Who we are
Integrity Oversight Victoria (formerly the Victorian Inspectorate) was established in 2013 by the Victorian Inspectorate Act 2011, now the Integrity Oversight Victoria Act 2011, to oversee other integrity, accountability and investigatory bodies and their officers.
We currently oversee 15 other integrity bodies including IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman and provide independent assurance to Parliament and the people of Victoria that integrity bodies act lawfully and properly.
Our functions
The functions we perform differ for each body that we oversee—our jurisdiction and powers are established by the Integrity Oversight Victoria Act 2011 and 19 other Acts of Parliament (see Appendix B for a full list). Under those Acts we generally:
- receive, assess and handle complaints(opens in a new window) about some of the bodies that we oversee
- receive public interest disclosures(opens in a new window) and assess those that fall within our jurisdiction
- conduct investigations and inquiries(opens in a new window) within our jurisdiction
- monitor the exercise of coercive or covert powers by the integrity bodies that we oversee
- conduct inspections(opens in a new window) of Victoria Police records and other integrity bodies that use covert powers (e.g. surveillance devices, telecommunications interceptions, controlled operations and counter-terrorism activities).
We also undertake monitoring projects as a proactive way of checking compliance across a broad range of issues or in depth in relation to a particular theme or issue that is within our statutory functions.
Choosing how to respond
How to respond to non-compliance by the bodies that we oversee can be challenging. It is important that we select the most appropriate action that will influence positive behaviour, lead to improvement, and strengthen Victoria’s integrity system.
Our integrity responses to non-compliance aim to prevent issues of a similar nature arising in the future. In choosing the best way to respond, we need to consider, amongst other things, the integrity body’s readiness to comply, the need for accountability, and the prevention of harm to individuals and to Victoria’s integrity system.
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 guide our approach to the welfare of anyone our responses or actions may affect, within a witness welfare framework that includes a policy, guidelines, training and support services.
Our integrity response guidelines help to ensure our responses to non-compliance are well-considered and consistent against criteria that meet our purpose.
Integrity response options
Most integrity bodies willingly comply with their statutory obligations and respond positively to our guidance about those obligations and how to meet them.
A private response may be appropriate where there is consensus on an issue and a party is willing to comply.
Where issues are systemic with relevance to other bodies, it may be more appropriate for us to publish information, guidance and education material.
Sometimes when issues are particularly serious and/or there is resistance to feedback, further incentives are required to deter future non-compliant action. In these situations, recommendations and/or reports may be appropriate to deliver accountability.
Public reporting ensures our position is communicated to all stakeholders. It guides bodies exercising similar powers or undertaking similar functions and informs the public of their rights when interacting with integrity, accountability and investigatory bodies. We communicate transparently and in accordance with procedural fairness requirements before publishing any adverse comments, whether in public reports or in our annual report.
The following table contains our integrity response options. For information about how we respond to complainants or disclosers, please see our service charter.
Table 1: Integrity response options
| Response | Broad criteria | Aim |
| No further action | No contravention or not enough evidence
| A timely, appropriate, proportionate response Best use of our resources |
Deferral
| Matter is not serious enough Further action is not the best use of our resources | Encourage self-governance Make the agency aware of the matter Best use of our resources |
| Private engagement/ guidance (e.g. feedback letters, compliance letters, general integrity guidance) | Probably non-compliant conduct, but engagement about our expectations and how they can be met may be effective*
| Educate and guide integrity body/officer Confirm our expectations Deter person/officer from future non-compliance Achieve a constructive dialogue Achieve compliance |
| Warning letter | There has been, or probably was, a contravention of the legislation but a further response isn’t justified Appropriate where either the integrity body/officer has remedied the breach and cooperated with us, or where there has been a probable one-off issue that doesn’t need greater deterrence* | Stop unlawful behaviour Deter integrity body/officer from doing the same thing Notify that subsequent breaches may be treated more seriously |
| Information, guidance, education (e.g. fact sheets, guidance notes, presentations) | There has been, or is likely to have been, a systemic (and likely technical) contravention of the legislation relevant to other integrity bodies and stakeholders across the integrity system* Appropriate where integrity body/officer has remedied breach and co-operated with us and does not need deterrence, but we wish to signal our expectations and/or best practice across the integrity system | Educate and guide the integrity body/officer Inform stakeholders of expected standards Deter future non-compliant action by all parties Achieve a constructive dialogue Achieve compliance Encourage self-governance Raise standards across the integrity system |
Private recommendation(s)
| There has been, or is likely to have been, a contravention of the legislation and we believe accountability will ensure compliance*
| Confirm our expectations Deter future non-compliant action by the party Achieve compliance Achieve self-governance |
| Require an integrity body to report how they’ve responded to a recommendation(s) | An integrity body’s action in response to a recommendation(s) is unclear* | Deter the integrity body from future non-compliance Assess if integrity body is seeking to be compliant |
| Recommendation to another integrity body as permitted under the IOV Act | We are satisfied someone’s conduct calls for further investigation or enforcement action* | The integrity body knows about the matter and makes an appropriate investigatory or enforcement decision |
| Public report (may include recommendations) | There has, or is likely to have been, a moderate to serious contravention of the legislation and publicity and/or protection of the public is required* | Inform and warn public and the integrity system about unlawful behaviour Minimise the behaviour’s impact Deter future unlawful conduct by other integrity system stakeholders Raise awareness of expected standards |
* See Table 2 for the questions and factors we consider when we identify non-compliance
Table 2: Factors to consider when we identify non-compliance
| Criteria | Things to consider about the conduct |
| General questions | Is another agency better placed to investigate or enforce the issue (e.g. Chief Crown Prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions)? Has a law, policy or procedure been breached? Is there enough evidence? Was there procedural fairness? Are there any other express statutory requirements or considerations (e.g. reports to relevant minister(s) and the Parliament, preventing specified conduct from continuing/occurring, remedying harm or loss)? |
| How serious is the conduct? | Is the alleged conduct criminal? Is there evidence it was deliberate, intentional or reckless? Is it due to simple negligence, gross negligence, error of judgement or a genuine mistake? Is it just a technical breach? If so, is there evidence of a genuine attempt to comply? Is it a serious departure from lawful conduct? How prevalent is the conduct? Is it repeated, systemic? Has the person/agency taken remedial action (preventative measures, etc)? Can it be undone? Any aggravating or mitigating circumstances (e.g. abuse of trust or authority, vulnerable victims, it’s happened before)? |
| How harmful is it? | Did it, or could it, damage a reputation or impact safety? How much? Have human rights been affected? Are vulnerable individuals impacted? Are the ramifications serious or minor? How prevalent is the conduct? Is it being repeated or systemic? |
| Public interest factors | Will it attract widespread public interest? Will a recommendation stop the conduct now or in the future? Will a recommendation remedy any harm or loss? Is transparency important? Would a public response cause more harm to those affected (e.g. to someone’s reputation by publicly reviving it)? Could you have a transparent public response without identifying the incident? Would a response undermine public confidence in the integrity system? Is it more appropriate for us to address the issue, rather than another integrity body or an affected party? Is there a need to clarify or define legal boundaries? Do we need to reinforce the law? |
| Education (may include educating the agency, other agencies, practitioners and the community) | Will it attract widespread public interest? Should we publicly denounce the conduct? Is the issue systemic or likely to impact others? Is it necessary to reinforce—applying the legislation? Will it result in a constructive dialogue? Will relevant stakeholders learn about expected standards? Will it deter future non-compliance and/or raise standards across the integrity system? Will it encourage self-governance? Will it teach the public about their rights and options? |
| Deterrence | How prevalent is the conduct? Is it being repeated? Did the party self-report and proactively address the problem? What will be the likely effect of recommendations or a lesser response? Will recommendations or a lesser response curb or stop the conduct? Will public recommendations boost compliance by showing or explaining the consequences of non-compliance? Will the public learn more about their rights and options? Are similar contraventions already identified or being addressed (e.g. balancing consistency with the proposed response)? Could a public response be counter-productive? Is the action proportionate? |
| Maintenance of law/justice | Will an integrity response stop it? Where does the matter rank in the regulatory risks and priorities we’ve identified? What resources will an integrity response need? Will it be worth the use of resources? Are there any applicable/more appropriate alternatives? |
Updated