According to the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption). 

www.icac.nsw.gov.au/about-corruption/what-is-corrupt-conduct

Corrupt conduct, as defined in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake. It has to involve or affect a NSW public official or public sector organisation.

While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:

  • a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others
  • a public official acts dishonestly or unfairly, or breaches public trust 
  • a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust.

The NSW community expects public officials to perform their duties with honesty and in the best interests of the public. Corrupt conduct by a public official involves a breach of public trust that can lead to inequality, wasted resources or public money and reputational damage.

Some examples of corrupt conduct are:

  • a local councillor voting in favour of a development in which the councillor has an undisclosed financial interest
  • a member of the public bribing an official to pass a drivers licence test
  • a former public official selling confidential information gained while working in an official capacity.

For the ICAC to be able to pursue a matter (that is, for the matter to be within ICAC jurisdiction), the corruption must involve or affect a NSW public official or public authority.

If the ICAC is to consider investigating the matter, the conduct must also meet the conditions set out in section 9 of the ICAC Act. These conditions are that the conduct could constitute or involve:

  • a criminal offence, or
  • a disciplinary offence, or 
  • constitute reasonable grounds for dismissing or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or
  • in the case of a member of the NSW Parliament or local government councillor, a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct.

Types of public sector conduct other than those defined in the ICAC Act, such as instances of poor administration or a personal grievance are best referred to another agency such as the NSW Ombudsman or the Anti-Discrimination Board. A matter is also outside the ICAC's jurisdiction if it relates to complaints against private sector organisations, non-public officials or Federal Government bodies in a way which has no connection to the NSW public sector.

The full definition of corruption which applies to the ICAC is detailed in sections 7, 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act

Views: 987

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act

Corrupt conduct is defined in sections 7,8 and 9 of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988.

7 Corrupt conduct

(1) For the purposes of this Act, corrupt conduct is any conduct which falls within the description of corrupt conduct in either or both of subsections (1) and (2) of section 8, but which is not excluded by section 9.

(2) Conduct comprising a conspiracy or attempt to commit or engage in conduct that would be corrupt conduct under section 8 (1) or (2) shall itself be regarded as corrupt conduct under section 8 (1) or (2).

(3) Conduct comprising such a conspiracy or attempt is not excluded by section 9 if, had the conspiracy or attempt been brought to fruition in further conduct, the further conduct could constitute or involve an offence or grounds referred to in that section.

8 General nature of corrupt conduct

(1) Corrupt conduct is:

(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or

(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions, or

(c) any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or

(d) any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.

(2) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority and which could involve any of the following matters:

(a) official misconduct (including breach of trust, fraud in office, nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, oppression, extortion or imposition),

(b) bribery,

(c) blackmail,

(d) obtaining or offering secret commissions,

(e) fraud,

(f) theft,

(g) perverting the course of justice,

(h) embezzlement,

(i) election bribery,

(j) election funding offences,

(k) election fraud,

(l) treating,

(m) tax evasion,

(n) revenue evasion,

(o) currency violations,

(p) illegal drug dealings,

(q) illegal gambling,

(r) obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others,

(s) bankruptcy and company violations,

(t) harbouring criminals,

(u) forgery,

(v) treason or other offences against the Sovereign,

(w) homicide or violence,

(x) matters of the same or a similar nature to any listed above,

(y) any conspiracy or attempt in relation to any of the above.

(3) Conduct may amount to corrupt conduct under this section even though it occurred before the commencement of this subsection, and it does not matter that some or all of the effects or other ingredients necessary to establish such corrupt conduct occurred before that commencement and that any person or persons involved are no longer public officials.

(4) Conduct committed by or in relation to a person who was not or is not a public official may amount to corrupt conduct under this section with respect to the exercise of his or her official functions after becoming a public official.

(5) Conduct may amount to corrupt conduct under this section even though it occurred outside the State or outside Australia, and matters listed in subsection (2) refer to:

(a) matters arising in the State or matters arising under the law of the State, or

(b) matters arising outside the State or outside Australia or matters arising under the law of the Commonwealth or under any other law.

(6) The specific mention of a kind of conduct in a provision of this section shall not be regarded as limiting the scope of any other provision of this section.

9 Limitation on nature of corrupt conduct

(1) Despite section 8, conduct does not amount to corrupt conduct unless it could constitute or involve:

(a) a criminal offence, or

(b) a disciplinary offence, or

(c) reasonable grounds for dismissing, dispensing with the services of or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or

(d) in the case of conduct of a Minister of the Crown or a member of a House of Parliament—a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct.

(2) It does not matter that proceedings or action for such an offence can no longer be brought or continued, or that action for such dismissal, dispensing or other termination can no longer be taken.

(3) For the purposes of this section:

"applicable code of conduct" means, in relation to:
 

(a) a Minister of the Crown—a ministerial code of conduct prescribed or adopted for the purposes of this section by the regulations, or

(b) a member of the Legislative Council or of the Legislative Assembly (including a Minister of the Crown)—a code of conduct adopted for the purposes of this section by resolution of the House concerned.

"criminal offence" means a criminal offence under the law of the State or under any other law relevant to the conduct in question.

"disciplinary offence" includes any misconduct, irregularity, neglect of duty, breach of discipline or other matter that constitutes or may constitute grounds for disciplinary action under any law.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), conduct of a Minister of the Crown or a member of a House of Parliament which falls within the description of corrupt conduct in section 8 is not excluded by this section if it is conduct that would cause a reasonable person to believe that it would bring the integrity of the office concerned or of Parliament into serious disrepute.

(5) Without otherwise limiting the matters that it can under section 74A (1) include in a report under section 74, the Commission is not authorised to include a finding or opinion that a specified person has, by engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in subsection (4), engaged in corrupt conduct, unless the Commission is satisfied that the conduct constitutes a breach of a law (apart from this Act) and the Commission identifies that law in the report.

(6) A reference to a disciplinary offence in this section and sections 74A and 74B includes a reference to a substantial breach of an applicable requirement of a code of conduct required to be complied with under section 440 (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, but does not include a reference to any other breach of such a requirement.

 

bump, I want to see where this is going.

There is no act detailed by the original poster as to how BOF might be acting corruptly. 

ie its 2 comments worth of boring definition that should have been left in a link and not posted, and no action to verify against it.

I was thinking sentence one just about does it. 

"a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others"

Perhaps even sentence two.

"a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust."


Then further down the page. 

"

If the ICAC is to consider investigating the matter, the conduct must also meet the conditions set out in section 9 of the ICAC Act. These conditions are that the conduct could constitute or involve:r 

  • constitute reasonable grounds for dismissing or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or
  • in the case of a member of the NSW Parliament or local government councillor, a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct."

And 

"Conditions which may allow corruption to occur

Corruption can occur in many situations. It is more likely, however, where some of the following occur: 

  • communication and reporting lines are unclear
  • employees have high levels of discretion in their decision-making"
The Sydney morning herald reports they are not making dual role submissions public. 

"The laws come after an inquiry run by the Department of Local Government on dual roles for MPs received 452 submissions, more than half of which dealt with the City of Sydney. Don Page, the Minister for Local Government, said the submissions were half in support of changing the law and half opposed.

They have not been made public because so many of them contained defamatory remarks about councillors and MPs, Mr Page said



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/moore-blasts-ofarrell-for-push-to-get-her...
And another condition that may allow corruption to occur is..
  • "employees develop close relationships with external stakeholders"
 (Such as supporting James packer to use public space in order to open a 2nd casino. I also believe news limited is classed as an external stakeholder.)
And...
  • "accepted ethical standards are lacking"
Is kicking someone out of their council or seat for something other than being corrupt or voted out unethical?

You elect officials to run the publically owned things as best they see fit, preferably according to stated policies they stated before you elected them.  Bending over and letting big business have its way with the state assets is pretty much the standard operating policy of both the 2 prime parties these days, and has been the liberal party way pretty much since inception.

IMO labor party deals regarding barangaroo and firesales of electricity assets would be far closer to the definition of corruption - which is why they reached lawsuit and investigation stages.

Clover Moore is not being kicked out of either position, OFarrell is attempting to prevent her being re-elected to both in the future by changing rules - so she is forced to choose.  It is to be expected that someone elected to change rules, changes them.  

I disagree with that policy, because the OFarrell desired alternative is to have a liberal party figurehead in one of the positions, which is pointless as a stuffed shirt robot obeying party lines brings no new thought to debate or adds to consensus government - ie we'd have less effective government if OFarrell gets his way.

" ie we'd have less effective government if OFarrell gets his way."

Now theres an awfully unsettling possibility and not just for Cyclists either. Wonder if NZ will take me back?

fret not, NZ will take all of us!

 

If we all went then the average IQ of both nations might drop.

Quoting you. 

"Clover Moore is not being kicked out of either position, OFarrell is attempting to prevent her being re-elected to both in the future by changing rules - so she is forced to choose.  It is to be expected that someone elected to change rules, changes them."


"If the ICAC is to consider investigating the matter, the conduct must also meet the conditions set out in section 9 of the ICAC Act. These conditions are that the conduct could constitute or involve:r 

  • constitute reasonable grounds for dismissing or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or
  • in the case of a member of the NSW Parliament or local government councillor, a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct."
Isn't "preventing someone from being re-elected"  "dismissing" or "terminating"?


You are reading that entirely backwards and going directions it just doesn't go. 

It is saying that if the act concerned would normally constitute grounds for dismissing a public official, then that would also constitute grounds for ICAC investigation. It does not in any way define dismissing or termination as a corrupt act.

In any case, parliament is DISSOLVED prior to a general election.  There are no members of parliament between dissolution and election.

So is it not a conflict of interest? 
 conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs.

Didn't they pass a bill in 1981 to prevent this type of stuff happening?

Accountability Mechanisms for Members of Parliament. 

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key...

The ICAC was created 7 years later and sure they may not be interested, but doesn't any liberal involved in passing the anti dual roles legislation have a conflict of interest? 

Why do you just ask that question about the Liberals? Surely Clover Moore has the same conflict of interest when she votes against it?

The problem with this line of argument is that the proposed policy will actually force, I believe off the top of my head, more coalition MPs to make a choice between which of the two roles they wish to continue than any other party. As such, overall the law could be seen to be impacting negatively on those that pass it to a greater extent than those that are against it.

I think you are trying define membership of a political party as a conflict of interest for a member of parliament, which just won't work.

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service