Things are different out here: centralised v. decentralised control systems

Speaker:
Dr Trevor Jewell
Senior Consultant, Corruption Prevention, Education and Research Directorate
Corruption and Crime Commission

Abstract:
From the Western Australian perspective, difficulties that public officers may face in remote locations might start with the recruitment of personnel (anyone, not just the right person) and range from the retention of staff, pay disparities compared to private industry, struggling with excessive cost of living factors on lower wages and the conflicts of interest that can and do arise for any public officer living in a small community where they know everyone. ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ could just as easily be used to describe the attention paid to the activities of public officers delivering much needed services to remote locations as it could to describe the misconduct risks, including corruption, associated with those activities. Far-flung branches of public organisations are sometimes staffed by officers who receive minimal training and are often charged with responsibilities, levels of authority and decision-making discretion normally reserved for those employed at higher levels in the city, but is the potential for increased misconduct risks assessed and addressed?

Is the fight against misconduct by public officers in these remote localities really about the issue of centralised versus decentralised control systems? While the services required in remote localities are, for the most part, the same services delivered in metropolitan areas, there is a perception that the misconduct risks associated with the delivery of those services are different. Is this myth or reality? Is the opportunity for misconduct heightened by the unique circumstances that make the delivery of public services to remote locations so difficult in the first place?

Can organisations operating in remote locations become so focused on ensuring their services are delivered, that they simply overlook the misconduct risks inherent in their day-to-day business activities? Are policies, procedures and processes aimed at efficient delivery implemented with little or no assessment of associated misconduct risks that are relevant to, and fraught with danger in, any location?

Should organisations have a system that enables them to identify their misconduct risks and allows them to prevent, detect and manage misconduct by their officers? A system which, correctly implemented, would provide a secure framework for all core business activities, making misconduct prevention a part of the way things are done, in the city, out here, over there, anywhere? While the question of centralised versus decentralised may be a paramount consideration when planning an organisation’s business solutions for remote service delivery, is that a consideration when implementing a supporting misconduct prevention framework, or should that framework look the same regardless of the nature of the business solutions in place?