Address by The Hon Gary Gray, AO MP
Special Minister of State,
and
Special Minister of State for Public Service and Integrity
Ethical behaviour is a cornerstone of any quality public administration and the Australian public rightly expects a high level of performance from their Government and the Australian Public Service.
The Sydney Morning Herald has, over the last few weeks, made several irresponsible claims about the integrity of the service and questioned the ethical behaviour of its employees.
It has held up unsubstantiated allegations as examples of endemic corruption and suggested that the public service has neither capacity nor mechanism to deal with corruption, and seeks the establishment of a further oversight body.
It has incongruously claimed that an “unknown number of corruption cases lie undiscovered inside the vast Commonwealth bureaucracy” – and then uses these unsubstantiated claims as the basis for the statement that this all makes for “disquieting reading”.
In truth, existing detection and response mechanisms are demonstrably working. Indeed, the claims are based in issues identified by the agencies’ own internal audit arrangements.
The most common type of misconduct in the Australian Public Service (APS) is improper use of the internet or email (313 employees investigated in finalised cases in 2009-10) not fraud or theft.
Data from the most recently published Australian Public Service Commissioner’s State of the Service Report shows that of around 151,000 ongoing APS employees, only 33 were determined to have committed fraud and eight to have committed theft. As a percentage of employees, this amounts to 0.02 per cent and 0.005 per cent respectively. The matters reported have been examined through appropriate internal mechanisms within each agency.
It is important to make the distinction between criminal and administrative misconduct.
While it is true that some investigations into administrative misconduct are discontinued each year because an employee has resigned, criminal investigations do not stop for this reason. Moreover, some matters may not be pursued following an employee’s resignation for a range of reasons, for example, if the allegations are not sufficiently substantial or supported with credible evidence to warrant further investigation.
Individual APS employees also have significant personal responsibilities under the Public Service Act. The APS Code of Conduct and APS Values set high and enforceable standards for employee behaviour. All employees, for example, are expected to act professionally and comply with the law. The Code of Conduct and APS Values set high and enforceable standards for employee behaviour. All employees are expected to act professionally and comply with the law. The evidence shows that APS employees are held to account against these standards.
Under the Public Service Act, agency heads are responsible for the investigation of suspected breaches of the Code of Conduct, and may refer matters to the appropriate enforcement agencies if there are serious suspicions of fraud. The decision to involve enforcement agencies such as the AFP is a serious one and is not made lightly.
New Commonwealth Fraud Control Guidelines were issued in March this year and all agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA), including those reported recently, are required to comply with the guidelines. They also form the basis for continuous improvement within agencies.
These guidelines make clear that agencies must refer all allegations of serious or complex fraud involving Commonwealth interests to the Australian Federal Police.
The APS has a proactive and preventative approach to fraud and corruption. Through systematic risk assessments, vulnerabilities are identified and tested to minimise potential breaches. Internal audit reports and the issues raised are evidence that this system works. There is a range of independent expert bodies to oversee and support agencies in their approach.
The Auditor-General provides independent assurance about the use of public sector resources to Parliament, the Executive, Chief Executive Officers and the public. The Commonwealth Ombudsman has powers to investigate complaints from people about the administrative action of an Australian Government agency, including alleged unlawful action.
The Public Service Commissioner can also initiate an investigation into any matter relating to the APS, including at the request of the Public Service Minister.
Finally, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity investigates law enforcement-related corruption issues for agencies within its jurisdiction, giving priority to systemic and serious corruption.
Section 16 of the Public Service Act provides protection for employees who make whistleblower reports of suspected misconduct.
The misconduct that has been found is overwhelmingly characterised by isolated acts of poor judgement, rather than systemic misbehaviour, maladministration or corruption.
It is not uncommon for government agencies to receive allegations that are vexatious or made to gain a competitive advantage or shift the focus from the informant’s own shortcomings/misfeasance. But it is neither practical nor fair to the person about whom allegations are made to conduct investigations without at least some supporting evidence of the alleged behaviour.
Data on fraud and misconduct is openly and transparently provided through the Australian Institute of Criminology’s report on Fraud Against the Commonwealth, the report to Parliament on Compliance with the FMA requirements and the (SOSR).
The Australian Government takes all fraud and corruption allegations very seriously, and is determined that all appropriate measures are taken to ensure that public funds are spent properly and accountably.
The Sydney Morning Herald cannot argue that an “unknown number of corruption cases lie undiscovered inside the vast Commonwealth bureaucracy” as the basis for dumping the existing world-class systems used to detect, investigate and report on misconduct.