related resources

on our site

news

Home page
> Archive > Ethical standards and values in the APS
> Management Advisory Committee
> Employment policy and advice
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 6 June 1996

Ethical standards and values in the APS

Please note: This document is for reference purposes only and is no longer considered by the APS Commission to be current. It may contain good practice advice and/or advice on the transitional arrangements between the 1922 and 1999 Public Service Acts.

Updated 6 June 1996 Joint Publication of the Management Advisory Board and its Management Improvement Advisory Board

MAB/MIAC REPORT NO. 19 MAY 1996

Foreword

In 1995, the Management Advisory Board (MAB) commissioned a paper on ethics and the Australian Public Service (APS). It did so not in response to a breakdown in ethical standards, nor in the expectation of one.

The subject matter of the paper, is nonetheless both relevant and timely. Over the last decade there have been significant developments in the APS which have focussed the attention of public servants on the ethical issues they face in the course of their duties.

Prominent among these developments has been the devolution of authority and responsibility from central agencies and from the most senior levels of central offices of departments. Public servants at all levels can now be required to make judgments on ethical issues falling within their areas of responsibility. Combined with that change is an increased emphasis on active and creative responsiveness to government and to the community. There is overall a greater expectation by the community that government and public servants will address their needs and will be publicly answerable for any shortcomings in the efficiency or propriety of decisions.

As a consequence, public servants are looking for guidance on what constitutes expected ethical standards and how they should balance the competing merits of alternative courses of action. This paper illustrates the complexities of many decisions and gives guidance on the values and principles that should be brought to bear on decision-making.

In many situations there are not right and wrong answers, but rather a range of possible solutions to ethical dilemmas.

Although the paper is supported by a number of examples of ethical judgment, these are simply illustrative of some of the ethical issues that can arise in particular situations. It is most important that individual departments and agencies develop their own case studies and guidance, as many have, to meet the specific needs of their organisations.

The paper has benefited from the views of a broad range of people, including parliamentarians, academics, journalists and public servants. MAB is particularly grateful to Dr Simon Longstaff, head of the St James Ethics Centre, and Dr John Uhr, head of the Federalism Research Centre, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, for their comments and guidance during the preparation of the paper. Neither Dr Longstaff nor Dr Uhr should, however, be held responsible for any shortcomings in the published paper.

In deciding whether a particular action is ethical, public servants should consider whether the impact of the decision will be fair, whether the action is guided by responsiveness to the needs of the community and the government, whether they would be happy to have the action made public, and whether they could easily justify the action if called on to do so.

The Service-wide perspective

Introduction

Ethics are concerned with the principles by which right conduct is determined.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the maintenance and development of high ethical standards in the Australian Public Service (APS) by increasing awareness and understanding of the issues involved. It is intended to provide senior managers in particular with a conceptual framework for ethical conduct. While it uses illustrations of situations requiring judgment and offers some practical assistance to agencies, it is not expected that it will necessarily meet the every day needs of public servants faced with deciding what would constitute ethical solutions to problems. To inculcate an ethical culture and understanding fully, agencies need to provide complementary guidance to their staff, which is in line with APS standards, but which relates directly to the work undertaken by the agency and the ethical issues which arise from it. What follows will, it is hoped, help individual agencies meet that responsibility.

There are rules and guidelines that govern some aspects of public service behaviour, but in some situations public servants must apply general principles and values based on the nature of public service work. An awareness and understanding of how the application of the rules, guidelines, principles and values comes together is essential if public servants are to make ethical judgments and defensible decisions.

It is the combination of these governing factors, and particularly the principles and values, which defines the public service ethos; an ethos which distinguishes the public service and provides the rationale for a common management framework within which devolved decision-making can then take place.

The APS has always placed great importance on its defining ethical values, and has not in the past faced a high level of unethical or corrupt behaviour on the part of its officials. There is no room for complacency, however, when the trust of governments and the public rests on a consistent record of principled conduct. The task is to build on a sound base to ensure that there is a pervading ethical culture throughout the APS.

The APS and ethics

Ethics are important in any organisation, but there are particular reasons why they are especially important in public service. The APS, through the Public Service Act and numerous specific Acts, has statutory power with which it is charged in a variety of ways to respond to the needs of the government and the community. Public servants must be able to account for the way in which they exercise that power, and to meet the expectation that they will perform their public office in accordance with accepted principles. Within the framework of Australian government, the principles that are seen as essential to the proper functioning of the APS include party-political impartiality, a fairness in dealings with members of the public in the sense of decisions being based on equitable treatment, and an APS employment policy that is also based on merit rather than on patronage or nepotism. These principles provide the base from which the APS establishes its standards and values.

The ethical soundness of those standards and values is especially important because of the position of trust, power and privilege which public servants hold, and the resulting obligation not to breach that trust and not to misuse their power or abuse their privilege. Their obligation to behave ethically flows too from the monopoly they have in the provision of many services. Claimants of government benefits, for example, cannot obtain those benefits elsewhere if they are unhappy with the standard of service they are receiving. This places an additional responsibility on public servants to be responsive to the needs of the public. Public servants have, in effect, to meet a more demanding challenge with a more far-reaching impact than is the case with most professions.

The trust protected by ethical behaviour is not one that exists just between the public and the public service. It supports too the publicâs confidence in the government and in the democratic process. High ethical standards also contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of government. It is virtually axiomatic that people prefer to work in an ethical rather than an unethical organisation. Mutual trust and respect are an important base for productive and high quality performance. Where an ethical culture prevails, the cost of ensuring compliance with rules will be less than when active policing isnecessary. An ethical and efficient APS makes for a better and more productive service that is respected both nationally and internationally.

In deciding how to maintain the public trust in their ethical behaviour, public servants can call upon their personal standards of correct behaviour, but their actions must also be based on the values established within the public service and be able to withstand public scrutiny. Determining what will constitute an ethical decision will not always be easy. Public servants cannot be driven only by the avoidance of risk; they need to consider not only what is right conduct (because that might not be clear) but also how that conduct would be explained and defended.

The maintenance of ethical standards within the APS is not the duty of public servants alone. It is important that ministers, in particular, assist in endorsing APS values and principles by demonstrating their respect for informed and impartial advice from public servants, and by insisting on the highest standards of integrity and fairness. Parliamentarians generally should also support APS values and acknowledge them in their dealings with public servants. They have direct links with the people the APS serves and are in a good position to identify areas where public confidence and trust might need repair or reinforcement. Advice of that kind can be invaluable when presented impartially, recognising the importance of due process for both the public and public servants. Finally, interest groups and members of the public should be encouraged to respect the standards expected of public servants and not attempt to suborn them.

Background

Up to the mid-1970s, there was a belief that the Public Service Act and regulations provided all that public servants should require in the way of formal ethical guidance. In the words of Colin Hughes, Official doctrine, so far as it could be said to exist at all, held that the gap between the few high principles which were supposed to inspire the public service and the explicit statutory provisions which provided punishment for certain lapses, was filled by a body of conventions and precedents, known within the public service but not committed to written form.¹

In 1976, the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration recommended against the introduction of ethical codes, regarding them as inappropriate in a large and diverse public sector. It recommended, instead, a combination of ethics training and guidelines on official conduct, coupled with provision for administrative review of official decisions.

The Bowen committee of inquiry, set up subsequently to examine questions of public duty and private interest, included in its report (issued in 1979) a ten-point code of conduct for public officeholders. This code related only to conflicts of interests and did not deal with other matters which, as the committee acknowledged, might suitably be covered in a code of conduct. It was adopted by successive governments as a model for general application to all holders of public office÷ministers, parliamentarians, public servants and statutory officeholders.

Later in 1979, the Public Service Board issued Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants, together with the Discipline Handbook. The Handbook contained the detail of amendments to the Public Service Act relating to the discipline process. The Guidelines were revised and reissued in 1983, 1987 and 1995. The Guidelines bring together rules and procedures relating to subjects such as involvement in political activities, public comment, use of official facilities, acceptance of gifts, and acceptance of business appointments on retirement or resignation (post-separation employment).

Since the mid-1970s, the ethical culture of the APS has been reinforced by developments in such areas as administrative law (Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review), Freedom of Information and the Ombudsman), privacy, access and equity, equal employment opportunity, occupational health and safety, fraud control, and (stemming partly from the Bowen report) the registration of private interests. Public service actions and decisions have become more open to scrutiny and the APS generally has become more aware of its accountability to government and to the community. Combined with these developments, a much greater devolution of responsibility for making decisions has underlined the importance of training, guidance and example for individual public servants.

Some government agencies have produced internal publications that summarise agency-related requirements in areas such as conduct, fraud prevention and privacy. Some agencies develop ãcases" to illustrate to staff the principles behind rules and guidelines and the repercussions of breaches.

The Management Advisory Board, in conjunction with the Management Improvement Advisory Committee, published a paper in 1993 on accountability in the public sector, and in the same year published Building a Better Public Service, which articulated an ethos of the APS in the form of key public service values.

The proposed new Public Service Act would include a code of conduct which would give recognition to the fundamental place of ethical standards in the work of the APS. ² Similarly, the draft Financial Management and Accountability Bill requires Îthe proper use of Commonwealth resourcesâ, meaning by Îproper useâ Îefficient, effective and ethical useâ. The intention is to require chief executives to consider the ethical dimensions of agency management as well as efficiency and effectiveness. The Bill thus identifies ethics as a key management concern, but it does not define the nature of ethics or identify specific kinds of breaches.

An ethical culture

The place of values and principles, and rules and guidelines will be discussed in later sections. Each is important, but it is the underlying ethical culture which unifies the purpose of the APS and which is essential for the maintenance and development of political and community confidence.

It is around values and principles that the ethos of the APS must be based. Values and principles give rise to rules and guidelines, but they also operate in those situations where the correct conduct cannot be tightly prescribed and where judgment and discretion are required.

Rules and guidelines and even statements of values and principles will not foster an ethical culture if the reasons they exist are not understood. Even when well disseminated and observed, rules obeyed without an underpinning of understanding of their purpose will not encourage the adoption of correct behaviour beyond the narrow confines of the particular rules. Rules emphasise conduct and compliance rather than the notion of what constitutes an ethical public service, or what can constitute unethical behaviour even when there is no breach of rules. Values may describe the essence of the ethical service, but their mere listing will contribute little to an understanding of why they matter.

A culture of ethical behaviour is particularly important in the APS because of the discretion inevitably involved in the development and implementation of public policy. Exercise of this discretion requires judgments about the values and principles most applicable to particular situations and the weight given to different values and principles when they are not entirely complementary. The decisions made in such circumstances can shape government policies and affect the lives of individual Australians on a daily basis. Public servants must therefore be equipped by the culture in which they work to make judgments wisely and fairly.

The APS reform agenda of the last decade reflects an enhanced appreciation of the importance of being responsive to needs and accountable for decisions ö of ensuring that decision-making and results both meet objectives and withstand scrutiny. The process of decision-making remains important, particularly when there is not a clearly objective outcome, but the reform agenda has increased the focus on the purpose of decisions and what results are expected. To be fully effective, this approach requires the devolution of decision-making authority, and it therefore needs to be complemented by a culture based on accepted values across the APS. Managers have significantly more devolved authority to make decisions, and thus responsibility for making the best decisions in the particular circumstances. This development has further strengthened the focus by public servants on the effect of decisions. For example, the emphasis on outcomes, on value for money and on service to the public requires managers to balance the issues in a way that was not necessary when directions came from above.

The role of directives from central office and from central agencies has diminished as public servants have become more directly accountable for their decisions. Directives cannot be relevant to every situation faced by those advising on policy or delivering services. Consequently they frequently do not, and even cannot, achieve their intended purpose, and they risk encouraging inflexible and unresponsive bureaucracy. Instead, those individuals who are directly responsible (and accountable) must be left to exercise discretion in determining the best way to meet agreed objectives.

With greater personal accountability and devolution, however, the importance of a cohesive public service with common values has not waned. An emphasis on values, principles and ethical conduct by the public service is an essential element of the reforms of Commonwealth public administration. It is a part of the necessary cultural and organisational change, and it is vital to maintaining the proper degree of unity of outlook and behaviour across a variety of component agencies to which decision-making is necessarily devolved and when central directives are less than fully effective.

A better understanding of shared values should provide a unifying and motivating force for the APS as a whole. Values are a less intrusive, and in many situations a preferred alternative to directives and rules for the management of the public service. Values shared across government can serve to align the actions of individual public servants. They provide the basis for a common approach to dealing with ethical issues when detailed policies and rules might well fail through a lack of relevance and understanding.

Because values are neither unchanging nor uniform across the community, particularly in a multicultural community, and because decision-making can be spread throughout large and complex organisations, an awareness of the importance of values is vital to today's APS.

The ways in which that awareness can be continuously reinforced will vary among APS agencies. One of the obvious and essential methods must be consistently ethical leadership.

Values

Certain values and principles such as integrity, honesty and impartiality have always been part of the ethical standard of the APS, and will remain fundamental to it. The weight placed on values will change, however, and new values will emerge in line with developing community attitudes. The impact of a greater recognition of the values of indigenous people and of the diversity that accompanies multiculturalism will be just one of the forces for change. The notion of changing values does not carry an implication of abandonment of traditional values. Nor does it suggest that there will not be a consistent set of values for public servants. Some traditional values have become more important in recent years; the most obvious being accountability. Developments in administrative law, and other forms of external scrutiny, have strengthened commitment to fairness, openness and accountability.

Another traditional value on which, if anything, more attention is now focussed is that of ensuring that the community has trust in the integrity and fairness of the public service and therefore in the process of government. The notion that the public service exists to provide service to the public remains as valid as ever. The greater emphasis on responsiveness to ministers and the community that is a feature of modern administration serves to reinforce public trust and confidence.

Among newer values, those connected with responsiveness and direct service to the public are probably the most dramatic. In the public sector as well as the private, concepts of client focus and quality service have been increasingly prominent in organisational structures and planning. The APS has always been expected to treat people fairly, but the public now demands a greater attention to individual needs, and the APS has adjusted its attitudes and behaviour to meet this change in emphasis.

The section on ãComplexity of Judgment" provides examples of how values can come into conflict. Generally, however, values, traditional and new, reinforce each other and provide the base for a stronger ethical culture.

APS Values

The Management Advisory Board and the Management Improvement Advisory Committee, in their paper, Building a Better Public Service³, observed that Governments and various authorities within the APS have over time set out values and organising principles defining the Serviceâs dominant characteristics and the nature of employment in it, and went on to say, These values or principles have traditionally stressed the centrality of merit based staffing, probity and integrity, efficiency, and loyalty to governments while providing frank and fearless advice. More recently, additional emphasis has been placed on the need for responsiveness to governments, managing for results and improving accountability. These changes do not imply any retreat from traditional values. Rather, the new and the old should reinforce each other.

The paper suggested that in order to perform its tasks effectively and to meet the demands of contemporary society, the APS must maintain and develop further an ethos built around a set of key values. Some values determined as basic to the APS are fundamental to the practice of ethics, while others are more accurately seen as means by which ethical conduct is achieved or maintained.

Building on that paper, the proposed new Public Service Act would set out general principles of public administration, which would underline the ethical component of public service activity. The proposed principles, which are elaborated in Attachment A, are as follows:

1. the highest standards of probity, integrity and conduct;
2. a strong commitment to the community;
3. responsiveness to governments;
4. a strong commitment to accountability;
5. a close focus on results;
6. continuous improvement through teams and individuals; and
7. merit as the basis for achieving excellence in staffing.

The role of rules

Rules will always play a role in safeguarding ethical standards, in part because of community expectations that rules will govern aspects of public service behaviour and in part because it is right that there should be sanctions for improper or corrupt behaviour. Rules therefore have a necessary role in establishing proper conduct, but are inevitably inadequate for many situations.

Where there are laws and rules, they must be followed. If that raises a major difficulty of conscience for an individual, a request for transfer to another job or even resignation might be the only way to resolve the matter.

Legislation

All public service activity is governed to a greater or lesser degree by rules of various kinds, including legislation. In official actions, compliance with all applicable laws and instructions is mandatory. As Accountability in the Commonwealth Public Sector says, "The cardinal importance of adherence to the law arises, not just because particular laws exist, but because in a society in which so much responsibility for the administration of public affairs is willingly placed in official hands, the public must be able to rely on the probity of those entrusted with such responsibility" ⁴ Attachment B lists the key statutory provisions relating to conduct in the APS.

The role of legislation in relation to standards of conduct is necessarily limited, however. Legislation can provide penalties for defined undesirable conduct, but it cannot of itself prevent its occurring. Similarly, it can impose positive requirements, but when these go to desired kinds of behaviour requiring the application of personal judgment (such as responsiveness to government or helpfulness to the public) they serve as indicators rather than as objective, measurable standards.

Both prohibitive clauses and those suggesting positive requirements can, nonetheless, have a powerful function in establishing the necessary environment for ethical public service behaviour.

The new Public Service Act is expected to contain a code of conduct along the following lines:

PS employees shall at all times in the course of their employment:

• conduct themselves with honesty and integrity when dealing with members of the community and other APS employees;
• act in accordance with laws, regulations, determinations, industrial awards and agreements and departmental instructions which are applicable to the performance of their duties and the administrative and legal measures established to enhance accountability;
• comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by a person who has authority to give it;
• perform their duties with care and diligence;
• deliver services equitably, courteously and in a timely manner;
• treat other APS employees with appropriate respect and courtesy, without coercion or harassment of any kind;
• maintain the confidentiality of dealings with ministers and their staff;
• use official information, equipment and facilities in a proper manner;
• disclose correct personal information when it is required for official purposes;
• disclose and avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest, whether financial or otherwise;
• not take advantage of their official duties, status, powers or authority in order to seek or obtain a benefit for themselves or for any other person or body;
• avoid patronage, favouritism and unjustified discrimination in their staffing decisions; and
• behave in a manner that upholds the reputation and integrity of the APS.

Guidelines

Less formal sets of rules can augment matters covered by legislation and can also be an important pointer to correct behaviour in a range of circumstances.

As mentioned above, the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission has issued Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants. The Guidelines draw attention to rules of behaviour laid down in legislation and in other sets of requirements. They show how such rules are to be applied and offer detailed discussion of related issues ö for example, acceptance of gifts, sponsored travel and hospitality.

The Guidelines point out that they do not have the answer to every problem of ethics or conduct that may arise at work. They acknowledge the important role of judgment, based on the application of values, in the regulation of behaviour and the making of decisions.

There has been a view that codes of conduct such as the Guidelines have limited use. Dr Peter Wilenski said of the 1979 Guidelines that they confined themselves to straightforward and peripheral issues as if the important ethical problems facing public servants in their everyday work did not exist. ⁵

Generally though, it is accepted that such codes can serve as a reasonable, practical guide to ethical conduct in specified kinds of situations. They are based on underlying values, and are intended to provide for the application of those values in those specified situations rather than providing hard and fast answers in all circumstances. They cannot cover the gamut of situations in which ethical judgments must be made, and should be seen as practical guidance to ethical conduct in particular circumstances, rather than as being exhaustive.

The role of judgment

The reduced reliance on detailed rules and central controls and the devolution of authority have been accompanied by a great increase in the activity of government and, as a result, in the number and range of administrative decisions. At all levels, the scope for exercise of discretion has grown: judgment becomes the vital ingredient in defensible decisions when public servants cannot simply apply rules.

Because the existence of rules alone cannot provide a sound base for ethical decisions, agency and program objectives need to be framed with an awareness of underlying ethical values and principles. The increased emphasis now placed on specifying objectives has the capacity to increase that awareness and to assist public servants when faced with the need to identify ethical courses of action.

The nature of the values to be adhered to by public servants has also been discussed. It is important to acknowledge again, however, that, while values such as honesty, accountability and non-discriminatory treatment are constant, the interpretation of values is not uniform in all sections of Australiaâs pluralistic society, nor are they fixed. Rather, the meaning attached to them and their relative emphasis continues to evolve as society changes. The APS needs to remain sensitive to the directions of change in community values.

The complexity of ethical judgments

Many judgments involving ethical considerations require relatively simple decisions about whether possible courses of action are right or wrong. Some situations though, involve difficult considerations of how APS values should be applied. While complexity should not be brought to bear on straightforward issues, it is important that public servants be always aware of the likely effects of their decisions. Consideration of values should not be something that occurs only when a problem arises, but should be an intrinsic part of the decision-making process and of the everyday relationship with government, colleagues and the public.

Some of the difficulties of judgment for public servants can arise where there are choices to be made which it is possible to view from more than one perspective and where no direct guidance is available from existing rules, rules are in conflict or guidance is incomplete or even irrelevant to the problem at hand.

Then it will often be necessary to consider not just the motivation behind a decision and the reality of the action, but the appearance which a proposed course of action might have. This may result in a decision not to do something that, while proper and justifiable, could be easily misrepresented and difficult to explain. Most commonly this arises in cases where there might be perceptions of a conflict of interest.

Public servants may have to decide, for example, whether or not it would be ethical to accept offers from clients which involve an element of personal benefit. It would clearly be unethical to seek out a benefit of any sort, and corrupt if the benefit were to be in return for favoured treatment. It would be unethical to accept an offer that appeared to be simply an attempt to ingratiate. Yet public servants do have a duty to develop an understanding of their clientsâ interests and points of view, while remaining, and appearing to remain, free from undue influence. It might not be unethical therefore to accept an offer that involved hospitality, because acceptance could be shown to bring a gain to the employer without any suggestion of undue influence. Judgment on the degree of influence or perceived influence will vary from case to case depending on factors such as the nature of dealings an agency has with an organisation or individual offering hospitality and the nature and extent of that hospitality. Cultural differences should not be ignored, and if gifts offered in good faith must be refused that should be done in a way that minimises the risk of offence. In essence, there is a need not only to remain objectively free from influence, but to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the APS. If an offer appears beneficial to the public interest, it may still be necessary to consider whether the government should pay for it ö and to decline if payment from the public purse appears unjustified.

Motivation as well as public justification is an important consideration. For example, concentration of expenditure at the end of a financial year may be a matter of planned and sensible use of available resources, or it may be wasteful. In either case, a reasonable public justification might be available. In such instances, awareness of and sensitivity to underlying principles will be the key to proper decision-making.

Different values may complement each other. Observance of the merit principle is required for the sake of fairness and required also as it allows the APS to make the most efficient use of the skills at its disposal. But as mentioned, values can conflict. There can, for example, be competing public interest implications, such as helpfulness to individual citizens, and overall speed and efficiency of service.

The duty of public sector agencies to place the broader public interest ahead of their own corporate interest is clear enough; but, when the pursuit of broader interests entails a forgoing of possible efficiencies or incurring of costs that are significant costs to the public, then careful judgments may be required. There may, for example, be no simple, universally applicable answer to such questions as, ãHow far should the Commonwealth be a model litigant?" A weighing of objectives or values, both financial and societal, would be involved in deciding whether and to what extent and at what cost an agency might feel obliged to disadvantage itself in a competitive environment.

Ethical implications may also need to be considered in relation to the level and types of services to be provided to the public. In some cases, obviously not those where there are benefits prescribed by law, the responsibility for determining how services will be provided may effectively rest with a public servant.

Public servants may need to consider, in both their administering and advising roles, what would be equitable outcomes and to what lengths they should reasonably go in order to achieve them. A balance may have to be struck between competing demands for time available to particular individuals or between the competing values of equity and efficiency. Beyond a certain point, extra attention to one person may lead to charges of unfairness to others.

Increasingly, the delivery of services is coming to involve meeting the special needs of individuals or the special mixes of needs they have. In the past, public servants saw providing equal service to the public as satisfying the requirement for fairness. As the scope of government services grew, however, and with a more targeted approach to eligibility and delivery, equity was increasingly seen in terms of equality of outcomes. As this development progresses, public servants will become subject to increased expectations that they should deal with the public flexibly but equitably. In responding to this expectation, they will have to consider the nature of equity and the kinds of circumstances in which different people should receive different treatment.

The examples given above, while involving the careful application of discretion, are nonetheless concrete and go basically to issues of proper and justifiable conduct against government objectives, guidelines and rules. The important element of all decisions is that they should reflect a fundamentally ethical culture, and that means there will not always be a tangible or easily described benefit. Being able to justify decisions publicly is important for the obvious reasons of demonstrating adherence to the law or established practice and to avoid embarrassment to the government. But the underlying reason is to maintain and foster confidence in the integrity and helpfulness of government.

Public servants should not regard values and rules as imposed and fixed, and without scope to reflect their own experience. They need to be alert to the emerging needs of the government, the community and their colleagues. They will be judged by their behaviour and judgments will change in line with new community standards. In their policy advising, service delivery and staff relations, they should be conscious of the need for APS values to develop.

In some of the situations described above, the treatment of the involved issues involved has necessarily been brief. Examples teasing out the nature of difficult judgments are described in more detail in Attachment C.

The relationship between Public Servants and Government

There are aspects of a public servantâs relationship with a minister or ministerâs office that can particularly give rise to situations requiring ethical judgment.

Generally, ministers and their staff and public servants have a good understanding of their respective roles. It is obviously important that ministers accept the significant part they play in setting an example of high ethical standards in their dealings with public servants. That does not mean, however, that ministerial or staff behaviour interpreted by a public servant as being deficient should lead to any diminution of the duty of the public servant to behave with total propriety.

Trust is the vital element in the relationship between minister and public servant, and both should avoid damaging that trust by behaviour that does not meet a high ethical standard. It should be possible in that relationship to discuss ethical issues openly.

Responsiveness to government, which has received renewed prominence in the consideration of APS values and principles in recent years, is one of the elements of the public servant/government relationship. Responsiveness does not remove the need for critical examination of and forthright advice on policies and their implementation. Impartiality and frank advice are in fact an essential part of the way the APS serves a government well. Nor does responsiveness to government cancel out the requirement to be responsive to the needs of the public, although the nature of that responsiveness needs to be governed by any relevant legal requirements as well as the broad objectives of government policies and available resources.

What responsiveness does involve, however, is more than an absence of hindrance either by action or omission. Public servants should be attuned to the objectives of government and implement government policy in an active and conscientious way. Governments are elected by the people, and it would be a peculiar perversity if government policies, in many cases endorsed by the Parliament, were nevertheless not implemented with diligence because an unelected public servant had a different view about the interests of the people.

A source of potential difficulty can arise when public servants believe they are being asked to perform a party political role. An essential characteristic of the APS is its party political neutrality. Clearly, however, public servants do not work in a political vacuum. As that very experienced minister and public servant, Sir Paul Hasluck, said, ãThe public service cannot avoid politics any more than fish can avoid the water in which they swim" ⁶Advice that ignores the political environment is neither useful nor intelligent, and does not fulfil the requirement to provide comprehensive advice.

It is proper therefore for public servants to prepare advice to ministers that canvasses the implications of policies in the context of announced policies of political parties, or to present material that describes government policy in positive terms. That material might be in the form of speeches or briefing for parliamentary question time. Whatever political party is in power, such duties are performed by public servants.

It is not proper, however, for public servants either to adopt party political stances ö even in defence of the minister ö or to refrain from giving frank and honest advice in an attempt to ingratiate or to avoid disapproval. The former would diminish the ability of the APS to serve governments impartially, while the latter, apart from being unhelpful to ministers, would offend against a basic ethical value which in effect justifies the existence of a career public service. The point at which a public servant desists from giving unpopular advice will be a matter for sensible judgment. Persistence that represents obstruction would be improper, but significant arguments should be put clearly and, if necessary, repeated to ensure the minister is fully informed. There may be occasions when changed circumstances make it appropriate for a public servant to return to an issue to ensure the minister has complete and up-to-date information. The former chairman of the Public Service Board, Sir William Cole, observed that, ã... it is important to avoid an attitude that a minister should be free to find his own road to hell if he wishes. Few ministers want timid officials and most appreciate forthright advice."⁷

There may be occasions when public servants become concerned by ministerial involvement in decision-making which in the ordinary course of events is left to officials. The first thing that should be remembered in such cases is that ministers have overall responsibility for administration of portfolio programs. If a minister, having observed the administration of a program, chooses to adjust aspects of that administration to meet community needs or policy objectives more effectively, that does not represent a political assault on the public service. The guidelines for the administration of grant schemes, for example, are generally open to some degree of interpretation and discretion. To suggest that it is only public servants who can undertake that interpretation or exercise that discretion is to misunderstand the source of public service authority. Where the minister exercises the right to make a personal judgment, the minister is of course personally accountable for that decision.

Justified concern might arise, however, where a public servant feels under pressure to determine the rights of a case, or to redirect grants or other services in a way that could not be justified under a reasonable interpretation of the legal framework for the program and any established guidelines. Where public servants or statutory officeholders have delegations to make decisions under legislation, it is ultimately for them to exercise their own judgment on the best decision. If there is disquiet about ministerial involvement in decision-making, it is essential that public servants be able to raise the matter with their supervisors and to receive support in achieving a satisfactory resolution of their concerns. Sometimes a discussion between a manager and a ministerâs office will clarify the issue for both parties. If concerns remain, however, the issue should be taken to more senior levels, with the head of the agency raising the matter with the minister if necessary. Neither ministers nor public servants should be placed in a position where they are asked to take responsibility for a decision which they do not feel they can defend as being fair, consistent and in the public interest.

Relations with ministerial staff, while normally based on co-operation and a mutual understanding of roles, can become troubled if public servants form the view that ministerial offices do not understand APS principles and values and are issuing instructions that make the observance of those principles and values difficult. The problem will be exacerbated if the staff purport to be acting at the direction of ministers, but public servants doubt that the ministers are in fact fully aware of the implications or the detail of the instructions. Once again, a reasonable discussion will usually be sufficient to establish the appropriate level of understanding, but if clarification with ministers is necessary that should be arranged by agency heads or other suitably senior public servants.

In all sensitive situations involving ethical issues, it is essential that public servants, even if their perceptions or understandings are found to be faulty, receive a serious hearing and are in no way discouraged from approaching their supervisors when they are concerned.

Personal and public values

Everyone has personal views and values. To the extent that performance of a task by an employee relies upon judgment it is likely that the person performing it will see his or her values as having relevance to it.

It would be unrealistic, therefore, to expect the personal views and values of public servants to make no contribution to the performance of their duties.

Furthermore, one could expect that such views and values, as with other aspects of the individual experience of public servants, would in many circumstances improve the quality of the results they achieve. Personal views, however, have their primary validity as a guide to personal conduct. In the public service context the individual has a professional duty to be aware of, and to avoid, the risks of too great a reliance on personal opinion.

These risks can apply both in policy advice and program administration and public servants must always be conscious that the role of deciding policies and programs belongs to ministers and the parliament whose power is legitimised by their having been elected and by their being accountable to the people at future elections.

As noted, public servants have never been expected to be politically naive. The best administrators have always been cognisant of, and responsive to, the objectives of the government of the day. One of the aims of reforms of public administration has been to extend that awareness throughout the APS in line with the devolution of responsibility for decision-making.

The APS must strike a balance between responsiveness and independence of judgment in serving the government. The APS can fulfil its proper role only if it has the capacity to advise the government frankly and without fear or favour. The government and the APS must, of course, comply with all legal requirements and public servants have a responsibility to draw these to ministersâ attention wherever they are, or may be, pertinent. In particular, the APS has a duty to draw on its professional experience to point out any possibly unpalatable implications of particular policies which might otherwise have remained unforeseen or been glossed over. Sir Frederick Wheeler conveyed the message with eloquence, ãPrime Minister, I simply seek to inform you of facts your ignorance of which will bring you down"

In short, while not the deciders of the public interest, public servants have as much duty to advise on the public interest factors of an issue as on any other factors. Their role is not passive, in that they carry a responsibility to promote good policy, which is directed at the national interest and which looks beyond the immediate future. At the same time they need to recognise the significant value judgments and uncertainties that can be involved in identifying the public interest and in determining outcomes, and to avoid their personal opinions and values extending beyond the limits of their professional knowledge and expertise, thus distorting and reducing the effectiveness of their advice.

In all these cases, the personal values and opinions of public servants may be useful, but do not of themselves provide the authoritative answers to questions of judgment, which must ultimately be shaped by generally accepted APS values. The APS has a duty to uphold the system of government under which it operates, and to give effect to the laws and other decisions of the peopleâs elected representatives. For this reason, public servants need an understanding of the system of government and of the place of the APS in that system.

They need, too, an understanding of the objectives and intentions of values that underlie decisions of the government and parliament. It is that understanding, in conjunction with the ethical values of the APS, that gives legitimacy to actions that public servants take on their own initiative.

Challenges for the future

The requirement on public servants to behave ethically is fundamentally as it has always been. Honesty, integrity, accountability and impartial service have been and will remain among the basic expectations of the APS.

This paper has attempted to show why an appreciation of the importance of a culture that fosters ethical behaviour is more important than ever. The developments in APS activities and values discussed above have all had an impact on ethical standards. A sharper focus has been brought to the need to balance a positive response to government aims and initiatives with the continuing requirement for frank, honest and comprehensive advice. The higher expectation of quality and relevant service has increased the emphasis on judgments about what constitutes equitable treatment of members of the public; while devolution has meant that public servants in regions throughout Australia and at more junior levels than in the past are responsible for making those judgments of what constitutes ethical behaviour.

These factors are among those that will continue to test the ethical framework in which decisions will be made. No doubt other factors will emerge that will require some adjustment to ways of preserving essential values.

Some of the challenges of the future will relate directly to the personal service provided to members of the public. For example, the growing use of case management to address the specific needs of people who require help from more than one program, possibly from more than one portfolio and perhaps from more than one level of government. Case managers will have to make judgments about the resources to be made available for an individual or group of individuals in the knowledge that resources, including time, are limited. The element of personal responsibility that might develop when a public servant is looking at the specific needs of a family must at all times remain on a professional basis and decisions must always be defensible in terms of both equity and proper use of funds. But to pretend that such decisions will always be easy would be to deny the complexity of the ethical issues that can arise in meeting the objective of government to serve the community well and fairly.

The ways of delivering services will continue to multiply. Choosing to use private rather than public service delivery brings into play the issue of the ethical standards to be required of external service providers. Public servants have a responsibility to address that issue before making a decision to sign a contract for the delivery of services. The benefits to be gained from a decision to outsource a service will be reduced if public servants then intervene in the day-to-day activities of the external provider. On the other hand, public confidence in the government could be damaged if government services were not delivered in an ethical way. There will be judgments to be made to ensure that contractors understand the standards required to satisfy the ethical stance of government, without imposing unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions. Clearly, known unethical behaviour by a contractor is unacceptable and should not be ignored by the public servant responsible for the contract.

The commercial environment in which much of the APS now works, whether as a result of a policy of user-pays or as part of an active competitive process of selling government services to Australian and international consumers, will also call increasingly on fine ethical judgments. A strong emphasis on results will be essential if these new approaches to services and resources are to be successful. But commercial success must be within the system of values accepted as basic to the APS. The difficulty of satisfying accepted standards while competing with enterprises working within a different ethical framework will increasingly require the attention of APS leadership. While a system of financial inducements to win business would be rejected as unethical, there will be issues that are not as clear cut, such as the impact of user-charging on regulatory activities.

Attitudes towards public service colleagues will always be important, and as the expectations and needs of existing and new staff evolve ö as they will undoubtedly continue to ö managers should be ready to respond. The challenge of maintaining an ethical culture will require constant alertness and an acceptance that public servants, in addition to acting with honesty and propriety themselves, must be encouraged to discuss and remedy within their organisations any situations or activities that could breach ethical standards and reduce public confidence in the APS and government.

It bears repeating that the example set by managers will be crucial in guarding the APS culture against weaknesses that could emerge as the complexity of public service relations with the community and business grows. It must be clear to public servants that management is committed to ethical conduct and will be prepared to stand up and be counted in support of such conduct. Management must show that it has a genuine interest in learning of and helping to resolve problems that arise as the APS takes on new challenges.

Individual public servants in an ethical culture

So far, this paper has focused on general issues as they may affect individual public servants, pointing to sources of guidance they may consult and the kinds of implications they should take into account. The desired result is that public servants, when confronted with the need to make ethical judgments, will know that rules and guidelines are available and will be able to apply general rules and the values underlying them to the circumstances of particular cases. To achieve this result, it is essential that there be both an understanding of the basic APS values and the observable example of ethical leadership.

In cases where different interests are in competition, there may be established proprieties of process to guide the conduct of public servants. Ethical considerations dictate that the person to benefit in any case should not be the decision-maker; and that all steps necessary to ensure fairness should be taken ö such steps might include consultation with those likely to be affected by a decision and provision of opportunities for them to receive information and to present arguments.

It is important that officers also be aware of the value of consultation with colleagues, supervisors, ministerial offices, and ultimately between agency heads and ministers, in the resolution of ethical dilemmas. The Guidelines point out that Îparticularly in relation to ethical problems, there is much to be gained from discussing ... problems with peers and with experienced and respected colleaguesâ. Agencies need to provide for sources of advice and discussion to be available so that their staff do not feel left on their own to deal with ethical dilemmas

Ways in which agencies may promote the development of an ethical culture among their own staff are set out in the remaining sections of this paper.

Action by agencies

The focus of action

The first part of this paper has necessarily dealt with the broad ethical issues affecting the APS on an agency-wide basis, and has emphasised the conceptual base from which agency managers should work in providing ethical leadership. To ensure that the ethical framework described can permeate individual work environments, it is important that agencies make APS principles and values relevant and applicable to the particular situations faced by their staff. Internal material and training can provide more specific guidance relevant to an agencyâs own circumstances, but within the overall APS framework. The Public Service and Merit Protection Commission is the authoritative source of advice on ethical standards and conduct within the APS.

Two major conditions for developing an ethical framework are: (a) a clearly articulated agency commitment to enhancing standards of conduct; and (b) a systematic strategy for increasing awareness and understanding of ethical standards and values. Some agencies have put such a framework in place and combined the fostering of an ethical culture with advice and training. Other agencies have built their internal ethical culture on the detailed regulations most relevant to their operations, but have not set out to develop a wider ethical framework based on that combination of commitment and strategy.

The development of ethical standards and values is often implicit in agency management practices, but more strategic thinking and planning might be devoted specifically to introducing arrangements that can instil broad ethical standards and values. Guidance on what ethical behaviour means can also be important. The Department of Defence offers the following advice to its staff, ãIn deciding on whether a particular action is Îethicalâ, we need to consider whether it is consistent with our personal standards of right or wrong, what its consequences might be for us or for others, whether we would be perfectly happy to have the action made public, whether we feel that we could easily justify the action if we were called upon to do so"

Training modules are generally, and appropriately, used to address specific areas of concern to agencies. Use should also be made of strategic documents such as corporate plans and human resource development plans to promote ethical standards agency-wide. It is the fundamental APS values and the place of the APS in our system of government that must be communicated to staff.

Management policies and practices should reflect and impart an awareness of ethical implications. Staff appraisal arrangements, for example, should provide for coverage of ethical issues in the appraisal of an officerâs performance as well as fairness in the appraisal process. Similarly, measures relating to accountability and program evaluation should be framed with conscious attention to their use as tools for monitoring ethical aspects of performance.

Professional codes play a strong role for many professional staff employed by agencies. Such codes represent a complementary basis for conduct, but there may be cases in which the professional staff concerned perceive conflict between the duties they are required to undertake as public servants and the requirements of their professional codes. In such cases agencies may need to give special consideration to the circumstances of the professionals involved.

Leadership

An agency will not have a culture of ethical behaviour unless that culture is manifest in the senior management.

The first duty of managers and supervisors in providing leadership in the area of ethics is, therefore, to provide a consistent example of highly ethical conduct. They should give firm support to staff who raise problems of an ethical kind and ensure an openness in discussion of what constitutes correct conduct. Words espousing values such as commitment to the community must not be undermined by conflicting action: management should not say it values one thing while it measures and rewards something contradictory.

To fulfil this duty senior managers must themselves have an understanding of APS ethical standards and values and of their own role in shaping the ethical culture of their organisation. The Public Service and Merit Protection Commission has addressed this aspect of leadership by including ethics awareness in its SES training programs. It is important that other management development programs also include modules to provide participants with the skills and knowledge required for the role of exemplifying and articulating ethical standards and values.

The proposed Financial Management and Accountability Act will reinforce managersâ leadership responsibility in this regard, making Chief Executives accountable for the ethical as well as efficient and effective use of Commonwealth resources.

Corporate plans

Agencies should ensure that their corporate plans not only articulate corporate objectives and values, but that they include specific references to the understanding and implementation of ethical standards. Establishing standards in the corporate planning process is a fundamental starting point in the formation of ethical cultures.

It is important that corporate plans be developed in consultation with staff so that they are all the more useful as instruments for developing ethical cultures.

The Department of Administrative Services has reflected the values espoused in its various ethics-related codes and guidelines in its corporate plan and business plans, with particular emphasis on the need ãto be a valued contributor to the Australian community and the nation"

Citizens charters

Some agencies have developed citizensâ charters in recent years. Determining what constitutes right conduct in any relationship depends on the terms of that relationship, on the expectations that each party has of the other. It is in that capacity a charter is potentially most valuable. A charter should reflect constructive and continuing communications between an agency and its clients. A well-structured charter will specify what is required to secure efficiency, effectiveness and fairness in the delivery of services, but it will also prescribe what constitutes right (or ethical) conduct. A charter of this kind would be dynamic, reflecting changing circumstances and the flexible nature of the relationship between the public and its servants.

A charter can also assist the process and content of accountability to be more visible to the public, the government and the Parliament, and watchdogs like the Australian National Audit Office and the Ombudsmanâs Office. Public servants know what is expected of them and the public knows what to expect and how to seek redress for perceived wrongs.

Ethics audits

An important step in developing an agency approach to ethics is to establish the current state of the agencyâs ethical culture. An absence of discovered fraud obviously is not enough to imply a healthy culture. Among the factors to be assessed are: the values held by staff; the level of their ethical awareness and understanding; the level of compliance with guidelines and legal requirements; and the infrastructure or organisational supports to underpin ethical conduct. Knowledge of these matters establishes a basis for a program of regular review.

Scrutiny

Ethical standards and values are safeguarded by mechanisms to scrutinise actions and decisions. Some such mechanisms are external to agencies, as with parliamentary committees, while others need to be established internally so that staff understand that their actions and decisions may be reviewed and may require explanation or justification. Processes should be in place to ensure that the reasons for decisions and the identity of decision-makers are recorded and made available for scrutiny to the extent that this is permitted by law.

The development over the last two decades of a body of administrative law has significantly increased the level of scrutiny to which public servantsâ actions and decisions are subject, and has brought about an openness and accountability previously unknown. Not only should the letter and spirit of these laws be observed, but the case studies that flow from the various bodies established by legislation can be useful guides to further improvements in ethical conduct and to emerging values.

Counselling, appeal and grievance processes

Provision needs to be made to address the concerns of staff members and the public who believe that they have been treated unethically.

The primary responsibility for addressing staff concerns belongs to supervisors. In most agencies members of staff also have access to advice from areas with expertise in personnel, fraud control, EEO and workplace harassment matters. Some agencies provide access for staff to external counselling services, which assist in resolving issues related to work, including ethical problems. Counsellors in such services may also serve as independent work-group facilitators to assist in resolving discrimination or other conduct problems. The grievance process is a formal pathway allowing staff to resolve a range of issues, including some ethical issues.

Agencies or program managers may institute their own mechanisms for dealing with complaints or for reviewing decisions. These are additional to formal mechanisms such as the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In considering reports flowing from these formal channels, managers should not only institute systemic change to reduce complaints, but should take the opportunity, where appropriate, to build-in and reconsider ethical values.

Use of Service-wide materials

A list of Service-wide materials used by agencies in developing awareness and understanding of ethics on the part of staff members is at Attachment D. These materials include the Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants, issued by the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission in 1995. Other Service-wide material includes legislation and material on EEO, workplace harassment, FOI, privacy, OH&S and duty of care.

Among projects initiated by MAB/MIAC are projects on Implementing APS Ethical Standards and Values (leading to the production of the present paper), Managing Risk in the APS and Rewards and Sanctions.

These materials are widely distributed by agencies to their staff and in many cases form the basis for training in ethical behaviour appropriate to their responsibilities, and for the development of internal materials.

Internal materials

Agencies may find it useful to establish their own supplementary codes of conduct or statements of values, particularly where they wish to reflect the nature of their functions and special concerns.

In areas where actions and decisions are guided by instructions issued by agency heads, effective internal distribution of those instructions is, of course, necessary. For example, the financial management instructions issued by agency heads are essential in ensuring ethical standards. Decision-makers might find it helpful to work with checklists of the factors they should consider when reaching decisions.

Induction booklets and other human resource manuals and staff handbooks should include sections on ethical standards and values. A further option is to address ethical issues in operational instructions and program procedures.

Communication

Ethical frameworks, codes of conduct and supporting materials are of little use unless they are communicated effectively to staff. Communication occurs in a variety of ways. Training is one way, and is covered in the following section of this paper.

The dissemination of service-wide and agency materials is an important means of communicating ethical concerns. In addition to those kinds of material mentioned already, management procedural circulars are a widely used means of communication. Internal bulletins and circulars seek to keep the attention of staff focused on ethical issues. Agencies also produce a range of pamphlets and posters that summarise requirements in such areas as conduct, fraud prevention and privacy.

In some agencies, information about matters such as EEO, OH&S, industrial democracy and fraud control is made available to staff via on-line systems. One department is developing an interactive software package that will inform staff of appropriate standards. Video productions are also used as a means of communicating ethical standards, and may include case studies for discussion by staff.

Agency legal services areas can make a significant contribution to raising the awareness of staff in regard to the legal aspects of their official conduct. Action taken in some agencies includes case-by-case advice, papers on particular topics, legal newsletters, involvement in staff training and participation in management conferences.

Some agencies incorporate ethical issues into seminars, conferences, meetings and presentations. For small agencies, these means of communication provide an alternative to published material which they may not have the resources to produce. In all agencies, such activities offer managers an opportunity to provide leadership.

As much as by any of the above methods, however, ethical values should be communicated by example and by direct discussion. There will be occasions where staff might, in the absence of explanation from a senior officer, regard a management decision as inconsistent with guidelines on ethics. For example an officer who has been advised to decline an offer of hospitality from a supplier of equipment might be unimpressed to see senior officers at a lunch hosted by a private business. Even correct judgments by managers will sometimes lead to such apparent inconsistencies, and it is most important that the rationale be explained, and that staff be encouraged to raise with their supervisors what they see as inconsistent standards.

That encouragement should be an aspect of an atmosphere in which it is clear that staff should raise with their supervisors or more senior management, not only instances where they think they have been treated unethically, but also general or specific concerns about the conduct of others within the agency. Staff should know the procedures they should follow if they believe other public servants are acting in an unethical or corrupt way.

Training

An ethical culture cannot be imposed through training, but training can instil in public servants an awareness that their work is a public trust; it can promote understanding of ethical issues and of the values that should guide conduct; and it can offer models of the exercise of ethical judgment and resolution of ethical problems.

The training of officers on matters of ethics should be considered strategically. Information presented in a context of corporate and APS objectives, and drawing out the ethical component of those objectives, is more helpful and relevant than information presented in isolation. Agencies should give attention to the promotion of ethical standards in their human resource development planning and in associated individual development plans and the staff appraisal process.

The most comprehensive overview of ethical issues is usually provided in induction courses, which may include a number of topics covered in the Guidelines on Official Conduct. Internal and Service-wide materials on standards are usually given to members of staff at this stage. Ethical training is important at this early stage, but new staff may not be able to absorb adequately its detail and implications. Ongoing updated information and training on ethical standards of conduct are necessary, to ensure that staff at all levels have the necessary understanding and are able to make ethical decisions where individual discretion is required. It is important too that staff have the opportunity to practise reactions to ethical problems so that their thinking on the practical application of values and principles is refined.

A specific focal point of training in the APS is middle management. The PSMPC offers a management module, ÎManaging Ethically ö Applying APS Principlesâ. The PSMPCâs SES Orientation Program also covers the management leadership role under such headings as ÎSES Responsibilities and Accountabilityâ, ÎValues and Building Principles Underpinning SES Conductâ and ÎManaging Self ö Personal Ethicsâ. Agencies should incorporate coverage of ethical issues in their own management development activities and should encourage managers or reflect on their role in promoting ethical standards.

Case studies

The ICAC report, Unravelling Corruption: A Public Sector Perspective, found that Îknowing what corruption refers to in abstract terms ... is not sufficient to ensure that an individual would identify a specific occurrence of that behaviour as corruptâ. ⁸

Agency communication and training efforts should provide specific examples of ethical and unethical conduct. Case studies present staff with examples of behaviour set in contexts to which they can relate, and allow the wider implications of such conduct to be communicated more effectively.

Management of misconduct and corruption

The object of developing an ethical culture is to promote ethical conduct and reduce the likelihood of misconduct or corruption. The goal of the Australian Taxation Office reflects that view: ãThe ATO does not regard codes of conduct which are prescriptive and threatening as a useful strategy and holds that ethical behaviour must ultimately be founded on the fundamental values and standards espoused in the corporate culture and shared by staff. ...Strategies to foster ethical behaviour are seen by the ATO as the primary defence against corrupt conduct. The ATO thus aims to develop a committed ethical workforce which feels an overriding obligation through peer pressure to meet a common set of high standards."

Investigations and prosecutions related to misconduct or corruption are a last resort, necessary when regulatory, procedural and physical barriers and counselling and the inculcation of ethical standards have failed.

An ethical culture cannot, however, develop in an agency where there are no effective mechanisms for the detection, investigation and prosecution of misconduct, or where there is no will to use such mechanisms. Prompt and decisive disciplinary action should be seen as a means of reinforcing high ethical standards. Action in this regard can demonstrate to staff and the community that an agency is committed to eliminating unethical conduct.

It is essential that agencies have internal guidelines and processes for monitoring and reporting misconduct and for investigating allegations, to complement the processes specified in the Discipline Handbook. Another requirement is that supervisors be given the necessary training to enable them to counsel and discipline members of staff who misbehave. Developing a capacity to use the APS discipline provisions means learning to use them ethically. Experience in the use of provisions for appeal to a Disciplinary Appeal Committee has pointed to the need for agencies to inform staff of the requirements of their employment and to make managers familiar with the discipline and appeal provisions so that they may use those provisions effectively.

The PSMPC conducts seminars to develop in agency staff an awareness of discipline procedures. These seminars highlight the basic responsibilities of staff as laid down in the Public Service Act and Regulations, other relevant legislation, the Guidelines on Official Conduct and the Discipline Handbook. Some agencies, too, have put considerable effort into management training in relation to discipline procedures. Such training may significantly enhance the capacity of managers to handle allegations of misconduct or criminal activity.

End notes

1) Colin Hughes (1983) ãPublic Service Ethics in Australia" in Kernaghan & Dwivedi (eds) Ethics in the Public Service: Comparative Perspectives Brussels: International Institute of Administrative Sciences. p.68

2) The code is set out below, in a separate section under the heading APS Values.

3) Management Advisory Board (1993) Building a Better Public Service. no. 12. p. 4. AGPS: Canberra

4 ) Management Advisory Board (1993) Accountability in the Commonwealth Public Sector. no. 11. p.Ê5. AGPS: Canberra

5) Peter Wilenski (1986) Competing Values in Public Administration in Public Power and Public Administration. Sydney

6) Paul Hasluck (1968) ãThe Public Servant and Politics" in Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration No 78, August 1995. p91

7) RW Cole (1980) ãResponsible Government and the Public Service" p.5

8) Independent Commission Against Corruption (1994). Unravelling Corruption: A Public Sector Perspective. ICAC Research Report no. 1 p. 133-134

Australian Public Service Commission   A-Z index   Privacy, legal & copyright   Contact us
This page can be found at www.apsc.gov.au/mab/ethics.htm