Chapter 4: Integrity and fairness

Abbreviations

A list of the abbreviations used in this report is available in the Glossary

Key chapter findings

In general, the findings in this chapter confirm a strong focus on issues of integrity and fairness in the APS. Both individual agencies and the Commission have invested significant effort in promoting and embedding the Values and the Code into the culture of the APS. There have been great improvements since 2002–03 with almost all APS employees now being familiar with the Values and the Code.

Familiarity, of course, does not necessarily mean that employees always understand and apply the Values. The relatively high rates of findings of Code breaches this year in relation to browsing and privacy indicate that there is a small minority of APS employees who do not fully understand the Values or the Code or think they won’t be caught out.

The increase in the number of finalised investigations into breaches of the Code is attributable to a large increase in one agency. This increase should not be seen as a negative result but as an example of the misconduct processes in agencies working as they are designed to do. Improving systems so that they are better able to detect suspected breaches of the Code and to then take action, as appropriate, reinforces both employees’ and the public’s confidence in the integrity of the APS and individual agencies.

With the increasing usage of information technology and wider access to ICT systems in the APS, agencies will need to focus on how best to ensure these systems are used appropriately. Centrelink’s strengthening of IT systems has proven to be an effective monitoring tool. Monitoring systems, however, are only part of the solution. All agencies need to ensure they have both the necessary educative and compliance mechanisms in place to ensure their privacy and confidentiality obligations are met. This is critical for public confidence in the public service.

The fact that three-quarters of employees specifically report that they have been made aware of how to report misconduct is a very positive result for the APS. However, there is still scope to improve employees’ awareness of reporting mechanisms, and their confidence in making reports when misconduct is observed. The increases in the perception of merit reported this year are also welcome, but it is clear that employees’ satisfaction with the application of merit continues to be lower than their satisfaction with a range of other factors relevant to employee engagement.

The APS results are similar to results across a range of other jurisdictions. It may be that satisfaction with merit, like satisfaction with performance pay, has a tendency to be lower than satisfaction with some other workplace factors because assessments of merit necessitate some degree of subjectivity and are taken very personally by some employees who perceive them as assessments of their own self-worth. The fact that employees are more likely to be dissatisfied with merit where they have been unsuccessful in a recent selection provides some support for this hypothesis. Employees also appear to be more likely to provide a neutral response, rather than an actively satisfied or dissatisfied response, on some aspects of merit, suggesting that this is an area where some employees do not feel they have enough information to make a judgment.

Nevertheless, training in merit does appear to be positively related to employees’ perception of merit, at least where competitive selection processes are used. Although the majority of agencies reported providing some training in merit in 2005–06, only a relatively small proportion of employees reported receiving training. There is potential for agencies to review their selection processes and provide a broader range of training on merit to employees, including to those not directly involved in selection processes at present. Agencies would also benefit from a more systematic use of assurance mechanisms such as staff surveys to monitor performance on this issue.

The process of primary review of employment actions remains an important part of the assurance processes used across the APS to ensure the application of integrity and fairness. The increasing use of alternative dispute resolution methods by agencies to resolve requests for review of actions is a positive outcome, which should assist in the better management of these processes within agencies. However, the fact that less than half of employees agreed that they had confidence in their agency procedures for resolving grievances, although consistent with results in other jurisdictions, indicates that some agencies may need to devote more attention to such issues. In particular, there is potential for more targeted training on the handling of employee grievances, particularly for managers.

The work done by agencies on embedding the Values, promoting and enforcing the Code, and ensuring the application of merit in employment decisions is important in both how employees and the wider community view the APS and how agencies meet their business and performance goals.

Reports from a number of agencies on the difficulty of remembering and understanding all aspects of the Values suggest that there is potential for streamlining. However, the concept of an agreed set of enforceable Values and Code of Conduct, and the concepts underpinning both the Values and the Code, remain sound. These concepts are fundamental to our identity as APS employees, and are a large part of what binds us together. Developments that have affected the reputation of the APS, such as the Palmer¹⁶ and Comrie¹⁷ reports, only reinforce the importance of a visible and enforceable set of Values that can be clearly comprehended and used by all APS employees in day-to-day decision-making.

M. J. Palmer, Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Immigration Detention of Cornelia Rau: Report, July 2005, <http://www.minister.immi.gov.au>
Commonwealth Ombudsman, Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Vivian Alvarez Matter, Report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman of an inquiry undertaken by Mr Neil Comrie, September 2005, <http://www.ombudsman.gov.au>

Next page: Equity and diversity