Inquiry outcomes

The Taskforce supported the Independent Reviewers to complete their inquiries. These respondents had different roles and accountabilities with respect to the design, implementation and ongoing monitoring of the Scheme. The inquiries were complex, with large volumes of interrelated evidence,owing to the nature of the interdependent work undertaken by these respondents. Although interrelated, each of the inquiries were considered independently. Sufficient time was required to allow the Reviewers to conduct the inquiries in a manner that was robust and afforded respondents appropriate procedural fairness.

3.1 Breach findings

The APS Code of Conduct is set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act. All APS employees must behave in a manner consistent with the Code.

At the conclusion of the inquiries, 12 current and former public servants including former Agency Heads were found to have breached the Code on 97 occasions.

A summary of the breaches of each element of the Code is as follows:

In addition, a number of respondents were found to have breached one or more of the APS Values (set out in section 10 of the Public Service Act):

• Committed to Service
• Ethical
• Respectful
• Accountable
• Impartial

3.2 Sanctions

The Independent Sanction Advisers provided impartial advice on sanctions for breaches of the Code by current APS employees. The Sanctions Advisers were independent of the Taskforce and not current APS employees. The Sanctions Adviser's role was to consider available sanctions for the determined breach(es) and to recommend to the Commissioner a suitable sanction for individuals that are current APS employees.

The Commissioner then provided the sanction recommendation to relevant Agency Heads under section 41B(9) of the Public Service Act. The Sanctions Adviser was also available to provide advice to agencies responsible for implementing sanctions, if requested. 

The imposition of a sanction for a current APS employee is ultimately a matter for an Agency Head or their delegate as an individual’s employer. If an Agency Head disagreed with the Commissioner’s sanction recommendation, the Agency Head was required to discuss the proposed alternative decision with the Commissioner prior to finalising any decision.

If a sanction was not able to be imposed on an individual who was no longer part of the APS but had breached the Code, that individual would still be required to disclose their breach, when asked, if they sought employment in the APS, as an APS contractor, or as an APS consultant within the next five years.

In accordance with the Public Service Act[7] sanctions were applied to current APS employees[8] where a breach had been determined. A number of individuals received multiple sanctions to reflect the seriousness or the number of breaches. The recommended sanctions were:

• Reduction in classification for two individuals;
• Reduction in salary for one individual;
• Fines for three individuals; and
• Reprimands for five individuals.

One public servant retired before the recommended sanction could be imposed.

The purpose of a sanction is to ensure future breaches of this type are limited, and individuals are enlivened to the issues that occur when APS employees breach the Code. Sanctions are not considered as punishment of individuals, rather as restorative to ensure awareness for future conduct and to reinstall community confidence in public service administration.

Sanctions were not imposed where respondents were former employees or former Agency Heads of the APS. There is no legal authority to impose sanctions for determination of breach once an individual exits the APS. However, there is a requirement that applicants disclose conduct related matters when asked when applying for a role with the APS. This requirement permits agencies to risk manage a person’s suitability for a role. This is a standing requirement for five years following the determination of a breach.

In a number of inquiries, had the respondent still been an employee of the APS, the recommended sanction may well have been termination due to the seriousness of the breaches.