Under the Crime and Corruption Act (CC Act), corrupt conduct includes:
There are two types of corrupt conduct under the CC Act:
|
Duty to notify the CCC about corrupt conduct
Reporting obligations
Public officials have a statutory obligation to report suspected corrupt conduct to the CCC as per section 38 of the CC Act. In councils, the public official is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). In practice, the CEO will usually delegate this authority to an appropriate senior council officer.
The CC Act also requires the council to have in place a policy setting out how complaints against the CEO, involving corrupt conduct, will be dealt with. The policy must nominate an appropriate person who will be responsible for managing the complaint and notifying the CCC. This person may be a council officer, or the mayor, or another councillor.
You don't need a formal complaint to report. Any information suggesting a reasonable suspicion of corruption can be enough. For example, findings from an internal audit or during grievance resolution might raise suspicion.
What is reasonable suspicion?
- Evidence required: There must be some evidence that makes a reasonable person suspect corrupt conduct. This is more than just a guess.
- Objective assessment: The suspicion must be based on an objective look at the information you have, not just personal opinions. It is not sufficient for you to subjectively decide that someone is or is not capable of the alleged conduct.
- Hearsay and inadmissible material: Even information that wouldn't be allowed in court can be relevant for raising suspicion.
You do not have to prove that the corrupt conduct happened. The facts and evidence should suggest that if the allegation were true, it would amount to corrupt conduct.
When not to notify the CCC
- No reasonable suspicion: If you do not have a reasonable suspicion, you do not need to notify the CCC.
- Clear evidence against the allegation: If you have direct knowledge or evidence that clearly shows the allegation is not true, you do not need to report it.
Learn more CCC Corruption in Focus – A guide to dealing with corrupt conduct in the Queensland public sector |
Scenario: Misconduct vs. corrupt conduct
The scenario below illustrates how a councillor’s conduct may be misconduct (which can be investigated by the OIA) and provides an example of what further elements might make it corrupt conduct (which can be investigated by the CCC).
Scenario | Not corrupt conduct because… | Might become corrupt conduct if… |
|---|---|---|
| A councillor tells friends at a barbecue about a confidential council decision relating to future zoning. | This would be misconduct, as it involves the councillor disclosing confidential information gained due to their position as a councillor. It is not corrupt conduct because it is not a criminal offence. | The friends at the barbecue are local developers who regularly provide hospitality and gifts to the councillor, and who will benefit financially from knowledge of the new zoning. The three elements of corrupt conduct would now be present - effect of the conduct, result of the conduct, and seriousness of the conduct*. The conduct would fall within the offence provisions in the LGA (s. 171(1)) and the COBA (s. 173(1)). |
*Corrupt conduct must satisfy each of the following elements:
- Effect of the conduct adversely affects the power or function of the agency or agency employee.
- Result of the conduct involves conduct that is not honest or impartial, OR involves a breach of the trust placed in a person holding the appointment – either knowingly or recklessly, OR involves misuse of information or material.
Seriousness of the conduct is either a criminal offence OR reasonable grounds for dismissal.
For the conduct of a councillor to amount to corrupt conduct, it must involve a criminal offence. This is because, as a publicly elected official, a councillor cannot be dismissed for a disciplinary breach.
