Chapter 3: Embedding the APS Values and Code of Conduct
Assurance
The Values in Agencies project concluded that compliance with the Code of Conduct is one of the accountability and control mechanisms that can be used to sustain compliance with the APS Values. A best practice agency is one in which employees are comfortable with reporting wrongdoing; suspected breaches of the Code are investigated fairly and reasonably; and sanctions have substance and are respected by employees.
The agency survey indicated that there is wide variation amongst agencies in the number of investigations into suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct and that this variation is not explained by agency size or employee classifications. The results show that the nature of the breaches investigated also varies, as might be expected given the varying types of work undertaken in different agencies. There is large variation in the imposition of high-impact sanctions by large agencies, indicating that some agencies may take a harder line with the imposition of sanctions than others. These findings may reflect, at least in part, the importance of particular APS Values, elements of the Code, or particular agency values, principles or behaviours to the work of particular agencies. They may also indicate that some agencies take a stronger line in relation to the Code of Conduct, or that other agencies are relatively lenient in their approach. In either case, this would be of concern if the practice reflected that breaches were not being addressed in a timely, rigorous or systematic way.
The issues of how suspected breaches of the Code and the imposition of sanctions are dealt with in different agencies and how it is ensured that appropriate and consistent measures are used across the agency to investigate suspected breaches of the Code and to impose sanctions are covered in more detail in Chapter 7 on personal behaviour.
Whistleblowing
Public Service Regulation 2.4 requires agency heads to establish procedures for dealing with whistleblowing reports. The Public Service Commissioner’s Direction 2.5 (1)(d) provides that an agency head must put in place measures in the agency directed at ensuring that APS employees are aware of the procedures for dealing with whistleblowing disclosures, and are encouraged to make such disclosures in appropriate circumstances. The agency survey did not ask whether agencies have in place whistleblowing procedures as required by the Regulations. This issue will be followed up in future reports. It did seek information on the measures agencies have used to facilitate staff reporting of breaches of the Code of Conduct, including making use of the whistleblowing procedures. A small number of agencies (10%) reported that they have set up visible reporting mechanisms (e.g. hotlines). Sixty-seven per cent of agencies reported that they make employees aware of whistleblowing provisions (e.g. as part of induction or by placing information on the intranet).
This may go some way to explaining why, in response to the employee survey, only 65% of employees indicated that they had been made aware by their current agency that they could report a serious breach of the Code to an authorised person in the agency. Examination of responses indicates that the proportions of employees who have been made aware are lower for younger employees and those in medium and small agencies. They are also lower for employees in the ACT, and employees in the EL and APS classifications. In the 21 large agencies, there was a wide spread of responses from employees who indicated that they had been made aware that they could report a serious breach of the Code to an authorised person, ranging from 35% to 82%.
Responses to a question about how employees would act if they observed an employee in their agency engaging in behaviour that they felt was a serious breach of the Code5 indicate that a significant proportion of employees (21%) fear victimisation and discrimination for taking action where the person they suspect of committing the breach is more senior. Where the person suspected of committing the breach is at the same level as the employee or where the person is more junior, these fears are small (eight per cent and five per cent respectively).
The action most likely to be taken by employees where the suspected breach is committed by someone at the same level or more senior is to inform another senior manager about the breach. Where the suspected breach is committed by someone more junior, employees are most likely to raise the matter directly with the person they felt had breached the Code. Employees indicated that they would be more likely to make a formal whistleblowing report where the person committing the suspected breach is more senior (32%) than they would if the person was at the same level or more junior (17% for both).
Fear of victimisation and discrimination for reporting a suspected breach varies according to age and classification, with higher proportions of younger employees and those in the lower classification levels reporting that they would take no action because they would not be confident of being protected from victimisation and discrimination. The proportion of people who reported that they would take no action because they would not be confident of being protected from victimisation and discrimination was lower for employees who had been made aware by their current agency that they could report a suspected serious breach of the Code to an authorised person in the agency than for employees who had not been made aware. It was also lower for those employees who agreed with the statements that their immediate manager or most senior managers act in accordance with the APS Values.
Staff surveys
The Values in Agencies project found that staff and client surveys are key quality assurance mechanisms to monitor adherence to the APS Values throughout the agency and to improve agency practice. The agency survey indicated that 26% of agencies conducted an agency-wide staff survey in 2002–03 and another 42% of agencies had conducted one within the previous two years, so that 67% of agencies have conducted a staff survey in the last three years. Large agencies indicated the greatest use of staff surveys in 2002–03 (41%) and medium agencies the least use (12%).
Seventy-one per cent of all agencies indicated that they intended to conduct a staff survey in the next two financial years. At least 26 agencies indicated they had either never conducted a staff survey, or had not done so in the last two years, and 15 of those agencies currently have no plans to do so. Six of those agencies are large agencies, one is a medium agency, and eight are small agencies. While for some small agencies, formal staff surveys may not be a cost effective way to get staff views, other agencies that do not make use of staff surveys to assess how the agency is upholding the APS Values are not making use of one of the key assurance tools and may be missing out on valuable information about the culture of the organisation and compliance with the Values and the Code.
5 The employee survey asked respondents to indicate what they would do if they observed an APS employee engaging in behaviour that they felt was a serious breach of the Code. Examples of ‘serious’ breaches included fraud, theft, misusing clients’ personal information, sexual harassment and leaking classified documentation.