This article examines recent debate over core or 'independent' integrity institutions in the Victorian and Commonwealth governments to highlight some of the need, and potential, for more careful deliberation over options for building the capacity of integrity systems - the second of the alytical themes used in Australia's tiol assessment. The first part compares resourcing of major integrity institutions by Australian governments over the past 15 years. Staffing and finces are seen as a useful basic measure of capacity, helping lift attention away from the assumption that creation of new bodies necessarily increases capacity. The data also show that some jurisdictions-including Victoria-may yet have some way to go if they wish to match other governments. The second part of the alysis identifies eight further issues for consideration in deliberations on institutiol design. Our conclusion is that by working through such issues more systematically, it may be possible to identify new or different institutiol options for configuring integrity resources. This could help avoid ippropriate choices-whether unnecessary new bodies, overloads on existing ones or the import of frameworks that do not necessarily 'fit' local conditions-of particular relevance to current proposals for a new Commonwealth anti-corruption agency.
Unless otherwise indicated, works by Griffith University Scholars are © Griffith University. For further details please refer to the University Intellectual Property Policy.