01817pab a2200157 454500008004000000100001600040245007100056260000900127300001300136362000800149520137400157650003801531650002601569700001601595773004801611180718b2005   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aBrown, A.J.  aInstitutional capacity and choice in Australia's integrity systems  c2005  ap.84-95.  aJun  aThis 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 analytical themes used in Australia's national assessment. The first part compares resourcing of major integrity institutions by Australian governments over the past 15 years. Staffing and finances 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 havesome way to go if they wish to match other governments. The second part of the analysis identifies eight further issues for consideration in deliberations on institutional design. Our conclusion is that by working through such issues more systematically, it may be possible to identify new or different institutional options for configuring integrity resources. This could help avoid inappropriate 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. - Reproduced.  aPublic administration - Australia  aPublic administration  aHead, Brian  aAustralian Journal of Public Administration