Integrity and fairness

Key chapter findings

The findings of this chapter demonstrate that there continues to be a strong focus on issues of integrity and fairness in the APS.

Agencies are placing a high priority on embedding the Values in agency culture. More agencies are conducting learning and development activities around the Values and the Code, and more are requiring that employees’ application of the Values be considered as part of their performance assessment.

This activity appears to have achieved results, and there are now very high levels of familiarity with the Values and the Code. The increasing familiarity with the Values is mirrored in employees’ confidence that their colleagues, immediate managers and the most senior managers act in accordance with the Values.

Familiarity with the Values and the Code does not necessarily mean that employees always fully understand and apply them in practice. Consultations with APS senior executives and HR managers indicate that employees have difficulties with the number of Values (15) and their complexity. There is potential for some streamlining of the Values to enable them to be more easily remembered and better understood, while retaining the fundamental concepts that underpin them.

The number of finalised investigations into suspected breaches of the Code dropped back this year to a level slightly higher than previous years. This followed the large increase in the number of investigations last year in Centrelink as a result of the introduction of a strengthened ICT system to monitor employees accessing client records inappropriately. Nevertheless, it is important that agencies do not become complacent. The recent action taken by DAFF against some employees for inappropriately using of the Internet reinforces the need for all agencies to ensure they have the necessary educative and compliance mechanisms in place to ensure that their employees behave in a way that is consistent with the Values and the Code.

The findings of this chapter indicate some areas where agencies may need to increase their efforts. In particular, although an increasing number of employees are aware of how to report suspected misconduct, there is still potential to increase the proportion of employees who actually report the misconduct that they witness. To do this, agencies need not only to establish and promote mechanisms for agencies to report misconduct, but also to develop a positive workplace culture where employees are sure that there will be no adverse consequences for reporting misconduct. The Commission’s publication, Respect: Promoting a Culture Free from Harassment and Bullying in the APS,¹⁵ can help agencies to establish a positive and respectful workplace culture.

Merit continues to be an essential underpinning of the modern APS. It needs to be applied in a way that both safeguards the concept of merit and perceptions of fairness, and allows agencies to have effective, streamlined recruitment processes which meet their business and skills needs. There is potential to review current legislative requirements, in order to ensure that they provide the best possible framework for applying merit in the APS. Nevertheless, the current requirements already give agencies considerable flexibility and do not prescribe a lengthy or complex process. Where selection processes are not finalised promptly, the cause is more likely to be poor planning and preparation by managers, or unnecessary internal processes put in place by the agency.

Employees’ views on the application of merit to employment decisions have improved slightly again this year but satisfaction with merit continues to be low compared to other employee engagement factors. Some of this result is explained by the disappointment of those who are unsuccessful in selection exercises. However, the difference between individual agencies’ results on merit confirms that how merit is managed can have an important impact on employees’ perceptions. An emphasis on information about recruitment processes and requirements, transparent selection processes, identifying and clearly articulating the skills and capabilities being sought for particular positions, and ensuring a professional approach to how selection processes are conducted and feedback provided to unsuccessful candidates are all likely to produce good results.

Dissatisfaction with merit appears to be at least partly explained by a lack of understanding among some employees about what merit means in a modern public service. There are a number of myths about merit requirements in the APS, including a continuing belief by some employees that a competitive selection process must be held, even when this is not required by legislation.

There is evidence that training employees in what merit means in the APS context can improve their perceptions of the application of merit in their agency. Given this, agencies may want to consider making training on merit much more widely available to employees, rather than focusing it primarily on participants on selection panels and decision makers. This training will be particularly important in ensuring that employees understand how merit is being assured as agencies place a greater emphasis on streamlining recruitment processes and developing innovative recruitment and retention strategies to meet the challenges of an increasingly tight labour market.

Accountability mechanisms that monitor adherence to the Values in agencies and allow agencies to improve their practice are an essential element in supporting the integration of the Values into decision-making and behaviour. There is still considerable scope for agencies to better utilise staff surveys, consultative committees and other measures to gauge and improve employee perceptions of how well the Values are embedded in an agency, the reporting of misconduct, confidence in processes for handling grievances, and the application of merit. The employee survey results suggest that these assurance mechanisms may be particularly important in monitoring perceptions of merit in agencies that have implemented broadbanded classification structures, in larger agencies, and in workplaces outside the ACT.

One mechanism that agencies can use to monitor and benchmark their performance in the application of the Values and the Code is to incorporate questions from the State of the Service employee survey into their staff surveys. The Commission is happy to discuss this approach with any agencies that are considering using the employee survey questions.

15 Australian Public Service Commission 2006, Respect: Promoting a Culture free from Harassment and Bullying in the APS, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>