Conducting a Corruption Investigation

A corruption investigation is a structured, evidence-based process by which a public sector agency establishes whether alleged, apparent or suspected corrupt conduct occurred, and if so, what should be done about it. Under the Australian Government Investigations Standards 2022, an investigation is defined broadly as "an activity to collect information or evidence to a particular standard of proof related to an alleged, apparent or suspected breach." Importantly, an investigation is not a mechanism for confirming guilt; it can, and often does, exonerate the person whose conduct is examined. In the Commonwealth context, agency-level investigations sit within a broader accountability architecture established by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which may refer matters to agencies, oversee their progress, and ultimately assess whether the agency's response was adequate.

1 Referral and Commission Oversight

Under the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (NACC Act), the Commission may refer a corruption issue to a Commonwealth agency for investigation under subsection 41(1)(c), rather than investigating the matter itself. This reflects a principle common to many integrity frameworks: agencies are often best placed to investigate their own operations, provided they do so with adequate rigour and independence.^[1] Once a referral is made, the Commission retains a supervisory role. Section 50 of the Act allows the Commission to oversee the agency's handling of the referred issue, and section 51 empowers the Commissioner to direct the agency in relation to the investigation, including its scope or conduct. This creates a hybrid model in which the agency conducts the investigation but does so under the shadow of Commission scrutiny, distinguishing it from a purely internal, self-regulated process. See National Anti-Corruption Commission for the Commission's broader jurisdiction and powers.

Sections 52 through 54 impose ongoing reporting and escalation obligations on the referred agency. Under paragraph 52(a), the agency must provide progress reports "from time to time" as the investigation proceeds, keeping the Commission informed of developments. Under paragraph 52(b), the agency must provide a completion report once the investigation ends. Section 53 permits the Commissioner to comment on the agency's handling of the matter or make recommendations, and section 54 provides an escalation pathway: if the Commissioner is not satisfied with the agency's response, the matter can be raised with the responsible Minister. This layered reporting structure is intended to prevent referred investigations from being quietly under-resourced or allowed to stall.

2 Step One: The Investigation Plan

Every corruption investigation should begin with a written investigation plan, treated as a "live document" that is revisited and updated as the investigation develops rather than fixed at the outset. A comprehensive plan typically records administrative details (who is conducting the investigation, under what authority, and reporting to whom), the facts already known about the matter, the intended scope of inquiry, the persons relevant to the investigation (reporting persons, witnesses, and subjects), the policies and legal provisions potentially engaged, the specific activities planned (such as document requests or interviews), an estimated timeframe, a risk management assessment, and the resources required to complete the work. Maintaining the plan as a living document allows investigators to adjust scope and activities as new evidence emerges, without losing the discipline of an initial, documented strategy.

3 Step Two: Evidence Gathering

The second step is the systematic collection of evidence relevant to the allegations, covering both material that tends to support the allegation and material that tends to rebut it. This includes testimonial evidence from witnesses, documentary evidence such as emails and financial records, and physical or real evidence such as CCTV footage. Rigorous handling of exhibits and records is essential to preserving the integrity of the evidence base. For a detailed treatment of evidence types, confidentiality, and exhibit continuity, see Evidence and Exhibit Handling. Interviews conducted during this phase commonly follow a structured, non-accusatory framework; see PEACE Interview Framework.

4 Step Three: Procedural Fairness

Before an investigation reaches its conclusions, any person whose interests may be adversely affected by a finding must ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond. This is typically achieved through a "statement of potential findings," a document summarising the evidence gathered and the findings under consideration, provided to the affected person with reasonable time to reply before the investigation report is finalised. This step operationalises the broader legal doctrine of procedural fairness (natural justice), covered in detail at Procedural Fairness.

5 Step Four: The Investigation Report

The investigation report is the formal written record of the inquiry. It typically explains how the investigation arose (including the nature of the referral or complaint), summarises the evidence gathered, evaluates the credibility and reliability of that evidence, and reaches conclusions about whether the alleged conduct occurred, assessed against the applicable standard of proof. The report should be structured so that its conclusions are traceable to specific evidence, allowing a reviewing decision-maker, and potentially the Commission itself, to assess the soundness of the reasoning.

6 Step Five: Finalisation and the Completion Report

In the final step, the agency head (or another authorised decision-maker) considers the investigation report and decides what findings to accept and what action, if any, to take, which may include disciplinary action, referral for prosecution, policy reform, or no further action. Where the matter was referred by the Commission under subsection 41(1)(c), the agency must then provide a completion report under paragraph 52(b), setting out the findings made, the evidence relied upon, the action taken as a result, and the reasons for that action. This report allows the Commission to assess, and if necessary comment on under section 53, whether the agency's response was adequate.

7 Discontinuing an Investigation

Not every investigation proceeds to a finding of corrupt conduct. Where the evidence gathered indicates that the alleged conduct did not occur, or that continuing is no longer warranted, the investigation may be discontinued. Good practice requires that this decision, and the reasoning behind it, be formally recorded, ensuring accountability and an audit trail even where no adverse finding results.

8 Sources of the Model

The five-step model described here draws on guidance developed by several Australian integrity and law enforcement bodies, including the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (South Australia), and the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. This reflects a broader pattern in the anti-corruption field: national commissions frequently harmonise practice by drawing on the accumulated investigative experience of longer-established agencies. See ICAC Family for the lineage of Independent Commission Against Corruption bodies referenced in this model, and Fraud and Corruption Control Framework for how investigations fit within a wider control architecture.

See also: Case Predication, Pathways to Corruption Detection, Whistleblowers and Disclosers.

References

1. National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (Cth), ss.41, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54.
2. Commonwealth of Australia, National Anti-Corruption Commission, Conducting internal investigations into corrupt conduct: A guide for Commonwealth agencies (updated July 2026).
3. Australian Government Investigations Standards 2022.
4. Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth).