"A fraud policy is tested not by how it handles complaints against junior staff, but by how it handles complaints against those at the top of the organisation."
Hawkesbury City Council's draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy is intended to strengthen integrity and public confidence in local government, but a closer examination reveals a critical question remains unanswered:
Who investigates allegations against the Mayor or General Manager?
The issue has emerged following the Hawkesbury Gazette's earlier analysis of the draft policy, which highlighted a number of gaps in the proposed framework currently on public exhibition.
Among the most significant concerns is the policy's handling of complaints involving the Council's two most senior office holders.
Under the draft policy, allegations involving the General Manager would be dealt with by the Mayor, while allegations involving the Mayor would be referred to the Office of Local Government.
Critics argue that arrangement may not provide sufficient independence in situations where allegations involve senior decision-makers, politically sensitive matters or circumstances where conflicts of interest may arise.
The concern is not that any particular individual has acted improperly. Rather, it is whether the policy itself contains adequate safeguards to ensure investigations are perceived as independent and free from influence.
Lessons From Operation Ricco
The draft policy states it was developed in response to recommendations made by the Independent Commission Against Corruption following Operation Ricco, the investigation into corruption at Botany Bay Council.
Operation Ricco highlighted how weaknesses in governance systems can allow misconduct to go undetected or unchallenged when reporting pathways are unclear or when decision-making becomes concentrated among a small number of senior individuals.
Modern integrity frameworks increasingly emphasise independent reporting channels, external oversight and protections for whistleblowers who may be reluctant to report concerns through ordinary management structures.
Missing Independent Investigation Pathway
The Gazette's review found the draft policy does not establish an independent internal reporting officer or an external integrity adviser capable of receiving complaints involving senior executives or elected officials.
Instead, responsibility for decisions relating to reports of suspected fraud or corruption remains largely vested in the General Manager.
In cases involving the General Manager, that responsibility shifts to the Mayor.
Governance experts often warn that systems relying solely on internal office holders can create challenges where allegations involve those same office holders, their colleagues or matters in which personal, political or reputational interests may be engaged.
An independent reporting pathway can provide additional confidence for staff, contractors and members of the public who wish to raise concerns.
Draft policy not designed to prevent corruption
Fraud and corruption policies are not designed solely for situations where misconduct has already occurred.
Their primary purpose is to create systems that reduce opportunities for wrongdoing and ensure allegations can be raised and assessed without fear of reprisal.
The question becomes particularly important in local government because councils make decisions involving:
- Millions of dollars in public expenditure.
- Development approvals.
- Land use planning.
- Procurement contracts.
- Senior executive employment arrangements.
- Property transactions.
Each of these areas has historically been identified by integrity agencies as carrying elevated corruption risks.
Time Running Out for Public Comment
The draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy is currently on public exhibition, with submissions closing on 22 June 2026.
Residents, community groups and governance experts are encouraged to review the document and provide feedback before it returns to Council for consideration.
One issue likely to attract discussion is whether the final policy should include:
- An independent fraud and corruption reporting officer.
- Mandatory referral pathways for allegations involving senior executives.
- Greater oversight by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.
- Additional protections for whistleblowers.
- Clearer separation between investigators and decision-makers.
For many observers, the question is straightforward.
A fraud and corruption policy should not only explain how allegations are reported.
It should also answer a more difficult question:
What happens when the allegation concerns the person who would normally receive the report - the General Manager and the Mayor?
EXPLAINER
What's Missing From Hawkesbury's Draft Fraud and Corruption Policy?
When Hawkesbury City Council placed its draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy on public exhibition, the document was presented as part of Council's commitment to integrity, accountability and public trust.
The policy itself states it was developed in response to recommendations arising from the Independent Commission Against Corruption's Operation Ricco investigation into corruption at Botany Bay Council.
However, while the draft policy outlines Council's commitment to preventing fraud and corruption.
So what exactly is missing?
1. No Fraud and Corruption Risk Assessment
The draft policy commits Council to identifying fraud and corruption risks but does not require a formal fraud and corruption risk assessment process.
Modern integrity systems typically require councils to:
- Identify high-risk activities.
- Assess vulnerabilities.
- Implement targeted controls.
- Review risks regularly.
Without a formal risk assessment, critics argue the policy focuses on responding to problems rather than preventing them.
2. No Fraud Control Plan
Many public sector organisations maintain a dedicated Fraud Control Plan that identifies:
- Known risks.
- Preventive controls.
- Detection methods.
- Investigation procedures.
- Reporting obligations.
The draft policy contains no requirement for such a plan. Instead, it relies largely on broad policy statements and references to other documents.
3. No Independent Reporting Pathway
Perhaps the most significant concern relates to reporting arrangements.
Under the draft policy, allegations involving most Council officials are reported to the General Manager. Allegations involving the General Manager are handled by the Mayor. Allegations involving the Mayor are referred to the Office of Local Government.
What is missing is an independent reporting officer or external integrity pathway within Council itself. Critics argue that a fraud policy should answer an important question:
Who investigates allegations against the people who normally receive complaints?
4. No Specific Procurement Controls
Procurement is recognised as one of the highest corruption-risk areas in local government.
Yet the policy contains no specific requirements relating to:
- Tender evaluation panels.
- Procurement audits.
- Contract variation monitoring.
- Supplier conflict declarations.
- Tender integrity reviews.
Operation Ricco highlighted procurement as a key area of concern in local government corruption prevention.
5. No Enhanced Conflict of Interest Framework
The draft policy refers generally to the Code of Conduct and disclosure obligations. However, it does not establish additional safeguards for:
- Personal relationships.
- Family connections.
- Business interests.
- Secondary employment.
- Post-employment conflicts.
Modern integrity frameworks increasingly require proactive management of conflicts before decisions are made.
6. No Controls for High-Risk Decisions
Some council decisions involve significantly higher corruption risks than others. Examples include:
- Development approvals.
- Strategic planning.
- Property transactions.
- Recruitment.
- Executive employment matters.
- Confidential council reports.
- Large procurement contracts.
The draft policy does not identify these areas as requiring additional integrity controls.
7. No Requirement for External Audits
The policy references internal audits and existing governance arrangements. However, it does not require:
- Independent fraud audits.
- Corruption risk reviews.
- Periodic external assessments.
Critics argue that independent review is an important safeguard against organisational blind spots.
8. No Mandatory Integrity Training for Councillors
The policy requires awareness and training generally. However, it does not specifically require councillors to undertake regular training in:
- Corruption prevention.
- Procurement integrity.
- Public interest disclosures.
- Conflicts of interest.
- Confidential information management.
Given councillors make decisions involving millions of dollars of public funds, some governance experts consider specialised training essential.
9. No Public Reporting of Outcomes
The draft policy requires reporting suspected misconduct through appropriate channels. What it does not require is public reporting on:
- Number of fraud allegations.
- Number of corruption allegations.
- Number referred to external agencies.
- Number substantiated.
- Lessons learned.
Many public sector organisations publish annual integrity statistics as a transparency measure.
10. No Post-Employment Restrictions
One of the most debated areas of public sector governance is the movement of senior officials between public positions and organisations they previously regulated or dealt with.
The draft policy contains no provisions requiring:
- Disclosure of future employment negotiations.
- Cooling-off periods.
- Post-employment conflict management.
While such provisions are not universal in local government, they are increasingly discussed as part of best-practice governance.
Prevention vs Reaction
Perhaps the biggest criticism of the draft policy is philosophical rather than technical. The policy primarily explains how allegations are reported and managed after concerns arise. What it contains far less of is a systematic framework for preventing corruption opportunities from arising in the first place. That distinction matters.
Modern corruption prevention increasingly focuses on designing systems that make misconduct difficult, rather than relying solely on investigations after problems occur.
The Key Question
The draft policy clearly states that Hawkesbury City Council does not tolerate fraud or corruption.
The debate now is whether the policy provides enough practical tools to ensure fraud and corruption never occur in the first place.
Have Your Say
Council's draft Fraud and Corruption Prevention Policy is currently on public exhibition.
Submissions close on 22 June 2026.
Residents wishing to comment on the policy can review the document through Council's public exhibition process and provide feedback before the policy returns to Council for consideration. https://www.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au/_resources/media-releases/2026/may/have-your-say-on-the-draft-fraud-and-corruption-control-policy
