Icac Case Study

1767 Words8 Pages
The jurisdiction: The Independent commission against corruption (ICAC) organisation, established in 1988 protects the public interest, prevents breaches of public trust and, guides the conduct of public officials in the NSW public sector. This organisation is an independent organisation and has been since its findings. Their mission involves withstanding corruption and improves the public sector which follows their role to investigate, expose and minimise this fraud. It mainly directs its attention to serious and authentic corrupt conduct which is deliberate, intentional or not negligence unlawful commotion and although an independent organisation, it keeps in minds other closely related ones. In relation to their goals the ICAC lays out 4…show more content…
The concrete jurisdiction of the ACAC is as follows: They can only act on matters concerning or affecting a NSW public official or public sector authority, matters in regard to dishonest or official conduct, or matter that involves severe criminal charges. Within their jurisdiction the ICAC can also only investigate unambiguous public sector organisations. These include, government departments, local councils, public centres for example schools and hospitals, NSW parliament and judiciary. The jurisdiction extends over 130 public sectors organisations, which employ over 300,000 people in NSW; it also has a jurisdiction of over 159 NSW councils. For matters that are concerned outside of their jurisdiction the NSW police force, federal government or non-government organisations come into place. As mentioned the ICAC has 3 main key functions or area of work. These are to investigate and expose corrupt conduct in the NSW public sector, to prevent corruption using methods such…show more content…
Another case that outlines how effective ICAC can be in achieving justice for an individual is found under 2) in the appendix of this assignment. In the case the ICAC investigated whether there was corrupt conduct being used when receiving payments or rewards from contractors according to their performance and their duties with the Sydney Water Corporation (SWC). This case simply demonstrates that thanks to the findings of corrupt conduct the ICAC can continue its work in investigating further misconduct, also mentioned in the Chua case and effectively achieve justice for individuals such as Paul Makucha and the other effected companies. Thankfully no individual will actually be penalised or affected dramatically by reporting corrupt conduct because it is an action of good will and is supported by the independent against corruption act 1998. Public officials who make a complaint to ICAC are also protected from reprisals and other retaliatory actions under the Protected Disclosures Act 1994. In also achieving justice for individuals strict rules apply for instance, if a person who has been summoned to appear at an ICAC public inquiry or compulsory examination fails to appear, then the Commissioner may issue a warrant for their arrest. People who also fail to give truthful answers to questions asked will be

More about Icac Case Study

Open Document