Chapter 7: Ethics and integrity

The APS Values (the Values), together with the Code of Conduct (the Code) provide the ethical framework that underpins the operation of the Australian Public Service (APS) and its relationships with governments and the Australian community, as well as workplace relationships. They establish a high benchmark for the professional and personal behaviour of APS employees. Each agency must integrate the Values and the Code into its operations so that they are embodied in daily decision-making and behaviour.

In addition to guiding personal behaviour and underpinning organisational performance, elements of the Values and the Code also reflect the role of the APS in Australia’s democratic system of government—as an institution that is responsive to the elected government, apolitical and impartial and one which provides the same high standard of policy advice, implementation and professional support, irrespective of which political party is in power.

A public service that impartially serves and advises the government of the day is a feature of the Westminster tradition, upon which Australia’s parliamentary system is based. In April 2008, in an address to heads of agencies and the SES, the Prime Minister, Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, outlined the seven elements of his Government’s vision for the future APS,¹ a key element of which was ‘reinvigorating the Westminster tradition of an independent public service’. In support of this aim, the Government had already introduced a standard merit-based process for selecting most APS agency heads and statutory office holders, revised Secretaries’ remuneration arrangements, and indicated that public servants must provide ‘timely, well argued, robust and forward looking policy advice’ frankly and without fear of retribution.

The Prime Minister also stated that the Government’s agenda included ‘rebuilding a culture of accountability across all levels of government’, beginning with the introduction of Standards of Ministerial Ethics (December 2007), the Register of Lobbyists (May 2008), and the Lobbying Code of Conduct (May 2008). Mr Rudd also foreshadowed the Government’s intention to introduce a Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff, which came into effect on 1 July 2008. In addition, the Prime Minister committed the Government to ‘enhancing the culture of transparency in government through reforms to Freedom of Information laws’.

It is also noteworthy that the Government has appointed a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for public sector integrity issues. As the Minister pointed out:

… for the first time, many integrity and governance functions are brought together under a single Minister—FOI, public service administration, privacy, codes of conduct, the register for lobbyists, transparency, accountability, electoral law, the guidelines and administration of tax-payer funded entitlements, government advertising and the National Archives.²

These initiatives provide a sound framework that will assist agencies in their continuing efforts to embed the Values and the Code in their cultures and structures. There may also be additional benefits in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Research conducted by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) found that strong, clearly-stated values could guide people through choices, so that making ethical decisions was the path of least resistance. The research also found that the ethical tone of an organisation impacts on efficiency and effectiveness, decision-making processes, employee commitment and job satisfaction, employee stress and employee turnover. On the basis of these findings it was argued that making ethical practices a priority was not just about functioning with integrity or being credible; it was also about optimising the efficient functioning of an organisation. Organisations that perform well are generally characterised by high ethical standards, both externally in their dealings with stakeholders and the community, and internally, in relationships between agency employees.³

In exploring issues of ethics and integrity, this chapter draws on both employee perceptions and agency practices in discussing the extent to which agencies have embedded the Values and the Code in their everyday operations. Issues covered include the application of the Code, harassment and bullying findings, and APS employees’ perceptions of merit and fairness in employment decisions.

Embedding the APS Values and the Code of Conduct

The Values are set out in s.10(1) of the Public Service Act 1999 (the Act) and the Code in s.13. agency heads must uphold and promote the Values (s.12) and are bound by the Code (s.14). The Act also places an obligation on SES employees to promote the Values and compliance with the Code through personal example and other appropriate means. APS employees are required to uphold the Values and are bound by the Code.

Awareness of and commitment to the Values

The large differences in the ethical frameworks required in the public sector and those in other sectors makes it essential for public service agencies to have effective induction programmes in place. The use of a range of learning and development programmes by agencies to promote the Values and the Code to new employees shows continuing commitment to integrating the Values into agency cultures. The Commission has provided links to the APS Induction Programme kit modules on its website,⁴ and agencies are able to download and install the modules on their intranets. The programme provides new starters with greater contextual information about the wider APS, including the Values and the Code. This has become increasingly important with more than a quarter of non-entry level APS vacancies being filled from outside the APS in recent years (29.2% in 2007–08).

Figure 7.1 shows that agencies used a range of induction programmes in 2007–08 for new employees that focused, among other issues, on the APS Values. Agency-specific programmes were the most popular type of induction programme, with 61% of agencies reporting their use by all new agency employees.

Figure 7.1: Agency use of induction programmes, 2007–08

Chart

Source: Agency survey

Results relating to employee perceptions of ethics and integrity remained high in 2007–08. Seventy-seven per cent of employees agreed that their manager demonstrates honesty and integrity. Eighty per cent of employees agreed that people in their work group treat each other with respect and 74% of employees agreed that people in their work group are honest, open and transparent in their dealings. Seventy-one per cent of employees agreed that their agency operates with a high level of integrity.⁵

Employees’ views of ethical behaviour in the APS are generally consistent with those in WA and Tasmania. Eighty-four per cent of APS employees agreed that their organisation actively encourages ethical behaviour by all of its employees. This has remained stable since last year. This compares to 83% agreeing in Tasmania and 81% in WA. The proportion of APS employees agreeing that senior managers in their organisations lead by example in ethical behaviour (57%) is similar to that in Tasmania (58%) but lower than that in WA (70%).⁶

The Values and performance management

The incorporation of the Values into an agency’s performance management arrangements is critical to embedding the Values into an agency’s culture. Eighty-six per cent of agencies now require that an assessment be made about the extent to which employees demonstrate and consistently apply some or all of the Values and/or agency-specific ‘values’ and behaviours when considering individual performance—slightly down from 88% last year but up from 61% in 2002–03.

Table 7.1 sets out the types of measures used by agencies to ensure employees are assessed on how they demonstrate and consistently apply the Values. The most common measure is an assessment of APS values and/or behaviours as well as results in individual performance assessments.

Table 7.1: Measures used by agencies in performance assessments to ensure employees demonstrate and consistently apply the Values, 2002–03 to 2007–08
	An assessment of values/ behaviours as well as results in performance assessments		Regular multi-source feedback		Training of all staff on how values/behaviours relate to effective performance
	Yes (% of agencies)	Being developed (% of agencies)	Yes (% of agencies)	Being developed (% of agencies)	Yes (% of agencies)	Being developed (% of agencies)
Source: Agency survey
2002–03	61	15	22	16	27	17
2003–04	78	7	22	16	36	10
2004–05	77	9	27	13	35	18
2005–06	81	8	19	12	46	20
2006–07	83	10	22	15	53	14
2007–08	83	12	27	10	51	21

Agencies can use more than one approach to how they incorporate the Values into performance assessments. Most agencies (72%) reported assessing their employees against all the Values as a set. Performance assessment against agency-specific values was also common (53%). A smaller proportion of agencies (20%) assessed employees against the Values most relevant to the duties being performed. Twenty-five per cent of agencies used other behavioural indicators.

Operation of the Code of Conduct

The standards of behaviour required of APS employees are set out in the Code of Conduct. An employee whose conduct does not meet the standard of one or more elements of the Code can be found to have breached the Code.

Reporting suspected breaches of the Code

Agencies need to be proactive in addressing suspected breaches of the Code. This can be achieved by providing and promoting mechanisms for the reporting of suspected misconduct by the public and APS employees. Internal reporting of suspected misconduct is vital to the integrity of the APS.

Raising the awareness of employees about how they can report suspected misconduct is one way of contributing to a culture where integrity is recognised and valued. Table 7.2 shows the range of mechanisms agencies have used to promote awareness among employees about how they can report suspected misconduct.

Table 7.2: Agency use of mechanisms to promote awareness among employees about how they can report suspected misconduct (including harassment and bullying) during 2007–08
Activities	Agencies using measure %	Agencies developing measure %
Source: Agency survey
Online training/ information on intranet	83	8
Awareness raising as part of induction/ orientation	91	6
Sessions on how the Values and Code should operate in practice	73	8
Use of promotional material (e.g. pamphlets or posters)	66	4
Other	44	2

Awareness-raising as part of induction and/or orientation, online training and/or information on the intranet, and sessions on how the Values and Code should operate in practice are the three most common methods of promoting awareness among employees. Promotional material such as pamphlets or posters was also used by a substantial proportion of agencies.

Table 7.3 shows the range of measures agencies use to identify suspected breaches of the Code. Conduct identified by colleagues accounted for 38% of investigations in 2007–08, compared with 21% last year. The growth is due to a considerable increase in the number of investigations in one large agency. For APS employees, reporting what they consider to be breaches of the Code is an obligation—not just an option. As noted last year, there is potential for agencies to put further effort into promoting employees’ responsibility to report misconduct and into creating a culture where employees who report misconduct feel protected.

Table 7.3: Measures accounting for Code of Conduct investigations, 2006–07 and 2007–08
Measure	% of investigations 2006–07	% of investigations 2007–08
Source: Agency survey
Conduct identified by colleague	21	38
Conduct identified by supervisors and/or managers	23	24
Conduct identified by an agency’s compliance or monitoring system	39	23
Complaints initiated by members of the public or stakeholders	10	9
Other sources	4	5

Managing suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct

The way in which suspected breaches of the Code are managed can have a powerful influence on perceptions of integrity and fairness within the APS. Under s.15(3) of the Act, agency heads must establish procedures for determining if an APS employee has breached the Code, including having due regard to procedural fairness. A sanction for misconduct can be imposed only where there has been a determination of a breach of the Code made in accordance with these procedures.

Levels of investigation

This year, 1,019 employees were subject to finalised investigations by agencies into suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct (compared to 945 in 2006–07 and 1,491 in 2005–06). Sixty-six per cent of employees (669) who were investigated were found to have breached the Code—a decline from 70% last year and 76% in 2005–06.

There continues to be a large variation between agencies in the proportion of employees subject to investigations into suspected breaches of the Code. Four large agencies accounted for 69% of misconduct investigations in 2007–08. This year, of the large agencies, nine reported fewer than two investigations per 1,000 employees (ABS, AGD, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), ATO, CRS Australia, DFAT, DEWHA, FaHCSIA and IP Australia). Two large agencies reported more than 10 investigations per 1,000 employees (DIAC and DAFF), with DAFF reporting more than 47 investigations per 1,000 employees.⁷ All large agencies reported at least one investigation per 1,000 employees.

Previous evaluation work by the Commission suggests that a range of factors contribute to this variation, including the nature of work of different organisations and the fact that some agencies are quick to initiate formal investigations into reported breaches of the Code. Others do so only after some form of detailed preliminary investigation that indicates it is likely a formal determination will find the employee has breached the Code.

Nature of reported breaches

Table 7.4 shows the number of employees investigated for a breach of the Code, by the different elements of the Code. The element that was suspected of being breached by the highest number of employees was the same as last year’s, that is, s.13(11) of the Act—‘an APS employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS’.

Table 7.4: Elements of the Code suspected of being breached in investigations finalised during 2007–08
Element of the Code	No. of employees investigated for a suspected breach of this element (Number)	Percentage of cases where a breach was found (%)	No. of agencies with finalised investigations (Number)
Note: Agencies were asked for data on employees who were the subject of formal investigations, and were specifically asked not to include data on initial investigations that did not proceed to formal misconduct procedures. However, it is possible that some agencies may have provided information on elements of the Code that were suspected of being breached in both formal and informal investigations. Source: Agency survey
An employee must:
at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS (s.13(11))	639	67	33
behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment (s.13(1))	536	52	33
use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner (s.13(8))	417	74	29
comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee’s agency who has authority to give the direction (s.13(5))	359	62	19
when acting in the course of APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment (s.13(3))	231	59	39
when acting in the course of APS employment, comply with all applicable Australian laws (s.13(4))	229	64	14
act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment (s.13(2))	205	65	24
disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment (s.13(7))	139	53	15
not make improper use of: inside information, or the employee’s duties, status, power or authority; in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person (s.13(10))	104	47	18
not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee’s APS employment (s.13(9))	39	64	11
while on duty overseas, at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia (s.13(12))	7	29	2
comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations (s.13(13))	6	67	5
maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister’s member of staff (s.13(6))	0	0	0

Agencies were asked to place the Code of Conduct investigations into categories of types of misconduct. Table 7.5 shows the number of employees investigated by types of misconduct. Improper use of internet/email is the most common area of misconduct investigations, with DAFF accounting for the majority of these investigations. There was also a substantial increase in the number of investigations for harassment and bullying since last year (from 76 employees to 118 employees).

Table 7.5: Number of employees by types of misconduct in investigations finalised during 2007–08
Type of misconduct	No. of employees(a) investigated for this type of misconduct (Number)	Percentage of cases where a breach was found (%)	No. of agencies with finalised investigations (Number)
(a) An individual employee may be counted against more than one type of misconduct. Note: Agencies were asked for data on employees who were the subject of formal investigations, and were specifically asked not to include data on initial investigations that did not proceed to formal misconduct procedures. However, it is possible that some agencies may have provided information on elements of the Code that were suspected of being breached in both formal and informal investigations. Source: Agency survey
Improper use of internet/ email	350	84	20
Inappropriate behaviour of employees (other than harassment or bullying) during working hours (e.g. treating clients or stakeholders disrespectfully)	163	61	28
Improper access to personal information (e.g. browsing)	150	70	9
Harassment and/or bullying	118	47	28
Fraud other than theft (e.g. identity fraud)	86	44	10
Improper use of position status (e.g. abuse of power, exceeding delegations)	74	20	11
Improper use of resources other than internet/ email (e.g. vehicles)	60	60	17
Conflict of interest	41	46	13
Private behaviour of employees (e.g. at social functions outside working hours)	30	53	15
Unauthorised disclosure of information (e.g. leaks)	25	40	8
Theft	16	31	6
Misuse of drugs or alcohol	1	100	1

Misconduct in areas where investigation of a suspected breach relies on physical evidence (e.g. computer records or actions identified through routine audit practices) rather than on opinion or observation are more likely to result in a finding that the Code was breached, largely because the evidence is irrefutable. Previous evaluation work by the Commission suggests that different practices by agencies also influence the likelihood of a finding that the Code was breached. As noted above, some agencies delay commencing a formal investigation until a preliminary investigation has found grounds for proceeding further, whereas other agencies routinely commence formal investigations as soon as they are notified of a suspected breach.

Outcomes of finalised investigations

Agencies may impose a range of sanctions on an employee who is found to have breached the Code. Table 7.6 shows the outcomes of investigations into suspected breaches of the Code finalised in agencies in 2007–08.

Table 7.6: Outcomes of finalised investigations into suspected breaches of the Code, 2007–08
Outcome	No. of employees affected^(a)	No. of agencies that reported the outcome
(a) An employee may be counted against more than one outcome. Note: Agencies were asked for data on employees who were the subject of formal investigations, and were specifically asked not to include data on initial investigations that did not proceed to formal misconduct procedures. However, it is possible that some agencies may have provided information on elements of the Code that were suspected of being breached in both formal and informal investigations. Source: Agency survey
Deduction from salary by way of a fine	218	17
Reprimand	212	32
No breach found	184	25
Investigation discontinued because of resignation of employee under investigation	162	17
Employee counselled	111	18
Reduction in salary	93	14
Termination of employment	79	22
Reduction in classification	32	12
Breach found but no sanction imposed	28	12
Reassignment of duties	26	13
Other	22	11

The most common sanction applied to employees was a deduction from salary by way of a fine, followed by a reprimand; together these accounted for 54% of all sanctions.

High-impact sanctions, including reduction in salary, termination of employment or a reduction in classification, continue to be relatively less common; they accounted for 26% of all sanctions.

The use of termination of employment as a sanction was more heavily concentrated in DAFF (32%) and Defence (24%)—compared to last year when terminations were evenly spread across the three largest agencies (Centrelink, ATO and Defence).

The total number of sanctions imposed by large agencies continues to vary considerably, ranging from zero to 176. The imposition of high-impact sanctions was concentrated in three large agencies—Centrelink (28%), DAFF (24%) and Defence (15%). High-impact sanctions were not imposed in eight large agencies.

Previous evaluation work by the Commission has suggested that this variation reflects the nature of the work of different organisations, variations in approach to how suspected misconduct is dealt with (e.g. whether minor misconduct is dealt with through a formal investigation) and some agencies taking a strong line in relation to sanctions.

While agencies with differing responsibilities need some flexibility in the way they apply sanctions and given that sanctions can be reviewed and amended by the Merit Protection Commissioner, it is arguable that it is inconsistent with the Value that requires the APS to provide a fair workplace to have too great a discrepancy between sanctions for the same offence, particularly within agencies. Agencies may need better internal guidance from the Commission on how to apply sanctions more consistently, and it will be looking into this in 2009.

Assurance mechanisms

The integrity of the processes in place for handling suspected breaches of the Code is a fundamental part of effective governance.

The Commission’s good practice guide, Handling Misconduct,⁸ suggests a large number of quality assurance mechanisms. These include:

ensuring that the decision maker responsible for determining whether a breach has occurred is equipped with the necessary skills, experience and resources to do so
following a final checking process prior to a final determination being made
ensuring that only a small number of employees in the agency have the delegation to determine a sanction
making available to all employees detailed and clear guidance material about the reporting and management of suspected misconduct
conducting periodic training which focuses on the relevance of the Code to employees’ day-to-day work
regularly reviewing agency written guidance material
periodically conducting a file audit of a sample of misconduct files to assess if correct procedures and recordkeeping requirements are being followed
testing employee confidence that suspected breaches are handled fairly and effectively (e.g. by the use of staff surveys or other consultative mechanisms).

Employee reviews are also a systemic assurance mechanism. The regulations provide non-SES employees with a review right in relation to a determination that they breached the Code and/or the sanction imposed for a breach (other than termination decisions). An application for such a review is lodged directly with the Merit Protection Commissioner.

In 2007–08, the Merit Protection Commissioner received 40 applications for review. This represents a review rate of around 6% of finalised agency investigations where employees were found to have breached the Code—the same review rate as last year’s.

The Merit Protection Commissioner had 14 applications for Code of Conduct reviews on hand at the start of the year and, as noted above, received 40 applications during the year. Of this total of 54 applications, 24 applications were reviewed; 9 applications were not accepted; 9 applications lapsed or were withdrawn; and 12 applications were on hand at the end of the financial year.

In regard to each of the 24 completed reviews, the Merit Protection Commissioner made formal recommendations to the relevant agency head that the decision under review be either confirmed (15), varied (7) or set aside (2).

Whistleblower reports

The APS whistleblowing scheme is provided for in legislation and supporting instruments. Section 16 of the Act prohibits the victimisation of, or discrimination against, an APS employee because the employee has reported a breach or an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct to a person authorised to receive the report. Regulation 2.4 of the Public Service Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) provides a framework for agencies to develop processes for dealing with such whistleblower reports.

A high proportion of agencies (89%) have established procedures for dealing with whistleblower reports, as required by the Regulations—consistent with last year’s result (88%). The remaining agencies reported that whistleblower procedures were being developed.

The number of employees investigated as a result of a report made under their agency’s whistleblower procedures (six agencies investigating 11 employees) continued to decline for the third consecutive year. This represented 1% of misconduct investigations and compares to 2% in 2006–07 and 3% in 2005–06. It is important to understand in this context that conduct identified by colleagues was the most common way that suspected misconduct was reported to agencies (38% of investigations), and that most employees choose not to report such conduct under an agency’s formal whistleblowing procedures.

People authorised to receive reports

There continues to be a wide variation in who is authorised to receive whistleblower reports within agencies (see Table 7.7). Twenty-four per cent of agencies rely solely on the agency head and have not authorised other people to receive reports—this is an increase from 18% last year (a percentage which had been unchanged for the previous three years).

The people most commonly authorised to receive whistleblower reports continue to be the head of corporate services and the HR manager, followed by all SES employees. Employees in a specialist conduct unit and all line managers are less commonly authorised by agencies to receive whistleblower reports.

Table 7.7: Person(s) authorised to receive whistleblower reports, 2007–08
Categories of ‘authorised’ persons	Agencies reporting each category (%)
Source: Agency survey
Head of corporate services	54
HR manager	44
Agency head only person	24
All SES employees	22
SES Band 2s and 3s	13
All line managers	12
Employees in a specialist conduct unit	8

In circumstances where it is not appropriate for an agency head to deal with a whistleblower report by an APS employee, or where the whistleblower is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation by the agency, the whistleblower may refer the report to the Australian Public Service Commissioner or the Merit Protection Commissioner. Information related to these referrals is reported in the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s annual report, incorporating the annual report of the Merit Protection Commissioner.

Submission to the Commonwealth Inquiry into Whistleblowing Protections within the Australian Government Public Sector

On 10 July 2008, the Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland MP, on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Senator the Hon. John Faulkner, asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to inquire into and report on whistleblowing protections within the broader Australian Government public sector. The inquiry is consistent with the Government’s commitment to broadening and strengthening public interest disclosure measures within its ethics/integrity framework through a pro- disclosure system across the Australian Government sector.

The Committee has called for submissions from interested people and organisations and arranged a series of public hearings and a roundtable discussion. The Australian Public Service Commissioner was invited to appear before the Committee at a public hearing in September 2008. In her evidence to the inquiry, on 25 September, the Commissioner observed that, while the Act already provides for the protection of whistleblowers, it is timely for it to contain a comprehensive whistleblowing scheme to support that protection.

The Commissioner noted that many of the whistleblower reports referred to the Commission are from APS employees complaining about personal employment-related grievances, or relate to concerns expressed by members of the public about the conduct of individual APS employees, rather than matters of public interest. This reflects some misunderstanding of the purpose of the existing whistleblower system. This view is supported by the Commission’s 2005–06 evaluation of managing breaches of the Code, which identified some confusion among agencies about how the processes they are required to have in place for whistleblowing interact with those dealing with allegations of suspected breaches of the Code more generally, and the protections which apply in both instances. In the Commissioner’s view, the current system has worked reasonably well and it is preferable to build on the good foundation provided by the existing provisions, rather than totally reinvent them.

The Commissioner submitted that a sensible approach to dealing with reports of misconduct would be for individual grievances to be dealt with by agencies under existing Code of Conduct investigation provisions, while more systemic or widespread misconduct would fall under a public interest disclosure scheme. It would be a natural extension of the Commission’s current role for the oversight of such a scheme to rest with the Commissioner. The Commissioner also expressed support for the extension of whistleblower protection to cover a broader range of public sector employees.

The outcomes of the current inquiry into whistleblowing protections and the findings of the ‘Whistling While They Work’ research project will help to determine the preferred model for future legislation aimed at protecting public interest disclosures (whistleblowing) within the Australian Government public sector.

For the past three years, Griffith University has led a collaborative national research project, ‘Whistling While They Work’, to examine the management and protection of internal witnesses, including whistleblowers, in the Australian public sector. The Commission was a minor contributor to the project.

The research involved the study of organisational experiences under public interest disclosure regimes in various Australian Government, State and Territory Government agencies and comparing, identifying and promoting current best practice.

The project’s first report, Whistleblowing in the Australian Public Sector: Enhancing the Theory and Practice of Internal Witness Management in Public Sector Organisations, was launched in September 2008. This report will help to inform the Government’s consideration of a new public interest disclosure system.

Harassment and bullying

The Code requires that an APS employee, when acting in the course of APS employment, must treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment (s.13 (3) of the Act).

Nineteen per cent of APS employees reported that they had been subject to harassment or bullying in the last 12 months. This figure, which is significantly higher than that of 15% for 2005–06 and 2006–07, is attributable to the results of two large agencies. When these agencies are removed the result is on a par with last year’s. Rates of perceived harassment and bullying are lower than in two other jurisdictions that had data available for comparative purposes—Tasmania (28%) and WA (24%).⁹

There continues to be a degree of variation among agencies in the proportion of employees reporting that they had experienced harassment and bullying across the 47 agencies with individual agency-specific results (ranging from 8% to 32%). Within this range, 10 agencies (the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), ATO, the Australian Trade Commission (Austrade), BoM, DAFF, DFAT, Treasury, Geoscience Australia, the National Library of Australia (NLA)) have results significantly better than the APS-wide result. The fact that a number of agencies have achieved low rates of reported harassment and bullying illustrates that agencies performing badly in this area have considerable scope to improve their performance.

In 2007–08, a significantly higher proportion of women (21%) than men (16%) believed that they had been subjected to harassment or bullying in their workplaces during the last 12 months, compared with 17% and 12% respectively last year. Unlike last year, APS 1–6 and EL employees were not more likely to believe they had experienced harassment or bullying than the SES.

This year, employees who believed that they had experienced harassment or bullying in the previous 12 months were asked who was responsible for the harassment or bullying. The results suggest that supervisors (42%) and someone more senior other than supervisors (37%) are the two groups most likely to be responsible for harassment and bullying. It is of great concern that some agencies appear to have a culture in which managers who bully may be tolerated. It must also be kept in mind, however, that giving critical performance feedback or refusing to accede to unreasonable requests may still be being misinterpreted by some staff as harassment and bullying.

Co-workers (32%) were the third most likely group to be considered responsible for harassment or bullying. Someone more junior (8%), clients (7%) and consultant/service providers (1%) were less likely to be thought responsible for harassment or bullying.

Respondents who said their main type of work was service delivery to the public (e.g. call centres, shopfront/counter service) were more likely to be harassed/bullied by a client (51%), or by consultants/service providers (44%). In contrast, respondents who worked in policy were more likely to be harassed by a Minister or a ministerial adviser (31%) and representatives of another APS agency (22%). Respondents who worked in corporate services were more likely to be harassed or bullied by someone more junior (29%) or a co-worker (23%).

While any harassment or bullying is actively discouraged through the Code of Conduct for APS employees, in some cases agencies need to maintain a level of service to clients, when employees may be at risk of experiencing harassment or bullying, for example, in Centrelink. There can be situations where harassment and/or bullying can be an occupational health and safety issue and agencies are encouraged to keep this in mind when dealing with complaints.

In August 2008, the Ombudsman released a report into Centrelink: Arrangements for the Withdrawal of Face-to-Face Contact With Customers.¹⁰ This arose from the Ombudsman’s Office receiving a number of complaints from people who had been banned from attending Centrelink Offices as a result of unacceptable behaviour. Investigation of the complaints found that, while in most instances the decisions to withdraw face-to-face contact were not unreasonable, there was a need for national procedural guidelines to assist staff in managing customers who exhibit abusive or threatening behaviour. In response to earlier investigations by the Ombudsman’s Office, Centrelink had implemented new national Guidelines for Working With Customers With Difficult or Aggressive Behaviours in February 2007. Since the implementation of these guidelines, the Ombudsman’s Office has identified issues for further attention and their recent report made a number of recommendations to improve Centrelink’s ability to provide continuing services to difficult or aggressive clients.

A variety of information is available to support agencies in developing systems and processes to address harassment and bullying. The Commission’s Respect¹¹ good practice guide and Respect summary publication promote an APS culture free from harassment and bullying and Comcare’s Bullying in the Workplace¹² is a guide to prevention for managers and supervisors.

Employees made comments that indicate harassment or bullying continues to raise difficult issues for employees and managers alike:

I wasn’t directly involved with bullying or harassment but was witness to it in my section.

It was a period of uneasiness and brought down the team morale. Nothing seemed to be done at the proper level—e.g. EL 2 which is a shame since we lost the services of a very dedicated EL 1.

Difficult to implement when the bullying is done by those in positions of authority who are not accountable to anyone else …

I know of at least 3 colleagues (in past 18 months) who have resigned as they believe they were bullied by management (small team of 14).

I think that the bullying and harassment in the PS is overstated, and is too often confused with other issues.

I am an Harassment contact officer and I do know of occasions where the correct behaviour has not been demonstrated by Managers. I believe that they should be leading from the front. I do know that some people do not report cases of harassment or bullying because they are scared of any repercussions.

Merit and fairness in APS Employment

Within the framework of the APS ethics and integrity framework, a key value is that the APS is a public service in which employment decisions are based on merit. Merit in the APS means that employment decisions should be based on a person’s ability to do the job, and that decisions must be objective and fair and avoid patronage, favouritism and unjustified discrimination. For ongoing employment or promotion, all eligible members of the community, including non-APS employees, should have a reasonable opportunity to apply for jobs and there must be a competitive assessment of applicants’ suitability to perform the duties of the job. Within these parameters, agencies have the flexibility to design recruitment processes that meet their specific business needs. For movement at level, or temporary movement to a higher-level job, the decision must be based on the ability of the person to do the job as well as being fair, transparent and unbiased. A competitive assessment is not required in these cases.

Recruitment to the APS is guided by the minimum requirements and principles that are set out in the Public Service Act 1999, the Public Service Regulations 1999, the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 1999 and the Public Service Classification Rules 2000. These requirements give agencies considerable flexibility and do not prescribe a lengthy or complex process, nor do they suggest that a recruitment process has to be slow to meet the requirement of merit. Indeed, the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) report, Reducing Red Tape in the Australian Public Service, found that if the time it takes to fill one or a few vacancies is longer than four weeks, the delay is unlikely to be due to legal requirements. The cause is often poor planning and preparation by managers, or unnecessary internal processes put in place by the agency.¹³

Employees’ perceptions of merit and fairness

For the merit principle to operate properly employees need to be confident that engagement and promotion decisions are transparent, that consistent principles are applied, and that there is no evidence of favouritism. They also need to understand how merit is applied under the Act and be confident that recruitment results in the selection of high-quality staff.

In the past five years employees’ perceptions of how merit is applied have been relatively low in APS agencies; they have declined even further this year. When specifically asked about whether their agency routinely applied merit in engagement and promotion decisions resulting from a competitive selection process, only 50% of employees agreed that this was the case.¹⁴ This is a significant decrease compared to the 59% who agreed in 2006–07 and the lowest level of agreement in the last five years (see Table 7.8). Offsetting this decrease were significant increases in both the proportions of employees who neither agree nor disagree (25%, up from 19% in 2006–07) and those who disagree (19%, up from 14% in 2006–07).

Table 7.8: Employees’ perceptions of whether their agency routinely applies merit (as defined in the Public Service Act) in decisions regarding engagement and promotion resulting from a competitive selection process, 2003–04 to 2007–08
Year	Agree (%)	Neither agree nor disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Not sure (%)
Source: Employee survey
2003–04	59	18	18	4
2004–05	53	19	21	7
2005–06	54	19	18	10
2006–07	59	19	14	9
2007–08	50	25	19	6

Perceptions about whether merit is applied continue to vary widely amongst employees in agencies with individual agency-specific results. In 2007–08, results varied between 34% and 72% of employees in these agencies who agreed that merit is routinely applied in their agency for engagement and promotion decisions. Thirteen agencies (ABS, ACCC, ACMA, AGD, AHL, Comcare, the Commission, FaHCSIA, Finance, Geoscience Australia, PM&C, RET and Treasury) had results that were significantly better than the APS average.

When employees were asked about their most recent experience in applying for a job in the APS, those who had had a positive experience were more likely to agree that merit is routinely applied in their own agency for engagement and promotion decisions (even though some small proportion of the jobs applied for would have been in other agencies).

Employees who believed that the recruitment process had been conducted efficiently, for example, were much more likely to agree that their agency routinely applies merit in engagement and promotion decisions (65%) than those who found the recruitment process overly demanding (44%).

Not surprisingly, employees who had applied for and were successful in obtaining a job in the last 12 months were also much more likely to agree that their agency routinely applies merit in engagement and promotion decisions than those who were unsuccessful (57% compared to 37%). Unsuccessful applicants were almost twice as likely to disagree (28% compared to 15%). It is likely that a lack of success in job applications will always be a factor in poor perceptions of merit.

Nevertheless, the wide variation in perceptions of merit between agencies suggests that there is considerable room for improvement in employees’ perceptions of merit in those agencies with poor results. There is a range of issues relating to employees’ perceptions of merit. There is, for example, a positive relationship between the level of job satisfaction of employees and their level of agreement that their agency routinely applies merit in decisions regarding engagement and promotion. Similarly, employees who agree that their agency has procedures and systems that ensure objectivity in decision-making, provides them with information that clearly outlines their agency’s decision-making processes, or values or manages diversity in the workplace, are much more likely to believe that their agency routinely applies merit in engagement and promotion decisions. Employees who received formal individual performance feedback within the last 12 months were also more likely to believe that their agency routinely applies merit in these decisions.

Levels of agreement tended to be lower in larger agencies, for example, 58% of employees in small agencies agreed compared to 50% in large agencies. Employees working in the ACT were also more likely to agree (57% compared to 46% working outside the ACT). An employee’s classification was particularly significant—APS 1–6 employees (46%) recorded much lower levels of agreement than EL (62%) and SES (90%) employees.

The employee survey asked some additional questions on employees’ perceptions of employment decisions and these also continue to be relatively low. Just over half of employees (54%) reported that in their work group the process of selecting a person for a position is done fairly, and well under half (41%) agreed that recruitment and promotion decisions in their organisation are fair.

Employee perceptions of employment decisions were also low compared to those in other public sector jurisdictions. While the results are not directly comparable because of the different survey methodologies used, the 2007–08 APS-wide result (41%) for employees who believed that recruitment and promotion decisions are fair in their organisation was below that reported in WA (51%) and in Tasmania (46%).¹⁵

Our factor analysis of satisfaction with a range of issues related to employee engagement includes a merit and career progression factor that provides a summary of employees’ views about merit and their career progression.¹⁶ The overall rate of satisfaction or agreement on the merit and career progression factor was 49%. This was in the lowest third of results for the 12 employee engagement factors, confirming that there is substantial room for improvement in employees’ views of merit and career progression.¹⁷

Agency selection processes

Despite the flexibility available under the Act where direct recruitment is possible, many agencies still choose to conduct competitive selection processes for movements at level and temporary assignment of higher duties. Sixty-six per cent of agencies reported that they routinely require competitive selection processes to be used for non-SES movements at level from another agency—a similar result to those recorded in the last two years. For movements at level within the agency, the figure was 59% and for long-term temporary assignment of higher duties the figure was 74%. Both results are similar to those reported in previous years.

While there may be circumstances where competitive processes for movements at level and higher duties are appropriate, these would need to be conducted in an efficient and timely way so as not to impose undue red tape and delays. The poor results for the time taken to finalise a competitive selection exercise where, for example, 18% of selection exercises took over four months, can be partly attributed to agency processes that are not required under the legislation. Speed in recruitment is generally conducive to merit as the best person for the job may well have found another job if the process takes too long or may decide that they do not want to work in an agency that has such drawn-out processes. The Commission’s Better, Faster: Streamlining Recruitment in the APS publication provides HR practitioners with a tool for the focused evaluation of agency recruitment processes.¹⁸ However, reducing the time it takes to fill vacancies requires more than just changing the process; it must be backed by a commitment from line managers, the SES and human resources (HR) practitioners to make recruitment a priority.

Assurance processes

As with other APS Values, it is important that agencies take steps to monitor compliance with the merit Value. The relatively poor perceptions of merit in many agencies point to the need to place even greater importance on assurance processes in this area.

When asked about the mechanisms used during 2007–08 to collect information on employees’ confidence in the agency ensuring that the merit principle is applied in employment decisions, 34% of agencies reported using staff surveys (unchanged from 2006–07), 41% reported using consultative committees (up from 33% last year) and 25% reported using other mechanisms. The fact that 33% of agencies had no mechanisms for collecting this information indicates that more could be done by some agencies to monitor compliance with the merit Value.

The ability of APS employees to apply to the Merit Protection Commissioner for the review of promotion decisions up to the APS 6 classification is one of the assurance mechanisms that protect merit as the basis for the promotion of employees. In 2007–08, there were 429 individual applications for promotion review (303 in 2006–07), and 78 cases (cases can deal with one or more individual applications) were completed during the year (45 in 2006–07).¹⁹ Of the promotion decisions reviewed in 2007–08, 4.3% were varied. This is higher than the percentage of promotion decisions varied last financial year (2.6%), but is comparable with rates of about 5% of decisions reviewed in the previous three years.

During the year the Merit Protection Commissioner has updated several brochures related to the Role and Functions²⁰ of the Merit Protection Commissioner, Review of Actions,²¹ Review of Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct,²² Review of Promotion Decisions,²³ and Independent Selection Advisory Committees.²⁴

More detailed information relating to reviews of promotion decisions is reported in the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s annual report, which incorporates the annual report of the Merit Protection Commissioner.

SES and agency head selections

Special arrangements govern the selection of SES staff and agency heads.

SES selections

Promotion and engagement decisions at SES level take place following selection arrangements that are designed to ensure a high level of transparency in the process. In addition to the minimum requirements relating to merit set out in Chapter 4 of the Commissioner’s Directions, Chapter 6 specifies some additional requirements that must be satisfied in relation to SES promotion and engagement decisions. These include that SES employment opportunities must be notified on both the APS Employment Gazette (now the electronic APS employment gazette, incorporated in the APSjobs website) and externally (usually in the national press).

In addition, each SES selection committee must include one member who acts as the Commissioner’s representative. The representative will generally be an experienced public servant from a different portfolio and at a higher level than the vacancy or job opportunity. The Commissioner’s representative is required to certify at the end of the selection exercise that the processes followed were appropriate, and the Commissioner’s endorsement of that certification must be obtained before any promotion or engagement can proceed. In 2007–08, the Commissioner’s endorsement was sought and provided in relation to 254 SES selection processes. The Commissioner was also consulted in relation to a further 51 staffing actions arising from selection processes endorsed earlier.

Changes to the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions

Clause 6.3 of the Commissioner’s Directions sets minimum requirements applying to promotion and engagement as an SES employee. Because of the way in which this clause was originally drafted, there has been some uncertainty about whether or not it is possible to engage non-ongoing SES employees for periods of no more than 12 months without the need for the employment opportunity to be notified (as is the case for non-SES employees). Agencies require this flexibility in order to meet short-term SES staffing requirements in a timely and efficient manner.

To remove any ambiguity, a new subclause—6.3(3)—was added to the Commissioner’s Directions with effect from 2 April 2008, clarifying the capacity of APS agencies to engage an SES employee on a non-ongoing basis for no more than 12 months without the employment opportunity needing to be notified. The clause specifies that a decision engaging a person as an SES employee meets the minimum requirements (clause 6.3) if the engagement is for a specified term of no more than 12 months, and the requirements of Chapter 4 of the Commissioner’s Directions have been satisfied. This means that a non-ongoing engagement still requires the employment decision to have been based on merit, including that there be an assessment made of the relative suitability of the candidates for the duties.

In Australian Public Service Commission Circular 2008/1, which provides more details about the amendment, it was recommended that agencies put in place arrangements, similar to those applying to their non-SES non-ongoing employment arrangements, whereby individuals can register their interest in being considered for short-term, non-ongoing engagement at SES level.

Agency head selections

On 5 February 2008, the Australian Government introduced a policy implementing transparent and merit-based assessment in the selection of most APS agency heads. The policy applies to agency heads and other statutory officers working in, or in conjunction with, APS agencies, unless specifically excluded. Specific exclusions include Portfolio Secretaries and Secretary-equivalent appointments, that is, the Australian Public Service Commissioner, the Commissioner of Taxation, the Auditor-General, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Statistician.

Key requirements of the policy are that:

vacancies must be advertised, at a minimum, on the APSjobs website and in the national press
the advertising process and assessment of applicants’ claims against a set of core selection criteria must be overseen by the relevant Portfolio Secretary (or Chair of the Board where applicable) and the Australian Public Service Commissioner
core criteria may be supplemented by additional criteria agreed by the Minister (or Chair of the Board) and the Secretary
a report recommending shortlisted candidates, endorsed by the Australian Public Service Commissioner, is to be provided by the Secretary to the Minister
the Minister must give reasons to the Prime Minister if he or she wishes to appoint someone not recommended by the panel.

Further details of the new arrangements are contained in the policy document and associated guidelines, Merit and Transparency: Merit-Based Selection of APS Agency Heads and Statutory Office Holders.²⁵

Between the introduction of the policy on 5 February, and 30 June 2008, 14 vacancies (covering a number of positions in several agencies) were advertised in accordance with the new procedures. During that time, five processes were finalised and recommendations made for appointing one person as an agency head and two people as statutory office holders, to be effective in 2008–09. The reappointment of two existing statutory office holders was also recommended. All five recommendations were accepted by the relevant Minister.

Use of Clause 4.2A of the Commissioner’s Directions

Clause 4.2A of the Commissioner’s Directions enables the Commissioner to authorise an agency head to engage a non-ongoing APS employee as an ongoing APS employee in exceptional circumstances. The Commissioner has undertaken to report on usage of this provision on an annual basis through this report.

In 2007–08, the Commissioner agreed to three requests from agency heads pursuant to clause 4.2A. These requests related to SES employees in Finance, Defence and the National Competition Council (NCC). In each case, the agency concerned had decided to engage the employee for a specified term due to a variety of factors, including uncertainty over the ongoing nature of the role, the views of the individual concerned and the potential desirability of having change over time in the roles concerned. A further assessment of the quality of fields of applicants who may have been attracted if the jobs were to be advertised again, suggested that they would be small given the level of knowledge and expertise required. It was deemed that any additional applicants were unlikely to be competitive against the existing employees who had each demonstrated high levels of ability in discharging their duties.

Review of employment actions

One of the APS Values relevant to ensuring integrity and fairness in decision-making is that the APS provides a fair system of review of actions taken in respect of APS employees. The Act, the Regulations and the Commissioner’s Directions establish a review of actions framework for the APS. The intent of the framework is to encourage the resolution of employee concerns in the workplace, including through the use of alternative dispute resolution methods where appropriate.

Under the Regulations, non-SES employees may seek review of certain actions or decisions that relate to their employment. Subject to some exceptions, the Regulations provide for a primary review by the relevant agency. The Regulations also provide that in cases where employees’ concerns are not resolved, employees can apply to the Merit Protection Commissioner for secondary review of the relevant action. Reviews of actions relating to breaches of the Code are also dealt with directly by the Merit Protection Commissioner.

Agencies’ internal reviews

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. In 2007–08, 43% of agencies reported receiving at least one application for primary review, that is, an application for review of an employment action (other than decisions about breaches of the Code or matters that went to a Promotion Review Committee) lodged by an employee directly with the agency. This is the same as last year’s result. As previously, applications were concentrated in large agencies.

Agencies also reported on the number of applications for primary review that were finalised during 2007–08. Forty-one per cent of agencies reported having finalised at least one application for primary review, compared to 38% last year. Those agencies that had finalised reviews reported that the subject of performance feedback or assessment was relevant to a little over half of the completed matters (54%). Access to leave or other conditions of employment was relevant to 49%. Procedural issues relating to selection exercises were relevant to 43%, discrimination, harassment or bullying was relevant to 30%, and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace was relevant to 14%.

During 2007–08, the original agency decision in 81% of applications was not varied or overturned, compared to 65% last year. Twenty per cent of finalised applications became the subject of external review by the Merit Protection Commissioner, compared to 13% last year.

Employee confidence

The degree of confidence reported by employees in the processes used for resolving grievances within agencies remains low. This year, only 41% of employees surveyed agreed that they had confidence in the processes used by their organisation to resolve employee grievances—a return to the same level reported in 2005–06, after an increase to 46% last year. As well, 38% of employees responded neutrally, that is, they did not agree or disagree with the statement that they had confidence in their agencies’ processes for resolving grievances. Despite this, agencies continue to favour making information available to staff about these processes, rather than more proactive measures to raise awareness, with only 21% of agencies reporting that they provided training to line managers or other staff on the principal features of internal review processes during 2007–08. Given the relatively low level of confidence reported by employees, agencies should consider providing more targeted training on the handling of employee grievances, particularly for managers.

Key chapter findings

There have been a number of positive developments in the areas of ethics and integrity within the APS during 2007–08. The Government’s commitment to reinvigorating the Westminster traditions and values and having a sound framework in place to achieve this has focused attention on the APS Values and the key differences between the ethics and behaviour expected of public service agencies compared to organisations in other sectors. The new policy for the selection of most APS agency heads will strengthen the application of merit in these key employment decisions. It is also clear that most APS agencies have now consistently embedded the Values into their performance management systems—a key strategy for incorporating the Values into their culture. Nearly all agencies are ensuring that their new employees receive some training in the Values. This is essential, given the high levels of recruitment from sectors outside the APS, including for non-entry level positions.

Although the basic tools for fostering an ethical culture in the APS on the basis of the Values and the Code exist, messages and strategies are not getting across to everyone. Improper use of information and communications technology (ICT) is an area of ongoing concern, even allowing for the fact that the detection of breaches may be partly the result of better monitoring. There appears to be pockets in the APS where ethical failures of one sort or another arise. This suggests scope for new ethics education initiatives, including a mandatory ethics component in all Commission courses, further promotion and if necessary upgrading of induction training in ethics, as well as encouraging and assisting agencies to better integrate ethics into their management systems. With the continued variation among sanctions applied for misconduct across the APS, it is time to look into developing better guidance on the application of sanctions.

The significant fall in employees’ perceptions of merit in employment decisions, from an already low base, is a cause for concern. While an employee’s own experience in applying for jobs will influence their perceptions of merit, as will misunderstandings over the merit requirements under the legislation, there are obviously other forces at play. This is clearly the case when only 57% of employees who were successful in obtaining a job agree that their agency routinely applies merit in engagement and promotion decisions and when 15% of such employees disagree. This conclusion is also reinforced by the good performance of some agencies which have achieved over 65% of their employees agreeing that merit is routinely applied.

It is clear that, in general, employees’ satisfaction with the application of merit continues to be lower than their satisfaction with a range of factors relevant to employee engagement. What can agencies do to improve the merit perceptions of their employees? Research suggests that training in the merit requirements under the APS framework for all staff, not just those involved in selection exercises, is positively related to employees’ perceptions of merit. Ensuring greater transparency in the processes applying in selection exercises for both agency employees and outside applicants and providing feedback to unsuccessful candidates can also assist. There is also much potential for agencies to review their selection processes to ensure that unnecessary processes do not delay selection exercises and for line managers, the SES and HR practitioners to make recruitment a priority.

Another disappointing result in this area in 2007–08 is the rise in the proportion of employees reporting that they had been subject to harassment and bullying in the last 12 months. Again, the range of results across agencies, where some agencies have achieved results of below 10% of employees reporting such incidents, indicates that there is much more some agencies need to do, particularly at the manager and supervisor levels, to create a culture where such behaviour is unacceptable.

1 Hon. Kevin Rudd MP, ‘Address to Heads of Agencies and Members of the Senior Executive Service’, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, 30 April 2008, <http://www.pm.gov.au>

2 Senator the Hon. John Faulkner, ‘New Directions: Setting the Agenda on Accountability and Integrity’ (Speech, 16 July 2008), p. 3, <http://www.cabinetsecretary.gov.au>

3 ICAC 2000, What is an Ethical Culture? Key Issues to Consider in Building an Ethical Organisation—Summary Report, ICAC, Sydney, <http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au>; ICAC 2000, Ethics: The Key to Good Management, ICAC, Sydney, <http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au>; F. Vogl 2001, ‘Corporate Integrity and Globalization—The Dawning of a New Era of Accountability and Transparency’ (Lecture delivered at the Pennsylvania State University, 23 March).

4 See Australian Public Service Commission, ‘APS Induction Programme’, <http://apsc.gov.au>

5 This year’s employee survey did not ask employees about their awareness of the Values and the Code given the high results in previous years (an average of 89% of employees said they were familiar with the APS Values in the three years from 2004–05 to 2006–07).

6 Care needs to be taken in making comparisons between jurisdictions due to the different methodologies used by the various jurisdictions. The Tasmanian data is from the State Service Employee Survey 2007. The Western Australian data is from the Climate Survey 2007–08. More information is available from the Office of the State Service Commissioner, Tasmania in relation to Tasmanian survey data and from the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Western Australia, in relation to Western Australian survey data. Jurisdictional comparisons with data from previous State of the Service reports may differ, as this year percentages were calculated excluding the ‘not stated’, ‘don’t know’ and ‘not applicable’ response categories.

7 The increase in investigations over last year reflects the investigations announced by DAFF in July 2007 in relation to employees allegedly abusing the Department’s ICT system.

8 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Handling Misconduct: A Human Resource Practitioner’s Guide to the Reporting and Handling of Suspected and Determined Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

9 Care needs to be taken in making comparisons between jurisdictions due to different methodologies used by the various jurisdictions. The Tasmanian data is from the State Service Employee Survey 2007. The Western Australian data is from the Climate Survey 2007–08. More information is available from the Office of the State Service Commissioner, Tasmania in relation to Tasmanian survey data and from the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Western Australia, in relation to Western Australian survey data. Jurisdictional comparisons with data from previous State of the Service reports may differ, as this year percentages were calculated excluding the ‘not stated’, ‘don’t know’ and ‘not applicable’ response categories.

10 Commonwealth Ombudsman 2008, Centrelink: Arrangements for the Withdrawal of Face-to-Face Contact With Customers, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.ombudsman.gov.au>

11 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Respect: Promoting a Culture Free from Harassment and Bullying in the APS, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

12 Comcare 2006, Bullying in the Workplace: A Guide to Prevention for Managers and Supervisors, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http//www.comcare.gov.au>

13 Management Advisory Committee 2007, Reducing Red Tape in the Australian Public Service, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au/mac>

14 Additional questions about the application of merit in other types of employment decisions were asked in previous years. As the pattern of results was similar to those for engagement and promotion decisions resulting from a competitive process, they were not asked in 2007–08.

15 Care needs to be taken in making comparisons between jurisdictions due to different methodologies used by the various jurisdictions. The Tasmanian data is from the State Service Employee Survey 2007. The Western Australian data is from the Climate Survey 2007–08. More information is available from the Office of the State Service Commissioner, Tasmania in relation to Tasmanian survey data and from the Office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner, Western Australia, in relation to Western Australian survey data. Jurisdictional comparisons with data from previous State of the Service reports may differ, as this year percentages were calculated excluding the ‘not stated’, ‘don’t know’ and ‘not applicable’ response categories.

16 Full details of the factor analysis, including details of the methodology and questions used, are set out in Appendix 3.

17 The 12 factors in order of agreement/satisfaction were: Personal Innovation and Flexibility, Understanding Current Role, Current Job, Work Group, Governance and Integrity, Immediate Manager, Work-Life Balance, Learning and Development, Merit and Career Progression, Innovation Culture, Senior Leaders and Agency Culture.

18 Australian Public Service Commission 2007, Better, Faster: Streamlining Recruitment in the APS, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

19 A ‘case’ encompasses any and all applications for review arising from a selection exercise and therefore can cover several individual applications.

20 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Merit Protection Commissioner: Role and Functions, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

21 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Merit Protection Commissioner: Review of Actions, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

22 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Merit Protection Commissioner: Review of Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

23 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Merit Protection Commissioner: Review of Promotion Decisions, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

24 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Merit Protection Commissioner: Independent Selection Advisory Committees, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

25 Australian Public Service Commission 2008, Merit and Transparency: Merit-Based Selection of APS Agency Heads and Statutory Office Holders, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

Previous Next: Interactions with Ministers and the Parliament