The ACTPS Employee Values and Signature Behaviours define who we are as an organisation. The ACTPS employee values of Respect, Integrity, Collaboration and Innovation are enshrined in the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act).
ACTPS directorates strive to promote and uphold the ACTPS Values and Signature Behaviours and implement innovative practices and solutions to assist employees in incorporating these practices into their work.
Snapshot
Embedding Values: Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate (TCCS)
A specific set of questions were asked about the ACTPS values in the TCCS 2017 Employee Survey. The results received led to ‘Embedding Values’ being one of the four areas of focus for the TCCS wide action planning. A focus group which was open to all TCCS employees was held to discuss ways in which TCCS could embed the values. The outcome of this Focus Group was three actions that were to be undertaken across TCCS:
- Clear expectations: clear and consistent explanation of the behaviours that are expected in line with the Values: Conduct a series of workshops to articulate the good and unacceptable behaviours under each value.
- Recognition and sponsorship of values: Establish a working group to redesign the approach to reward and recognition. Propose solution to Executive Board.
- Innovation / Continuous improvement: ‘Wicked Problems’ Create small Tiger Teams to work on issues within an agreed time period. Pilot underway in City Services. Lessons learned to be shared across TCCS.
Acting on feedback from the 2017 TCCS Employee Survey, a series of Values Workshops have been undertaken with employees from across TCCS. To ensure there is a clear and consistent understanding of the TCCS Values and how they translate into our day to day behaviours, the workshops articulated the behaviours that demonstrate the TCCS values and those that detract from them. The behaviours associated with each value, as developed by participants in the workshops will be proposed to the TCCS Executive Board for approval. Following this, the behaviours will then be incorporated into training, performance management support material, and the induction program. An implementation plan will be developed with input from workshop participants to make the behaviours a living part of the TCCS culture.
In the 2018 Agency Survey, directorates were asked to report on some of the activities undertaken to promote the values. Some examples of these activities include:
- Inclusion of values sessions in employee induction programs;
- Fraud and Ethics, Risk Management and Respect, Equity and Diversity (RED) Training;
- Inclusion of workplace values in performance frameworks;
- Hosting regular directorate consultative forums;
- Inclusion of values aligned categories in Awards and Recognition Programs;
- Celebration of significant dates and events; and
- Promotion of White Ribbon awareness.
Snapshot
Values Journey: Community Services Directorate (CSD)
CSD Values Journey
All staff were consulted and invited to be involved with the Values Journey and varying methods of engagement were utilised including crowd sourcing, focus groups, world café sessions and the creation of a values toolkit, leadership materials and training programs, along with a CSD Values Promise. The Values Promise sets out how the ACTPS Signature Values and Behaviours guide our work.
It represents our commitment to each other, and how we work with our stakeholders, partners and clients.
CSD held values focus groups which were an opportunity for all staff to work with their colleagues to unpack the values. Through these focus groups, staff defined each of the values and how they guide our work and represent our commitment to each other and how we work with our stakeholders and partners. They unpacked the values of Respect, Integrity, Collaboration and Innovation and created enjoyable conversations with their colleagues.
During this time, ‘values trees’ were displayed throughout all CSD locations. Leaves in the four colours associated with the values were provided to all staff. Staff were invited to have values conversations within their teams and to write a message on a leaf together and attach it to a tree.
The World Café saw the next set of important conversations in our values journey. It was designed to provide an opportunity for all staff to engage with our senior executives on each of our values. Discussions were centred on the application of values in the workplace and the things all staff can do to make them a part of everyday practice and to make CSD a great place to work.
Throughout the Values Journey, various crowd-sourcing activities were held. This tool, which everyone in CSD could access, invited staff to reflect on a specific question and to share their thoughts and experiences. Staff were able to see what their peers and colleagues were sharing and vote on the responses which resonated. They highlighted our values conversations and staff received an info graphic summarising responses and this then became a further opportunity to talk about how we can make our workplace a great place in which to work. The first activity attracted 1,507 votes and 96 answers.
3.1 Appropriate Workplace Behaviour
The 2018 Agency Survey asked directorates to report on the number of bullying and harassment contacts received during the 2017-18 reporting period, and whether the directorate had a formal system in place for the management of bullying and harassment. All seven directorates reported that they had a formal reporting system in place during 2017-18 for the management of bullying and harassment.
Table 7 provides information on the various mechanisms for reporting bullying and harassment within the ACTPS. The figures captured in Table 7 are the total number of contacts received of potential bullying and harassment. This is a subjective indicator. It is important to note that a contact of bullying and harassment is based on the perception of the employee and is not a ‘one for one’ indicator of bullying and harassment. It is possible for an employee to report through multiple mechanisms, or, have multiple employees make a report for the same matter. Any reports of this nature are reviewed by the relevant manager or executive and the HR area, which may require further action or investigation. After this occurs it may be found that formal bullying and harassment did not occur.
| 2016-17 | 2017-18 |
|---|---|---|
Contacts received by directorate RED Contact Officers | 49 | 75 |
Contacts received by HR (not by a RED Contact Officer) | 147 | 121 |
Contacts received through RiskMan1 | 132 | 168 |
Contacts received through other mechanisms | 2 | 3 |
All respondents to Agency Survey: 2016-17 = 7, 2017-18 = 7
As shown in Table 7, during 2017-18 the total number of contacts of bullying and harassment has increased since 2016-17. The majority of bullying and harassment contacts were made through the RiskMan automated incident reporting system and directorate HR areas with approximately 80 per cent of contacts coming through these channels. These reporting trends are reflective of the significant recent efforts in educating employees on both when and how to make contact about bullying and harassment and the introduction in 2015 of the RiskMan automated reporting system.
While the majority of bullying and harassment contacts were received by directorate HR areas and RiskMan, directorate RED Contact Officers were also utilised by employees to make contact about bullying and harassment matters, with approximately 18 per cent of all reports coming through that channel in 2017-18.
Table 7 should be read with Table 8.
2016-17 | 2017-18 | |
|---|---|---|
Number of reports of bullying or harassment where a preliminary assessment under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements was commenced during the 2017-18 financial year | 86 | 225 |
Number of reports of bullying or harassment received during the 2017-18 financial year that resulted in a misconduct process under Section H of ACTPS Enterprise Agreements2 | 11 | 14 |
Number of bullying or harassment related misconduct processes completed during the 2017-18 financial year where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred2 | 5 | 8 |
Number of bullying or harassment related misconduct processes that are currently underway/being investigated, as at 30 June 20183 | 6 | 11 |
All respondents: 2016-17 = 7, 2017-18 = 7
When comparing Table 7 and Table 8 above, a large difference exists between the total number of reported experiences of bullying and harassment in Table 7 and the total number of reports of bullying and harassment resulting in a finding of bullying or harassment through a misconduct process reported in Table 8. This demonstrates that many of the complaints were either resolved within the workplace without the need for further intervention, or were found during a preliminary assessment to not involve behaviour that was considered bullying or harassment. 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 remained relatively consistent over the past two years.
Under the Enterprise Agreements, directorates are required to conduct a preliminary assessment of a report of bullying or harassment to determine whether a formal investigation is required or if the matter can be resolved through other means. Where it is determined that an investigation is required, the matters are referred to the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). The reporting trends are reflective of the significant recent efforts in educating and training managers in undertaking preliminary assessments.
The PSU was formed in December 2015 to improve and standardise investigations in the ACTPS. All misconduct investigations in the ACTPS are conducted, or overseen by the PSU under the auspices of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner with a small number of cases being referred to an external investigator by PSU. Investigations are undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the relevant ACTPS Enterprise Agreement, the PSM Act and the Public Sector Management Standards (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 9 below.
| 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number bullying or harassment investigations | 17 | 11 | 16 | 12 | 18 |
3.2 Discipline Action
Table 10 shows the number of misconduct investigations commenced with a suspected breach of Section 9 of the PSM Act, during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 reporting periods. Data is held centrally by the PSU. Section 9 of the PSM Act provides the general obligations of public employees. Procedures for dealing with misconduct are provided in the employee’s relevant Enterprise Agreement.
A misconduct investigation may involve one or more suspected breaches of Section 9 of the PSM Act. Reporting investigations rather than breaches provides a more realistic sense of the level of discipline action across the ACTPS.
| 2016-17 | 2017-18 |
|---|---|---|
Number of misconduct investigations commenced with a suspected breach of section 9 of the PSM Act | 70 | 73 |
| 2016-17 | 2017-18 |
|---|---|---|
Number of investigations where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred | 68 | 45 |
Number of investigations where the allegations were not sustained | 12 | 7 |
Prior to 19 December 2015, directorates conducted their own investigations, or in the case of more complex matters, they were referred to the PSU for investigation.
On 19 December 2015, the Strategic Board determined that misconduct investigations should be conducted through a centralised team, the PSU. Table 12 shows the time taken to complete those investigations from available data held within PSU.
| 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-164 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of investigations completed | 26 | 23 | 42 | 805 | 525 |
Average time to complete investigations in working/business days | 124 | 83 | 101 | 96 | 101 |
The PSU has focussed on providing quality investigations while also improving and maintaining timeliness. As a centralised team, the PSU is well equipped to conduct investigations on behalf of the ACTPS in an effective and efficient way.
During the 2017-18 financial year, the PSU received fewer investigation referrals and the average time to complete was slightly higher than the previous year. This was primarily due to the investigations being of a larger scale and higher complexity.
Directorates were asked to report on the sanctions imposed as a result of misconduct processes completed in the 2017-18 financial year where misconduct was found to have occurred. Table 13 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 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.
| 2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Misconduct found, but no sanction applied | 8 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
Written warning and admonishment6 | 32 | 37 | 21 | 34 | 14 |
Other financial penalty | n/a | n/a | 2 | 7 | 6 |
Transfer, temporarily or permanently, to other position at level | n/a | n/a | 5 | 2 | 4 |
Transfer, temporarily or permanently, to other position at lower classification | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
Termination of employment | 14 | 15 | 11 | 19 | 19 |
Employee resigned prior to sanction being imposed | n/a | 7 | 9 | 15 | 2 |
All respondents: 2013-14 = 15, 2014-15 = 14, 2015-16 = 8, 2016-17 = 7, 2017-18 = 7
As shown in Table 13, during 2017-18 the most common outcome reported where a breach was determined was the sanction of termination of employment, closely followed by the issuing of a written warning and admonishment. This significant 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 2017-18 reporting period. Further, five directorates reported that a formal risk assessment had been undertaken in accordance with the Risk Management Standard during 2017‑18.
Directorates identified a number of common key and emerging risks, including:
- information management and storage;
- ICT and cyber threats, including the loss or misuse of sensitive data and information;
- prevention, preparedness and response to environmental threats (loss of utilities and key infrastructure due to physical and environmental conditions);public safety (including Events, Crowded Places);
- population health due to influenza outbreak; and
- fraud and corruption.
All seven directorates identified their intentions to review the risk assessment process within their directorate during the 2018-19 reporting period. These directorates noted the timing and event triggers of these reviews included:
- the review of the ACT Government Risk Management Framework by the ACT Insurance Authority;
- risk assessment process undertaken in line with business planning cycle;
- directorate restructure (including MOG changes);
- ongoing review as part of risk management framework and business continuity planning; and
- introduction of an ICT risk management solution.
In the 2017-18 reporting period, all seven directorates reported that they had a current Fraud and Corruption Plan. All directorates reported that they had reviewed their Fraud and Corruption Plan within the past two years.
Directorates were asked to rate a number of integrity risks within their organisation against a category of low, medium, high or extreme. The risk areas were:
- Fraud and Integrity;
- Asset Management;
- Procurement and Contract Management;
- Finance;
- Fraud (clients);
- IT Systems; and
- Other (please specify).
For the 2017-18 reporting period, the most common risks identified by directorates under each risk rating was:
- Low risk category: Fraud (clients);
- Medium risk category: Fraud and Integrity, Asset Management, Procurement and Contract Management and Finance; and
- High risk category: IT Systems.
No directorates identified a risk as extreme.
All directorates reported that an Internal Audit Committee was in operation for the 2017-18 reporting period. Each committee was reported to include members who are external to the directorate, including the Chair.
3.4 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 2017-18 reporting period, all seven directorates provided RED specific training to employees, with approximately 1,032 staff undertaking training during the reporting period.
The 2018 Agency Survey asked directorates to provide comment on the different activities they used during the 2017-18 reporting period to continue to reinforce the RED message.
| Number of Directorates |
|---|---|
Executive support of National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC Week) activities | 7 |
Workplace celebrations of Harmony Day | 5 |
International Women’s Day events | 6 |
Disability training | 6 |
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural awareness training | 7 |
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer (LGBTIQ) awareness training | 5 |
All respondents: 2017-18 = 7
In addition to the activities mentioned in Table 14, directorates reported undertaking other initiatives to promote the RED message. These initiatives included:
- the establishment of a directorate RED Network;
- implementation of a directorate specific RAP;
- inclusion of RED categories in award and recognition programs;
- cultural awareness training for staff and managers;
- provision of RED training;
- provision of Domestic and Family Violence Awareness training;
- establishing a directorate network for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees, and network for People with Disability; and
- steps taken towards receiving accreditation by White Ribbon Australia.
| 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 |
Other | 5 |
All respondents: 2017-18 = 7
All directorates reported using a range of communication methods to provide details of their RED Contact Officers. Details were provided on the intranet and staff directory in all directorates. Six directorates provided details of RED Contact Officers in common areas and on notice boards, three directorates provided details on their website and two directorates made the details available through their switchboard.
In addition to the above, directorates reported the following methods for ensuring staff had access to the details of RED Contact Officers:
- posters and promotion of access to RED Contact Officer details in 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 the location of their workstation.
Snapshot
RED: Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate (CMTEDD)
CMTEDD developed an interactive presentation providing a 45 minute overview of the RED Framework, allowing attendees to answer questions relating to the RED Framework using their laptops or mobile devices in real-time. The presentation allows participants to submit anonymous responses to questions without being biased by the responses of other participants in the room. This approach also allows the facilitator to get a deeper understanding of the level of knowledge and perceptions from participants, and challenge what they might consider to be acceptable workplace behaviour.
Feedback received from the pilot session was positive and the intention is to make this overview session available to business units in 2018-19.
The 2018 Agency Survey asked if directorates had conducted a Diversity Census and/or a ‘Update your Details’ process during the 2017-18 reporting period. Two directorates reported that they had conducted both a Diversity Census and an ‘Update your Details’ process, a further three directorates reported that they conducted an ‘Update your Details’ process, and two directorates reported that they did not conduct any processes to encourage the disclosure of diversity.
Directorates were asked to report on the initiatives implemented during 2017-18 to support employees and potential employees from diversity target 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 Vocational Employment Programs; and
- the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Vocational Employment Programs.
- identified positions for People with Disability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples;
- 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 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employee networks to provide support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees.
Total directorates | |
|---|---|
Job advertisements written in plain English | 7 |
Reasonable Adjustments made at interview for People with Disability | 7 |
Reasonable workplace adjustments made for successful applicants with a disability | 7 |
Training for panel members on the inclusion of the needs of diverse applicants | 5 |
Roles and responsibilities clearly defined in job descriptions | 7 |
All respondents: 2017-18 = 7
As shown in Table 16, during 2017-18 all directorates reported that they ensured job advertisements were written in plain English, that roles and responsibilities were clearly defined in job descriptions, and provided reasonable adjustment for interviewees and on commencement of successful applicants. Five directorates also reported that they provide 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 2017-18 reporting period:
- engaging a dedicated Inclusion Officer;
- using Auslan interpreters at interview for applicants with a hearing impairment;
- promotion of the ACTPS disability inclusion network;
- inclusion of a person who identifies as a person with disability on the selection committee when recruiting to identified positions for People with Disability;
- amended duty statements to clearly articulate physical and psychosocial requirements of the role to potential applicants; and
- advertising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People identified positions through mainstream and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People media and networks and advertising People with 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 2017-18 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, National Sorry Day, Close the Gap Day, Mabo Day, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children’s Day, Harmony Day, LGBTIQ Week, International Day of People with Disability, White Ribbon Day, International Women’s Day and R U OK? Day;
- introduction/implementation of a directorate specific RAP;
- promotion of disability inclusion, including hosting an iDay event with guest speaker Paralympian Michael Roeger;
- establishment of directorate LGBTIQ Staff Network that provides information and advice to staff on issues that affect LGBTIQ staff and their families, clients and stakeholders; and
- promotion of LGBTIQ inclusion and awareness sessions and resources.
1 In 2016-17, the number of contacts received through RiskMan was reported incorrectly due to an error in the reporting methodology. It should have been reported as 132 contacts, not 38. The data in 2016-17 and 2017-18, represents the total number of reports made through RiskMan by an ACTPS employee where the cause selected by the employee is ‘work colleague’.
2 The data in 2017-18 was sourced from data held centrally by the PSU.
3 Total number of investigations commenced, completed and ongoing may not reconcile due to action across financial years. The data in 2017-18 was sourced from data held centrally by the PSU.
4 The 2015-16 figures have been adjusted to reflect a consistent methodology of calculating statistics between financial years, and as such may differ from figures reported in previous versions of the State of the Service Report.
5 Includes full investigations and taking of admission statements by PSU.
6 Figures for 2013-14 and 2014-15 include data associated with ‘written admonishment’ and ‘first or final written warning’ notices reported in previous editions of the State of the Service report.