Chapter 4.1 Appropriate Workplace Behaviour

Bullying and Harassment

The 2019 Agency Survey asked directorates to report on the number of bullying and harassment contacts received during the 2018-19 reporting period, and whether the directorate had a formal system established for the management of bullying and harassment. All eight directorates reported that they had formal reporting systems in place during 2018-19 for the management of bullying and harassment.

Table 6 provides information on the different mechanisms available to each employee to report bullying and harassment within the ACTPS.

RiskMan is the ACT Public Service automated system for reporting workplace safety incidents. It is one of several mechanisms used to report contacts made by employees relating to behaviour in the workplace that includes possible bullying and harassment. Notifications made through RiskMan are a subjective indicator, and the figures reported in 2017-18 and 2018-19 represent the total number of reports made through RiskMan by an ACTPS employee where the cause selected by the employee is ‘work colleague’ (i.e. another employee and/or supervisor).

The figures captured in Table 6 are the total number of contacts received of potential bullying and harassment.  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.

Any reports received 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.

All respondents to Agency Survey: 2017-18 = 7, 2018-19 = 8

As shown in Table 6, during 2018-19 the total number of contacts of bullying and harassment has remained broadly similar to 2017-18. The majority of bullying and harassment contacts continued to be made through the RiskMan and directorate HR areas,with approximately 76 per cent of contacts coming through these mechanisms.

These reporting trends continue to be reflective of the effort being made across all directorates in educating employees on both when and how to make a report about bullying and harassment and the introduction of the RiskMan in 2015.

While most of the bullying and harassment contacts were received by directorate HR areas and RiskMan, directorate RED Contact Officers were also used by employees to make contact about bullying and harassment matters, with approximately 21 per cent of all reports coming through that mechanism in 2018-19.

Table 7 shows the number of reports of bullying and harassments reported by Directorates and should be read with Table 6.

All respondents: 2017-18 = 7, 2018-19 = 8

When comparing Table 6 and Table 7 above, a large difference exists between the total number of reported experiences of bullying and harassment in Table 6 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 7. This demonstrates that many reports were either resolved within the workplace without the need for further intervention or were found during the preliminary assessment stage not to involve behaviour considered to be bullying or harassment.

Under the Enterprise Agreements, directorates are required to conduct a preliminary assessment of a bullying or harassment report 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 matter is referred to the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). All misconduct investigations in the ACTPS are conducted or overseen by the PSU under the auspices of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner. A small number of cases are 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 referred to the PSU is detailed in Table 8 below.

Ethical Behaviour, Professional Standards and Complaint Management

The office of the Public Sector Standards Commissioner (the Commissioner) was established on 1 September 2016 following amendments to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act). The Commissioner is independent of the ACT Public Service, reporting directly to the Chief Minister. The Commissioner is Mr Ian McPhee AO PSM.

The Commissioner has important functions under the PSM Act and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2012. The Commissioner has written to the Head of Service providing an update on the activities of the office during 2018-19. This letter is provided within the State of the Service Report at Chapter 8, Public Sector Standards Commissioner.

Table 9 below provides a summary of matters led by the Commissioner and the office during  2018-19:

The Commissioner is seeking to capture key messages arising from casework so that all in the  ACT Public Sector can benefit and be more attuned to preventative steps to reduce the incidences of such cases. For further information, please see Chapter 8, Public Sector Standards Commissioner.

Public Interest Disclosures

Table 10 provides the public interest disclosures made during the 2018-19 reporting year. Directorates and public sector bodies are required to report public interest disclosures to the Commissioner. The data is held and reported by the PSU.

During the reporting year, the Commissioner issued new PID guidelines. View the Public Interest Disclosure Guidelines 2019.

Following the passage of the Integrity Commission Act 2018 (IC Act), and in line with earlier commitments and a resolution of the Legislative Assembly, the ACT Government commissioned an independent review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2012 (PID Act).

The Review will consider:

• any potential conflict of interest (real or perceived) as it concerns decision makers and disclosure officers under the PID Act;
• the findings of the Moss Review examining the operation of the Commonwealth Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 as it concerns the strengthening of that legislation to achieve the Act’s integrity and accountability aims;
• matters raised in the submission of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to the Select Committee on an Independent Integrity Commission 2017 in relation to investigation of the conduct Members of the Legislative Assembly and their staff;
• the application of the PID Act to the IC Act - in particular, its articulation with any protected disclosure provisions that may apply to any informants assisting the Integrity Commissioner or anyone consequently at risk; and
• the suitability of an ACT Integrity Commission for the purposes of receiving disclosures pursuant to the PID Act;
• relationships between existing integrity bodies in the ACT, including the sharing of information and the referral of complaints; oversight and accountability mechanisms; and identifying gaps in the current framework to determine solutions.

The findings of the Review will be delivered during the 2019-20 reporting year.

^[1] In 2017-18 directorates reported on the ‘number of bullying or harassment related misconduct processes completed during the 2018-19 financial year where a breach of section 9 of the PSM Act was found to have occurred’.

^[2] Total number of investigations commenced, completed and ongoing may not reconcile due to action across financial years.

^[3] These are claimed and unclaimed disclosures received which were assessed as being PIDs.

^[4] Section 20 of the PID Act provides that a head of the public sector entity may refer the disclosure to the head of the other public sector entity if they reasonably believe that the disclosure is more appropriately investigated by another public sector entity that has a function or power to investigate.