Australian public service commissioner stephen sedgwick

ethics and integrity

As a member of the Commission’s Executive, the Merit Protection Commissioner provided support to the Commissioner with his responsibilities of promoting the APS Values and Code of Conduct.

On behalf of the Commissioner, towards the end of the year Ms Godwin launched the revised APS Values and the Employment Principles to APS employees in Adelaide and Melbourne.

The Merit Protection Commissioner continued to chair the Ethics Advisory Group (EAG) of agencies. This group enables the Commission to draw on agency experience when developing ethics policies and services to address existing and emerging matters affecting the APS. A focus for the EAG has been on the changes to the PS Act and the proposed plan for communicating the changes to agencies and employees.


^:

Ms Godwin also chaired the Ethics Contact Officer Network, which provides a point of contact for discussion and resources on matters relating to ethics in the APS. The network also focused on the changes to the PS Act, in particular the new APS Values and Employment Principles, and how agencies could embed these in their policies and practices. These meetings continue to be well- attended by agencies, reflecting the benefit in sharing information, experience, and good practice advice.

During the year Ms Godwin met several times with representatives from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) to discuss issues of mutual interest. All but one of the agencies subject to ACLEI’s jurisdiction are in the APS. The sharing of information and experiences, as appropriate, is beneficial as it enhances the ability of the Commonwealth to address integrity concerns and potential cross-jurisdictional issues as they emerge and in an integrated manner.

The Merit Protection Commissioner is also a member of, and secretary to, the Integrity Agencies Group. The group enables information sharing , understanding and collaboration between statutory office holders and agencies with responsibility for integrity issues. The meetings are aimed at supporting a whole-of-APS approach to maintaining a strong and ethical public service.

working within the aps

In 2012–13, the Merit Protection Commissioner had regular discussions with agency representatives to explain decisions and to support continuous improvement in agency processes and decision- making. The Merit Protection Commissioner continued the policy introduced last year of ‘courtesy calls’ which alert agency delegates of recommendations made by Merit Protection Commissioner’s delegates to set aside or vary significant decisions before the correspondence is despatched. These courtesy calls help agencies to understand the reasons for the recommendation and gives them an opportunity to seek clarification or further information. It has been an important initiative to assist agencies to learn from the Merit Protection Commissioner’s experience.

The Merit Protection Commissioner, Annwyn Godwin, speaking at the Executive Level Leadership Network Annual Forum in Canberra, 26 June 2013.

The Merit Protection Commissioner had regular meetings with the larger agencies—the Australian Taxation Office and the departments of Defence and Human Services—to discuss general trends and, in some circumstances, a post-case debrief. Meetings were also held with some smaller agencies as issues arose in the review work.

This year the Merit Protection Commissioner addressed a wide cross-section of APS employees on their respective responsibilities within the APS employment framework. During 2012–13 Ms Godwin spoke to employees in the departments of Health and Ageing ; Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Human Services; Defence; and Immigration and Citizenship and the APS Small Agencies Forum. Among other things, Ms Godwin took the opportunity these sessions presented to discuss with APS managers best practice in having difficult conversations with staff, for example during performance management discussions, while minimising perceptions of bullying and harassment on the part of the employee.

In 2012–13, the Merit Protection Commissioner continued her engagement with agency graduate programs and leadership programs such as the Department of Defence’s JASMO— Junior and Senior Management Orientation—and the Commission’s Executive Level Leadership Network.

The Merit Protection Commissioner provided assistance to the Commissioner with the delivery of the Senior Executive Service orientation program and presented at a number of sessions, including in relation to the APS Values and Code of Conduct.

The varying audiences addressed by Ms Godwin enabled her to communicate with employees at all levels and at different stages of their careers about the role of leadership and the importance of ethical behaviour and gain insights from employees to inform her review work.

box m2: review case—dispute about unsatisfactory performance

The employee who applied to the Merit Protection Commissioner was working in a policy role and disputed a rating of ‘developmental’ at the end of the performance management cycle. The employee had been in the role for four years and had received a rating of ‘fully effective’ in each of the three previous performance management cycles.

The Merit Protection Commissioner recommended that the ‘developmental’ rating be set aside and a rating of ‘fully effective’ substituted for it. The reasons were:

^:

The process to manage the employee’s performance had substantially failed to comply with the agency’s enterprise agreement and performance management policy with respect to the feedback provided to the employee during the performance cycle. There was no evidence of any feedback, beyond editing of the employee’s written work. This meant that the employee was not notified of the areas of concern and given a reasonable opportunity to address the issues with performance. The manager had one discussion with the employee one month before the final rating. This discussion was held in the general office area at the manager’s work station after the employee approached the manager with questions about a work issue.

• The manager described the employee’s alleged behavioural deficits in very strong terms, including using language that was personal and subjective, but provided no indicative incidents or documentary evidence.

• The employee’s performance expectations were expressed in general language aligned with the agency’s capability framework for the employee’s classification level and they were not tailored to the employee’s role.

• The evidence relating to the quality of the employee’s written work was mixed but on balance not sufficient to establish that the employee failed to meet the standard of work expected of an employee at the relevant classification level.

The agency accepted the Merit Protection Commissioner’s recommendation.

In 2012–13, the office of the Merit Protection Commissioner developed a case study on lessons learned from review of action casework on performance management decisions. This formed part of a body of work on performance management undertaken by the Commissioner in response to recommendations of the Advisory Group on the Reform of Australian Government Administration. The Commissioner’s work involved the development of a framework aimed at assisting agencies to optimise their performance management systems with a view to developing high-performance cultures.

The review work gives the Merit Protection Commissioner an understanding of the way agencies both succeed and struggle in implementing elements of the human capital framework. The Merit Protection Commissioner’s delegates assist with strategic analysis of the operation of both the performance management and Code of Conduct frameworks in the APS.

Good performance management requires skills in a range of areas, including :

• the ability to translate business outcomes into individual expectations

• confidence to have difficult conversations and to praise and reward

• the capacity to coach and develop staff

• a capacity to work with, and bring together, a team comprising a diversity of backgrounds and work styles.

The Merit Protection Commissioner regularly sees agencies experiencing problems with the quality of individual performance agreements. Examples include poor agreements which have vague performance measures, an over-reliance on general skills at the expense of measurable outcomes, and a focus on process compliance rather than genuine discussion. The Merit Protection Commissioner also sees agency policies and procedures which are not clear about whether unacceptable actions and behaviours should be dealt with under an agency’s performance management or misconduct processes.