;

• evading a State tax, levy or duty or otherwise fraudulently causing a loss of State revenue;

• fraudulently obtaining or retaining an appointment.

3.Seriousness of the conduct

The conduct would, if proved, be:

• a criminal offence; or

• a disciplinary breach providing reasonable grounds for terminating the person’s services, if the person is or were a holder of an appointment.

Advice

Suspected corrupt conduct about the University or its staff can be reported directly to the IU or alternatively to the CCC. The IU can provide you with advice and support in relation to the identification, prevention and management of corrupt conduct matters and matters that may amount to a Public Interest Disclosure. The University has a zero-tolerance stance on fraud and corruption and all staff must report suspected corrupt conduct in accordance with the University’s Staff Code of Conduct and Fraud and Corrupt Conduct Policy - with managers and supervisors being particularly responsible for doing so.

It is important to note that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (PID Act) affords legislative protection from reprisal (i.e. a detriment) to those who make disclosures about fraud and corruption. The University strongly supports public interest disclosures being made and has a Public Interest Disclosure Policy for the management of such matters.