Address by The Hon Gary Gray, AO MP
Special Minister of State,
and
Special Minister of State for Public Service and Integrity
The Australian Public Service (APS)—and at times the whole notion of public service – does not always get the recognition it deserves.
It presents a soft target that will not fight back, making it easy for politicians and journalists to attack it unfairly without rebuke.
This week The Canberra Times referred to a number of allegations about fraud, corruption and misconduct in the public service, which were previously reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The Canberra Times rightly pointed out that there is no evidence of endemic corruption, or a culture of complacency, in the APS. Correctly, The Canberra Times argued that sufficient anti-corruption systems exist and acknowledged that there is no need for an independent corruption commission like those that exist in New South Wales and Western Australia.
It did, however, use those allegations to suggest the need for stronger investigative powers to provide independent oversight of integrity in Commonwealth agencies. I do not accept that the allegations substantiate an argument for fundamental change to the existing approach. Indeed, most of the claims of the Sydney Morning Herald were identified by the agencies’ own internal audit and risk assessment arrangements, demonstrating the effective approach of the APS.
The APS already has in place powerful checks and balances that are demonstrably identifying and improving integrity issues. These checks do not represent a single body, as has been argued for, but they represent the culmination of years of effective work that ensures proper internal and external oversight of the APS.
Internally, individual APS employees have significant personal responsibilities under the Public Service Act 1999.
The 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.
Section 16 of the Public Service Act also provides protection for employees who make whistleblower reports of suspected misconduct.
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 Australian Federal Police (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 AFP.
The more vulnerable, high risk agencies have internal fraud investigation units often staffed with employees with previous experience in police forces.
Where an employee’s behaviour may be both a breach of the Code of Conduct and a serious criminal offence the matter is discussed with the relevant police service which may prepare a brief of evidence for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Investigations into criminal matters are independent of an employee’s employment and cannot be discontinued by resignation.
External to agencies, the Auditor-General provides independent assurance about the use of public sector resources to Parliament, the Executive, Chief Executive Officers and the public. As noted, the AFP will investigate complex and serious cases and criminal matters. 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.
Further, 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.
Together, this combination of mechanisms ensures that all APS employees are held to account. And despite the simplistic and misleading claims from the Sydney Morning Herald, the APS continues to identify and effectively deal with claims of misconduct and fraud. I have written separately to the Sydney Morning Herald about these matters.
The most common type of misconduct in the APS is improper use of the internet or email (313 employees investigated in finalised cases in 2009-10), not fraud or theft.
The most recent published Australian Public Service Commissioner’s State of the Service Report (SOSR) data shows that out 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.
Data 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.
There is a series of mechanisms to ensure that all employees are expected to act professionally and comply with the law.
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.
All the evidence at this stage suggests that current systems are working effectively.