In 2012, as part of its monitoring, capacity building and prevention obligations the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) undertook a review of the UQ's capacity to deal with, and prevent, official misconduct.

In early July 2012 UQ received the CMC’s draft report and was invited to provide feedback on the accuracy of the content and efficacy of the report’s recommendations.

In its response to the draft report, UQ questioned the accuracy and quality of several aspects of the report, including:

  • the CMC questioning UQ’s decision to separate the investigation, audit and risk functions without acknowledging that UQ briefed the CMC — both in writing and face-to-face — on the Assurance and Risk Management Services (ARMS) Review and subsequent implementation report. The CMC was asked to reflect this matter more accurately, or remove it from the report.
  • the methodology and validity of statistics. The conclusions made by the CMC were based on a small number of case studies and provided limited, or no, context around thresholds or reporting by other universities.

UQ provided a detailed response to the recommendations. While noting the value of many of the recommendations, there was a small number that UQ did not support, such as the waiving of legal privilege and background checks on contractors when over a financial threshold. You can find Professor Debbie Terry’s full response to CMC here.

The recommendations in the draft CMC Quality Review were taken into consideration by Professor Sutton and Dr Watson when they reviewed all elements of the UQ’s Integrity and Accountability Reform Program. Their Independent Review of The University of Queensland’s Integrity and Accountability Reform Program was publicly released in March 2013 and noted that UQ was advanced in the implementation of some of the Quality Review recommendations. The Independent Review’s recommendations have now been implemented.

In releasing its final report, the CMC made no changes to its original draft recommendations. It did, however respond to some of UQ’s comments in the body of the report, including: changing the title of the report; reflecting information provided by UQ on the ARMS restructure; and making reference to the small sample of matters audited by the CMC which did not involve official misconduct.

In June 2013 UQ sought approval from the CMC to release the final report. The CMC granted permission to UQ on the proviso that the parts of the document that could directly or indirectly identify people or specific matters be redacted. The final report and UQ’s comments can be found here.