3. Upholding the ACT Public Service Values
3.1 Preventing Bullying and Harassment
The 2017 Agency Survey asked directorates to report on the number of bullying and harassment contacts received during the 2016-17 reporting period, and whether the directorate had a formal system in place for the management of bullying and harassment.
Table 6 provides information on the mechanisms of the reporting of bullying and harassment within the ACTPS. It is important to note that the figures captured in Table 6 are not a ‘one for one’ indicator of bullying and harassment as it is possible for an employee to report through multiple mechanisms, or, have multiple employees report the same incident.
Table 6 – Mechanisms of Reporting Bullying and Harassment (2014-15 – 2016-17)
2014-1519 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Contacts received by directorate RED Contact Officers | 133 | 117 | 49 |
Contacts received by HR (not by a RED Contact Officer) | n/a | n/a | 147 |
Contacts received through RiskMan | n/a | 23 | 38 |
Contacts received through other mechanisms | n/a | 40 | 2 |
All respondents; 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8, 2016-17 = 719
As shown in Table 6, during 2016-17 bullying and harassment was predominantly reported through directorate HR areas. The number of contacts received through directorate HR was information not captured in previous years, however the figure of 147 contacts is to be expected when taking into consideration the reduction in contacts received by directorate RED Contact Officers and through other mechanisms from 2015-16. It is likely that many of the contacts received by HR proceeded to a preliminary assessment under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements, shown in Table 7.
While the majority of bullying and harassment reports were received by directorate HR areas in 2016-17, directorate RED Contact Officers and RiskMan were mechanisms also utilised by employees to report, with approximately
37 per cent of all reports coming through these channels.
Table 7 – Reports of Bullying and Harassment (2014-15 – 2016-17)
2014-1520 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Number of reports of bullying or harassment where a preliminary assessment under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements was commenced during the 2016-17 financial year | n/a | 82 | 86 |
Number of reports of bullying or harassment received during the 2016-17 financial year that resulted in a misconduct process under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements. | n/a | n/a | 1121 |
Number of bullying or harassment related misconduct processes completed during the 2016-17 financial year where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred. | 10 | 8 | 522 |
Number of bullying or harassment related misconduct processes that are currently underway/being investigated, as at 30 June 2017. | 7 | 11 | 624 |
All respondents; 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8, 2016-17 = 720, 21, 22, 23, 24
The total number of instances of bullying or harassment where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred has decreased over the past three years. As can be seen when looking at Table 6 and Table 7, a large difference exists between the total number of reported experiences of bullying and harassment and the total number of reports of bullying and harassment resulting in a finding of bullying or harassment through a misconduct process. This demonstrates that many of the complaints were either resolved through a preliminary assessment or within the workplace.
Under the terms of Enterprise Agreements, directorates are required to conduct a preliminary assessment of a matter to determine whether an investigation is required or if the matter can be resolved through other means. Those matters which do require investigation are referred to the PSU.
The PSU was formed on 19 December 2015 in an effort to improve and standardise investigations in the ACTPS. All misconduct investigations in the ACTPS are conducted, or overseen (in the small amount of cases referred to an external investigator) by the PSU under the auspices of the Commissioner (previously the Commissioner for Public Administration). Investigations are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the relevant ACTPS Enterprise Agreement, the PSM Act and the PSM Standards.
The number of formal misconduct processes relating to bullying and harassment which were referred to the PSU (and before the establishment of the PSU on 19 December 2015, to Shared Services Employee Relations) are displayed in Table 8 below.
Table 8 – Misconduct processes relating to bullying and harassment investigated by the PSU (formerly Shared Services Employee Relations) (2011-12 – 2016-17)
2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number bullying or harassment investigations | 20 | 43 | 17 | 11 | 16 | 12 |
3.2 Discipline Action
Table 9 shows the number of misconduct investigations commenced citing a possible breach of section 9 of the PSM Act, during the 2015-16 and 2016-17 reporting periods. Data is sourced from that held centrally by the PSU. Section 9 of the PSM Act provides the general obligations of public employees and directs that procedures for dealing with misconduct are applied in line with the employee’s relevant Enterprise Agreement.
A misconduct investigation may involve one or more cited breaches of section 9 of the PSM Act. Reporting investigations rather than breaches gives a more realistic sense of the level of discipline action across the ACTPS.
Table 9 – Misconduct Investigations Commenced
2015-1625 | 2016-17 | |
|---|---|---|
Number of misconduct investigations commenced citing a possible breach of section 9 of the PSM Act | 65 | 70 |
Table 10 – Investigations completed in 2015-16 where a Breach(es) of Section 9 was Found to have Occurred or where allegations were not sustained
2015-1626 | 2016-17 | |
|---|---|---|
Number of investigations where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred | 34 | 68 |
Number of investigations where the allegations were not sustained | 8 | 12 |
Prior to 19 December 2015, directorates were able to conduct investigations within the directorate, or in the case of more complex matters, refer them to the PSU for investigation. On 19 December 2015, it became mandatory for directorates to refer all misconduct matters requiring investigation to the PSU. Table 11 shows the time taken to complete those investigations from available data held within the PSU.
Table 11 – Average Length of Time to Complete Misconduct Investigations Undertaken by THE PSU
2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-1627 | 2016-17 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of investigations completed | 46 | 26 | 23 | 42 | 8028 |
Average time to complete investigations in days | 87 | 124 | 83 | 101 | 96 |
Directorates were asked to report on the sanctions imposed as a result of misconduct processes completed in the 2016-17 financial year where misconduct was found to have occurred. Table 12 shows the number of outcomes and sanctions imposed as a result of misconduct processes over the last five years in the ACTPS. It is important to note that, often more than one sanction can be issued as a result of misconduct and as such the number of misconduct processes resulting in a breach may not reconcile with the total number of sanctions.
Table 12 – Disciplinary Sanctions since 2012-13
2012-13 | 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Misconduct found, but no sanction applied | 5 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
Written warning and admonishment29 | 39 | 32 | 37 | 21 | 34 |
Deferral of increment | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Reduction in incremental point | 12 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 6 |
Removal of monetary benefit derived through an existing ARin/SEA | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0 | 0 |
Other financial penalty | n/a | n/a | n/a | 2 | 7 |
Fully or partially reimburse employer for damage wilfully incurred to property or equipment | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0 | 0 |
Transfer, temporarily or permanently, to other position at level | n/a | n/a | n/a | 5 | 2 |
Transfer, temporarily or permanently, to other position at lower classification | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Termination of employment | 16 | 14 | 15 | 11 | 19 |
Employee resigned prior to sanction being imposed | n/a | n/a | 7 | 9 | 15 |
All respondents; 2012-13 = 15, 2013-14 = 15, 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8, 2016-17 = 7
As shown in Table 12, during 2016-17 the most commonly reported outcome of misconduct processes was the sanction of a written warning and admonishment. This sanction has consistently been the most used over the past five years.
3.3 Fraud and Risk
All seven directorates had a Senior Executive Responsible for Business Integrity Risk (SERBIR) in place throughout the 2016-17 reporting period. Further, all directorates reported that a formal risk assessment had been undertaken in accordance with the Risk Management Standard during 2016-17.
Six directorates identified that they had plans to review the risk assessment process within their directorate for the 2017-18 reporting period. These directorates noted the timings and event triggers of these reviews included:
- risk assessment process conducted in line with business planning cycle;
- directorate restructure (resulting from Machinery of Government changes);
- ongoing review as part of risk management framework and business continuity planning; and
- engagement of an external consultant to provide a review and assessment of risk management process and practices within the directorate.
In the 2016-17 reporting period, all seven directorates reported that they had a current Fraud and Corruption Plan. When asked if they had reviewed their Fraud and Corruption Plan within the past two years, all directorates reported yes.
Directorates were asked to rate a number of integrity risks within their directorate, the results of which are shown in Graph 7.
Graph 7 – Integrity Risks (2016-17)
Table 13 – Integrity Risk Ratings (2014-15 to 2016-17)
Low Risk 1 or 2 | Medium Risk 3 | 4 or Extreme Risk 5 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |
Fraud & Integrity | 8 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Asset Management | 6 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Procurement & Contract Management | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
Finance | 10 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Fraud (clients) | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
IT Systems | 8 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
All respondents; 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8, 2016-17 = 7
Table 13 represents the risk ratings against different categories of business risk as reported by respondents for the last three financial years. For the period 2014-15 to 2016-17:
- client fraud was the most frequently recorded response in the low risk category;
- fraud and integrity, asset management and IT Systems were the most frequently recorded responses in the medium risk category; and
- procurement and contract management was the most frequently recorded response in the highest risk category.
3.4 The ACTPS Respect Equity and Diversity (RED) Framework
The ACTPS is committed to creating a positive, respectful, supportive and fair work environment where employee differences are respected, valued and utilised to create a productive and collaborative workplace. The RED Framework, launched in 2010, supports the ACTPS in achieving this commitment, and in meeting its obligations under the PSM Act. During the 2016-17 reporting period, all seven directorates provided RED specific training to employees, with approximately 1,374 employees undertaking training during the reporting period.
The 2017 Agency Survey asked directorates to provide comment on the different activities they used during the 2016-17 reporting period to continue to reinforce the RED message.
Snapshot: Celebration of Harmony Day
Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate
CMTEDD showed support for Harmony Day in 2016-17 through a range of directorate initiatives and all-employee communications. Communications were made through a variety of media, including intranet content, emails and an article published in the directorate’s monthly newsletter. CMTEDD employees were encouraged to show support by wearing orange to work, the official colour for Harmony Day. Employees were also invited to share the countries that they had visited, and the countries of their ancestry. These responses were collated, and two maps were created showcasing the vast diversity of the CMTEDD workforce.
Table 14 – Activities to Promote the RED message (2016-17)
Number of Directorates | |
|---|---|
Executive support of NAIDOC Week activities | 6 |
Workplace celebrations of Harmony Day | 5 |
International Women’s Day events | 4 |
Disability training | 3 |
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural awareness training | 4 |
LGBTIQ awareness training | 4 |
Other | 6 |
In addition to the activities mentioned in Table 14, directorates reported undertaking other initiatives to promote the RED message. These initiatives included:
- implementation of a directorate specific RAP;
- celebration of National Reconciliation Week and NAIDOC Week;
- cultural awareness training for employees and managers;
- arranging for an AUSLAN interpreter to teach basic sign language to employees;
- provision of RED training;
- provision of Domestic Violence Awareness training;
- establishing a directorate network for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, and network for People with Disability; and
- celebration of Wear it Purple Day on 26 August 2016 in support of sexuality and gender diversity as well as broader support of the LGBTIQ community.
Snapshot: Promoting the RED Message Within ACTPS Workplaces
Community Services Directorate
In July 2016, CSD became the first directorate to receive three year accreditation as a White Ribbon Workplace, joining other Australian workplaces committed to ending violence against women.
To gain accreditation the directorate met criteria across three standards relating to leadership and commitment, prevention of violence against women, and response to violence against women and is now recognised as a pioneer in contributing to national cultural change.
The campaign works through primary prevention initiatives involving awareness raising and education, and programs with youth, schools, workplaces and across the broader community. Globally, White Ribbon is the world’s largest male-led movement to end men’s violence against women, and is active in more than 60 countries.
White Ribbon Workplaces (CSD) are centres of respect and pro activity in relation to the safety of women in the workplace, and are members of a truly leading edge cohort, both nationally and internationally. The Program is an award-winning initiative which is complementary to women’s empowerment initiatives and strengthens the organisation’s stance in relation to anti-bullying legislation. Key benefits include:
- driving social change;
- improved office safety and morale;
- increased employee knowledge and skills about the issue of men’s violence against women;
- improved retention rates and lower employee turnover;
- risk mitigation;
- improved work productivity and reduced absenteeism;
- improved reputation in professional networks and the wider community; and
- becoming an employer of choice.
Table 15 – Promotion of the RED Framework (2016-17)
Number of Directorates | |
|---|---|
RED Overview sessions (separate from formal RED training) | 5 |
Regular discussions regarding RED issues | 6 |
A RED network that meets quarterly or more frequently | 6 |
None of the above | 0 |
Other | 4 |
In addition to the tools reported in Table 15, directorates reported undertaking the following initiatives to promote the RED Framework in 2016-17:
- RED Contact Officers meeting regularly;
- specific training for RED Contact Officers;
- the provision of regular correspondence on RED
(including through newsletters, posters, business/unit
bulletins, the intranet and directorate emails and flyers); and - provision of RED information to employees attending monthly information sessions.
Directorates were asked how their organisation ensured that all employees have access to the details of RED Contact Officers. As shown in Graph 8, all seven directorates provided details of their RED Contact Officers on the intranet and employee directory. Six directorates provided details of RED Contact Officers on common areas/notice boards, and two directorates provided details on their website and directorate switchboard.
Graph 8 – Access to Details of RED Contact Officers (2016-17)
In addition to the above, directorates reported the following methods for ensuring employees had access to the details of RED Contact Officers:
- posters and promotion of access to RED Contact Officer details in other Organisational Development workshops;
- information provided in directorate induction sessions and through RED Training;
- access to the whole of government RED Contact Officer list on the ACT Government Directory; and
- self promotion of RED Contact Officers, such as the display of posters at their seating location.
Graph 9 – Directorates that conducted a Diversity Census and/or ‘Update your Details’ Process (2016-17)
Directorates were asked if they had conducted a Diversity Census and/or ‘Update your Details’ process during the 2016-17 reporting period. As shown in Graph 9, four reported that they had conducted a Diversity Census and ‘Update your Details’ process, two reported that they conducted an ‘Update your Details’ process, and one directorate reported that they did not conduct any processes to encourage the disclosure of diversity.
Directorates were asked to report on the initiatives implemented during 2016-17 to support employees and potential employees from diversity groups, in particular, people from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and People with Disability. Common initiatives utilised by directorates included:
- participation in whole of government programs including:
- the Inclusion Traineeship;
- the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Traineeship; and
- the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Career Development Program.
- Identified positions for People with Disability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples;
- participation and celebration of international days and/or weeks including NAIDOC Week, Reconciliation Week, Harmony Day, LGBTI Week, International Day of People with Disability;
- development and/or implementation of a directorate specific RAP;
- development and/or implementation of a directorate specific Disability Action Plans and/or RED Action Plans;
- workshops and seminars on inclusion and/or cultural awareness to equip managers and employees with the knowledge and skills to support colleagues from diversity target groups;
- in-directorate support, provided by ACTPS employees (including dedicated Inclusion Officers), for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and People with Disability;
- promotion and provision of reasonable adjustment; and
- utilising Indigenous employee networks to provide support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.
Snapshot: Support for Employees from Diversity Target Groups
Justice and Community Safety Directorate
During 2016-17 JACS continued implementation of the JACS Inclusion Statement 2016-2019, which sets the foundation on which the directorate is progressing its efforts to build an inclusive workplace culture. To progress this commitment, the JACS appointed senior executives to champion the directorate’s employment plans. Senior executives are supported by a Senior Advisor, Social Inclusion, who was appointed to develop and promote inclusive practices in the directorate. The JACS RED Executive Sponsor oversees the ongoing progress of the directorate’s commitment to building inclusive workplaces.
JACS has been proactive in providing support for employees from diversity groups, with different initiatives implemented across various divisions to support these employees.
- In 2016-17 ACT Corrective Services worked in partnership with Karlka Recruiting Group to provide information sessions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples interested in applying for the trainee Correctional positions. This assistance helped candidates to complete applications successfully.
- ACT Emergency Services Agency continued to participate in the Indigenous Fire and Rescue Employment Strategy (IFARES) pre-employment pathway program for Indigenous people interested in applying to become a fire fighter.
- The ACT Law Courts and Tribunal established the Judicial Cultural Diversity Committee comprising representatives of the judiciary and registrars of the ACT Law Courts. In May 2017, the Committee hosted a one day workshop to engage and consult with key agencies and community organisations to identify practical measures to improve accessibility to the courts for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the ACT. The workshop was extremely productive and a report identifying practical measures and strategies to improve access has been provided to the Committee.
- On 16 February 2017 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the ACT Law Courts and Tribunal and the Australian National University and University of Canberra to establish a mentoring program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law students. This program is to create opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law students to work with judicial officers and senior members of the ACT legal profession, thereby creating opportunities for mentoring and career development.
JACS supported employees in the 2017 ACTPS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Career Development Program, and made coaching and mentoring opportunities available for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees within the directorate. To encourage participation in leadership programs, JACS allocated specific places for People with Disability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. In providing an inclusive and accessible work environment, JACS:
- continued to ensure reasonable adjustments were made for People with Disability;
- delivered disability awareness and mental health awareness programs to employees;
- promoted and recognised Mental Health Week, R U OK Day, and International Day of People with Disability by participating in the Chief Minister’s Inclusion Awards Dinner on 4 December 2016; and
- provided Telephone Typewriter phone facility for Official Visitor callers with hearing impairment.
Table 16 – Directorate Inclusion Strategies (2013-14 – 2016-17)
2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Per cent | Number | Per cent | Number | Per cent | Number | Per cent | |
Job advertisements written in plain English | 12 | 80% | 10 | 71% | 6 | 75% | 6 | 86% |
Reasonable Adjustments made at interview for People with Disability | 11 | 73% | 10 | 71% | 7 | 88% | 5 | 71% |
Reasonable workplace adjustments made for successful applicants with a disability | 10 | 67% | 10 | 71% | 7 | 88% | 5 | 71% |
Training for panel members on the inclusion of the needs of diverse applicants | 6 | 40% | 4 | 29% | 7 | 88% | 6 | 86% |
Roles and responsibilities clearly defined in job descriptions | 13 | 87% | 11 | 79% | 6 | 75% | 6 | 86% |
Other | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 5 | 63% | 4 | 57% |
All respondents; 2013-14 = 15, 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8, 2016-17 = 7
As shown in Table 16, during 2016-17 a total of six directorates (86 per cent) reported that they ensured job advertisements were written in plain English, and that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined in job descriptions, along with providing training for panel members on the inclusion of the needs of diverse applicants. In addition to the above inclusion strategies, directorates reported that they had undertaken the following strategies during the 2016-17 reporting period:
- use of a Reasonable Adjustment Policy;
- having a dedicated Inclusion Officer in place;
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Awareness training and Disability Awareness training;
- amended duty statements to clearly articulate physical and psychosocial requirements to potential applicants; and
- advertising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identified positions through mainstream and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander media and networks and advertising Disability identified positions through various universities’ networks.
When asked if their directorate had introduced any broader activities or initiatives to raise awareness of diversity in the workplace during the 2016-17 reporting period, all directorates responded yes. The most common activities/initiatives were:
- participation in, and celebration of international days and/or weeks including NAIDOC Week, Reconciliation Week, Close the Gap Day, Mabo Day, Harmony Day, LGBTI Week, International Day of People with Disability, White Ribbon Day, International Women’s Day, R U OK? Day;
- introduction/implementation of a directorate specific RAP;
- employee participation in Pride in Diversity, Australia’s first and only not-for-profit employer support program for all aspects of LGBTI workplace inclusion, including employee attendance at Pride in Diversity training;
- participation in the whole of government LGBTIQ Staff Network Working Group – a group intended to provide a ‘One Government’ approach to providing a support network for employees who identify as LGBTIQ, as well as addressing broader inclusion strategies that can be implemented at a directorate level; and
- promotion of LGBTIQ awareness sessions and resources.
Snapshot: Raising Awareness of Diversity in the Workplace
Community Services Directorate
During 2016-17 CSD worked actively to raise awareness of diversity in the workplace. The directorate participated in, and held, many activities and initiatives to celebrate and promote diversity groups. Such activities included:
- participation in NAIDOC by the Lake, a collaborative effort by community organisations, government, business and community members to celebrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, culture and achievements;
- employee activities/events to acknowledge international days and weeks;
- hosting awards to celebrate achievements, including the ACT Government Inclusion Awards and the CSD Director-General Excellence Awards, placing an emphasis on showcasing artworks of People with Disability and local Indigenous artists; and
- participation in Pride in Diversity.
19 2014-15 data inclusive of ACT Public Sector bodies.
20 2014-15 data inclusive of ACT Public Sector bodies.
21 Sourced from data held centrally by the PSU.
22 Sourced from data held centrally by the PSU.
23 Total number of investigations commenced, completed and ongoing may not reconcile due to action across financial years.
24 Sourced from data held centrally by the PSU
25 2015-2016 figures have been adjusted to reflect a consistent methodology of calculating statistics between fiscal years, and as such may differ from figures reported in previous versions of the State of the Service Report.
26 2015-2016 figures have been adjusted to reflect a consistent methodology of calculating statistics between fiscal years, and as such may differ from figures reported in previous versions of the State of the Service Report.
27 Includes full investigations and taking of admission statements by PSU.
28 Includes full investigations and taking of admission statements by PSU.
29 Figures for 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 include figures of ‘written admonishment’ and ‘first or final written warning’ reported in previous editions of the State of the Service report.