REPORT ON ETHICS & INTEGRITY IN THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SECTOR.docx

REPORT ON ETHICS & INTEGRITY
IN THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SECTOR
2013
INTEGRITY COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
INTRODUCTION
The Integrity Commission was established in October
2010. One of its key objectives is to improve the standard
of conduct, propriety and ethics in Tasmanian public
authorities by adopting a strong educative, preventative
and advisory role.
Since establishment, the Commission has been collecting
information about the state of ethics and integrity in the
public sector. The Commission has done this by delivering
face to face training and education programs; establishing
discussion and advisory groups (Ethical Reference

Groups);1 examining public information about agencies;
investigating misconduct and auditing the way agencies
have responded to allegations of misconduct.
Between November 2012 and January 2013, the
Commission conducted a detailed survey of integrity
mechanisms in state departments and government
businesses.2 The total staff within agencies surveyed
amounted to nearly 31,000. The Commission combined
the information it had gathered from all sources, and from
this survey, to produce the first ‘map’ of the gaps in ethics
and integrity policies and practices in these agencies.
This information provides valuable insight into the key
areas of misconduct risk. The Commission will use this
information to develop training, research and misconduct
prevention activities (products) to ensure that the work of
the Commission is directed towards the areas of highest
misconduct risk and that its products are most effective
in helping agencies to reduce that risk. This work will also

assist agency heads to meet their obligations under the
Integrity Commission Act 2009 to provide training to staff
on ethics and integrity.
WHAT IS A
MISCONDUCT RISK?
Misconduct risk arises from various sources. A poor culture;
gaps in administrative processes; a lack of, or poorly
drafted policies and procedures; ignorance of obligations
and accountability system failures have been identified as
key factors.3
Risk management models are universally recommended
for agencies to assess their own governance needs,
adopt (or not adopt) recommended standards and
tailor their integrity frameworks to suit their needs.4 The
OECD5 recommends agencies identify high risk areas and
manage them with existing processes such as personnel
management or internal audit.
In mapping misconduct risk within the Tasmanian public
sector, the Commission identified a number of risk areas

to measure agencies against, in order to determine the
‘health’ of the sector in relation to ethics and integrity. The
areas the Commission focussed on included:
• education on ethical codes and key integrity policies –
this included an assessment of whether education was
ongoing or limited to induction, employees understood
the information that was provided to them and records
of training were maintained;
• key ethical guides – values, vision and mission statements
and service charters set the ethical tone of an agency, so
the existence, accessibility and employee awareness of
these was assessed;
• misconduct management systems – crucial to minimising
misconduct risk is the identification, reporting and
treatment of complaints and reports of misconduct
(internal or external). The existence and robustness of
these management systems was assessed; and
• Public Interest Disclosure – protection of a ‘discloser’ is

a key risk management tool, particularly for misconduct
at higher levels, which is most serious. The existence
of procedures to allow for such disclosures and the
awareness of employees and the public in how to use
them was assessed.
1. Ethical reference groups have been established to cover key
areas
of state public administration – state service departments,
government
businesses, local government. There is also a separate group to
cover
northern agencies.
2. The survey was conducted generally by face to face
interviews
with officers nominated by the head of the agency.
3. Testing APS Ethics: Where’s the Integrity, Lynelle Briggs
Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol 68 No 2 p 119
4. ASX corporate governance principles at
http://www.asx.com.au/governance/corporate-governance.htm
5. OECD Reviews of Public Sector Integrity
http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/publicsectorintegrityreviews.ht
m
While agencies believe that
they are providing sufficient
information in applicable codes

of conduct and ethics and
integrity at induction, staff do
not perceive that they have
received that training.
3
Generally, the survey of 26 agencies found that most:
• provide their staff with information on the code
of conduct at induction;
• review complaints for the purpose of improving
processes;
• have comprehensive internal audits; and
• train and delegate staff in known risk areas, such
as procurement.
However some key gaps were identified.
Education
Of most concern was that 17 out of 26 agencies surveyed
did not provide adequate training or awareness-raising in
ethics and integrity after staff induction.
This information confirmed what the Commission had been

told directly by staff of agencies. The Commission surveyed
staff who undertook its face to face training in 2012 and
69% of those who responded said they had not attended
training in ethics or integrity at all with either their current
or former employer. Of those the Commission trained in
2013, 58% said they had not received any previous ethics
and integrity training.
The Ethical Reference Groups which meet regularly with
Commission officers have also consistently raised concerns
that staff are not aware of their responsibilities under the
applicable codes of conduct and are also unaware of their
ethical obligations generally.
These findings indicate that while agencies believe that
they are providing sufficient information in applicable
codes of conduct and ethics and integrity at induction,
staff do not perceive that they have received that training.
It was also clear from our survey that for most agencies,
ethics training is a ‘one-off’ on induction. After induction

staff are not reminded about it nor do they have their
understanding refreshed.
Other gaps in the education area included:
• 8 agencies did not make any record of their staff’s
understanding of their ethical training and 3 did not
record participant attendance; and
• 8 omitted key ethical issues (such as the code of
conduct, vision, mission and values and the service
charter) from initial induction or ethical training.
Key ethical guides
Of the agencies surveyed 7 had no service charter and
4 no vision statement.
Managing misconduct
There was significant room for improvement in recording
and analysing complaints - 9 agencies did not have
a complaints policy or defined process for handling
complaints and 8 did not have a complaints register to
track breaches of key policies and report trends to senior

management.
Eight agencies did not inform their contractors about code
of conduct provisions that might be relevant to the work
they did for the agency.
Staff were not trained at all in key compliance policies
covering high risk areas such as conflict of interest
(4 agencies) and receipt of gifts and benefits (6 agencies).
Nine agencies provided no ongoing training or awareness
– raising of these after induction. An interesting parallel
theme emerged from feedback the Commission received in
its staff training sessions. There was a widespread degree
of concern about conflicts of interest, particularly in the
health sector and local councils (recruitment was identified
as a key area). Nepotism and patronage were perceived as
a problem in these sectors.
On the positive side 22 agencies surveyed said they
reported complaints to senior management in one form
or another, after receipt.

Public Interest Disclosure
The Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002 (the PID Act)
requires agencies to establish procedures to deal with
certain processes (such as investigations and disclosures)
under the Act and to make those procedures available to
its staff and the public.
The information we received from our survey of agencies
showed that nearly a quarter did not have PID procedures
in place and 10 did not provide training to staff on PID
rights and obligations, despite the Ombudsman publishing
guidelines and model procedures to assist agencies to
comply with the PID Act.
4
Education on ethical codes, policies and issues,
vision/mission statement, service charter and PID
Limited or lack of ongoing ethics and integrity training or
awareness-raising following initial induction.

Key ethical issues omitted from induction.
Employees not provided with practical examples during
education
or awareness-raising.
Training records not kept.
Employee understanding of education or awareness-raising not
assessed or recorded.
WHAT THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
FOUND FROM 26 AGENCIES SURVEYED
17
8
1
3
8
Key ethical guides
No vision statement.
No service charter.
Limited or no access to service charter.
No steps taken to make the code of conduct ‘visible’ to
employees.

4
7
3
1
Managing misconduct
Key compliance policies (including conflict of interest, gifts
and benefits
and confidentiality) not included in ongoing training or
awareness raising.
Contractors not informed about the code of conduct.
No complaints policy or process.
No complaints/breach registers.
Complaints not reported to senior management.
9
8
9
8
4
5
Public interest disclosure (PID)

No PID policy or procedures.
No PID training.
Limited or no access to PID information.
6
10
6
Special needs clients
Limited or no provision for special needs clients. 3
2
Investigations
Limited or no guidance and education for employees
on conducting investigations.
1
Accreditation
Employee accreditation not checked.
Risk assessment
No internal audit. 1
6
Special needs clients
Most agencies (23) had some procedures in place to

inform special needs clients about the key policies that
existed for their benefit (e.g. consultation with special
interest groups, establishment of telephone hotlines, and
direct liaison with carers, guardians and parents).
Investigations
Most agencies used external consultants to carry
out investigations for code of conduct breaches –
6 exclusively and an additional 13 for more serious or
complex investigations.
Of those agencies which conducted their investigations
internally, 10 stated that they provided guidance or
training to their staff conducting the investigations.
However, feedback from our training sessions and the
Ethical Advisory Groups over the last year indicated that
there is a significant lack of skill in managing and carrying
out these kinds of disciplinary investigations.
GAPS = MISCONDUCT RISKS
The following identified gaps give rise to integrity risks

in agencies:
• employees do not know of their ethical obligations,
which places the agencies at risk of them engaging
in misconduct or behaviour that might be seen as
such by the public;
• manager ignorance of how to address employee
misconduct, which places agencies at risk of poor cultures
developing though bad behaviour not being addressed;
• employee misunderstanding of their organisation’s core
values and the expected behaviour that flows from them;
• lack of training records making disciplinary action
following a breach of the code of conduct or key
compliance policy difficult to substantiate or sanction
through appropriate penalty;
• ignorance of ethical standards in contractors engaged
to deliver core business leading to an increased risk of
behaviour damaging to the reputation of the agency;

• the lack of a co-ordinated complaint process with
analysis and feedback to management resulting in
trends and risks not being identified;
• the lack of robust and accessible PID procedures
may result in employees or others avoiding use of
the PID processes to expose misconduct, allowing
it to go undetected; and
• the lack of facilities to allow special needs clients to
complain, may result in misconduct involving them
going undetected.
The Commission surveyed
staff who undertook its face
to face training in 2012 and
69% of those who responded
said they had not attended
training in ethics or integrity
at all with either their current
or former employer. Of those
the Commission trained in
2013, 58% said they had not
received any previous ethics
and integrity training.
There was a widespread degree
of concern about conflicts of

interest, particularly in the
health sector and local councils
(recruitment was identified
as a key area). Nepotism and
patronage were perceived as
problems in these sectors.
7
Good practices
There were a number of activities, resources and
programs within a small proportion of those surveyed,
mostly from government businesses, that serve as good
practice examples within the state public sector.
1. Education
• use of online training tools;
• agencies establishing a compliance officer
position conducting monthly compliance training;
• toolbox talks on the code of conduct/ethical issues;
• regular internal emails and newsletters about
ethical issues;
• refresher training on ethics and the code of

conduct; and
• the agency’s code of conduct is discussed
regularly with staff.
2. Managing misconduct
• the code of conduct forms part of the contract
of engagement and induction for contractors.
3. Client Services
• service agreements made with customers containing
dispute resolution procedures; and
• undertaking a customer service survey.
4. Risk assessment
• discussion regarding the service charter is
included in the performance review process; and
• a register of issues and opportunities identifies
opportunities for improvement and assesses risk.
WHAT HELP DID AGENCIES
ASK FOR FROM THE
INTEGRITY COMMISSION?
Agencies wanted:
• help with reviewing ethical frameworks, including key

compliance policies;
• online training modules to assist with ongoing training
in ethics and integrity;
• information sheets and articles on ‘hot topics’ and
compliance requirements with embedded scenarios
for use in toolbox talks and newsletters;
• training that was suited to them and their staff in
areas such as release of information, code of conduct,
whistleblowing, social media, conflict of interest and
gifts; and
• information on the role and processes of the Integrity
Commission.
WHAT NEXT?
Based on the information from these sources,
the Commission is currently developing a range
of misconduct prevention products, including:
• conflict of interest template policies, procedures and
guidance that agencies will be able to tailor to their

specific needs and use with minimal additional work;
• training modules on ethics and integrity to be available
online for use by agencies to deliver in-house training. The
first of these modules is due to be released in June 2013;
• a bank of case studies and scenarios to complement the
training modules; and
• a ‘hot topic’ series on misconduct risks, available on
the Commission website.
The Commission will continue its regular Ethical Reference
Groups in Hobart and Launceston. As well as catering
for the ethical issues they raised in 2012, the Commission
will facilitate environments for more issues to be raised
and will develop a range of template policies, procedures
and guidance to assist strengthening agencies’ ethical
frameworks.
The Commission will also continue its regular ethics and
integrity direct training workshops for public sector
employees in Hobart and Launceston.

Crucial to minimising
misconduct risk is the
identification, reporting
and treatment of complaints
and reports of misconduct.
GPO Box 822, Hobart Tas 7001
Level 2, 199 Macquarie St, Hobart
Ph: 1300 720 289
Fax: (03) 6233 7215
[email protected]
www.integrity.tas.gov.au
J u l y – S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 8 23
S P e e C h
Public Sector Ethics In The 21st Century:
The New Vulnerabilities
In other words, if the Australian Public Service is to function
effectively in
an increasingly fluid and globalised environment where, as we
have seen
in the last couple of months, conditions and circumstances can
change
overnight, then the public sector has to be able to tap into and
exploit a

broader range of ideas and views. Lynelle Briggs
I was pleased and honoured to be asked to present the 2008
David Hawkes
Oration. David is something of a legend among Australian
public service
commissioners and their equivalents, not only because he was
the Territory’s
Commissioner for Public Employment for thirteen years but
because of his
energy, integrity and creativity. In particular, he was the force
behind the
Northern Territory’s Public Sector Employment and
Management Act 1993, which is
widely acknowledged as a pioneering model of the sort of
devolved, principles-
based public sector legislation that most of the rest of us have
now adopted.
I’m also pleased to be back in the Northern Territory. While our
administrations
have different roles and responsibilities, I like to think that we
may have a little
more in common than most other Australian jurisdictions
because we have the
same basic administrative roots in the Commonwealth service
rather than in
various colonial systems.
I should mention here that I’ve used the term public sector in
the title of this
oration because up here you call yourselves the Northern
Territory Public
Sector. My experiences, and most of the examples I use, come
from the
Australian Public Service (APS), that group of core

Departments, agencies
and organisations that are covered by the Public Service Act
1999. The APS
covers nearly 70 per cent of the broader Commonwealth public
sector. I hope
nevertheless that what I have to say will have some resonance
with your own
experiences.
I believe that any discussion of public sector ethics and their
vulnerabilities has
to begin with an understanding of why they are particularly
important. After
all, most organisations and institutions have values and ethical
standards of one
sort or another. Principles like honesty, integrity, fairness,
respect and loyalty
are shared by public and private organisations alike.
What makes public sector ethics unique is that every individual
in a particular
jurisdiction—State, Territory or Commonwealth—has a stake in
how public
servants behave.
Citizens can choose whether to buy private sector products and
services and
they can choose whether and where they want to invest their
money. But they
must all, in one way or another, pay taxes and rates and they are
all affected, in
one way or another, by decisions of the Government.
The quid pro quo for this is that citizens in our democracy are
entitled to,
and expect, a particularly high standard of stewardship of the

resources—
Lynelle Briggs, is the Australian Public
Service Commissioner and recently
appointed President of the Commonwealth
Association for Public Administration and
Management. This is an edited version of
the 2008 David Hawkes Oration presented
for the Northern Territory Division of IPAA.
Lynelle Briggs
p u b l i c A d m i n i S t r A t i o n t o d A y24
S P e e C h
culture where all you do is tell the Government what
you think the Government wants to hear’
• a focus on professional excellence
• evidence-based policy making in a culture of
contestability
• enhancing the strategic policy capability
• strengthening the integrity and accountability of
Government
• broadening participation through inclusive policy
processes
• efficient and effective outcomes in service delivery.

. . . what are the specific
characteristics of an ethical public
service under the Westminster model?
What I want to emphasise here is a particular and
consistent thread running through these expectations,
including:
• enhancing professional excellence through
employing people with a wider diversity of work
experience, including the private, the voluntary and
community sectors and in other public services
• using evidence-based policy, including sharing our
experiences across States and Territories and keeping
track of what is happening overseas
• building long term strategic policy capabilities through
better connections across governments
• making government inclusive and innovative
through engaging citizens as well as experts, think
tanks, business and community groups, in policy
development and programme delivery
• no particular ideological preference for private over
public or vice versa in service delivery—with these
decisions being made on the basis of efficiency and
effectiveness.
In other words, if the Australian Public Service is
to function effectively in an increasingly fluid and
globalised environment where, as we have seen in the
last couple of months, conditions and circumstances
can change overnight, then the public sector has to be
able to tap into and exploit a broader range of ideas

and views. It must be outward looking and it must be
flexible, innovative and adaptive in the way in which it
shapes policies and delivers programmes.
This means developing new relationships with a variety
of people and groups outside the public service. It
means working with and within different cultures
and taking on new ways of thinking and new ways of
operating. It will mean being more innovative, more
creative, more nimble and more entrepreneurial. It
intellectual, personnel, materiel and financial—that
they have granted the public sector. These expectations
include:
• these resources will be managed effectively and that
their use will be accounted for
• that these resources will not be used for partisan
political purposes or for personal advantage, and
• the standards of behaviour of the people paid to
manage these resources will be high and better than
that of other sectors.
These assumptions are reinforced by what’s generally
referred to as the ‘Westminster’ system, the key division
of responsibility between the elected Government that
is responsible for taking the decisions about policies
and programmes, and an independent public service
responsible for providing the advice and information
that helps the Government make these decisions and
for efficiently and effectively implementing them after
they are made. Under the Westminster system—which
operates in all Australian jurisdictions, Commonwealth,
State and Territory—citizens also have the right to

expect that the Government, in deciding how it will
use the powers and resources granted to it, has access
to a high standard of professional, independent and
impartial advice.
Given these expectations, what are the specific
characteristics of an ethical public service under the
Westminster model?
I suggest there are three core interrelated elements:
• first, there are clear, explicit standards of behaviour
and professionalism that public servants understand
and must comply with
• second, there is a high level of confidence among
stakeholders—Government, Parliament, clients and
the community—that these standards are being
complied with. A defining element of this level of
confidence is that standards are not only being met
but are perceived by stakeholders to be met, and
• third, the level of confidence is reinforced by internal
and external systems of accountability that can
evaluate and report on ethical standards and that can
detect and deal effectively with ethical lapses.
The detail of how these expectations are managed and
responded to will, of course, vary from sector to sector.
In the Commonwealth, the Rudd Government has given
the APS a very explicit list of what it expects in terms
of professionalism and integrity. In his presentation to
agency heads and the Senior Executive Service on 30
April this year, the Prime Minister made his expectations
clear. He advised that he wants to see:

• a reinvigorating of the Westminster tradition. In his
own words, Australia ‘cannot afford a public service
Public Sector Ethics In The 21st Century: The New
Vulnerabilities —Continued from previous page
J u l y – S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 8 25
will mean taking more risks, experimenting more, and
trialling new approaches with uncertain results.
It will also mean working more closely with colleagues
in State and Territory jurisdictions like yourselves, a
theme emphasised once again by the Prime Minister
in his 28 August speech, Quality Education: the case for
an education revolution in our schools, where he pointed
out that implementing educational and other reform
is ‘going to take a new way of governing—particularly
increased cooperation between federal, state and local
governments, businesses and community organisations’.
The Government is also committed to using the Council
of Australian Governments to progress reforms in key
policy areas.
These trends have important implications for the way
in which we manage ethics, and I want to flag them as
a key issue for discussion when I get onto emerging
vulnerabilities later in this paper. I should add here that
these trends reflect similar thinking in public sectors
all over the world as they also confront an increasingly
volatile environment, so they are likely to affect the way
that all of us operate.
In the meantime, let’s look at our current ethical

vulnerabilities, at least as far as the APS is concerned.
According to a range of indicators, the Australian
Public Service looks pretty good. We have a clear ethical
framework in the APS Values and the APS Code of
Conduct, which are set out in the Public Service Act 1999,
which all employees must comply with and which agency
heads and the senior executive service officers are
required to model and promote. We also have a broad
body of policy and good practice guidance available to
APS agencies and employees on the interpretation and
application of the Code and the Values.
APS employees’ knowledge of the Values and Code
of Conduct has been tested annually for the last five
years, and during that time we have found growing
recognition of the ethical framework and significant
improvements—of the order of 25 percentage points—
in compliance with it. My 2007 State of the Service report
found that:
• 90 per cent of employees reported that they were
familiar with the APS Values
• 90 per cent of employees agreed that their
colleagues acted in accordance with the Values and
86 per cent agreed that their immediate managers
did so
• 75 per cent agreed that their senior managers acted
in accordance with the Values, with another 13 per
cent neither agreeing nor disagreeing
• 70 per cent of employees agreed that their agency
operates with a high level of integrity
• only 1 in every 225 employees was found to have

breached the Code of Conduct.
These results are pretty close to excellent by any
objective standard. I should add here that while the
2008 figures are not yet publically available (they will be
tabled in Parliament at the end of this month) and while
slightly different information was gathered this time,
the preliminary figures indicate that these standards are
generally being maintained. On top of this, contrary to
world trends, other surveys show that Australians’ level
of trust in government is increasing.
On top of this, contrary to world
trends, other surveys show that
Australians’ level of trust in
government is increasing.
I’ve undertaken, as an in-house exercise, an analysis of
the ethical state of the APS using an OECD checklist
which enables public sector jurisdictions to measure,
against a series of yardsticks, the systems they have in
place for setting ethical standards, for fostering ethical
behaviour, for monitoring ethical health, for dealing
with misconduct and for keeping the public informed.
Again, the APS measured up pretty well against
this checklist.
I’ll also refer to the Transparency International
Corruptions Perceptions Index which measures the
perceived levels of corruption in countries. In 2008,
Australia’s public services scored 8.7 on the index,
which ranks Australia equal ninth in the world (with
Canada) in terms of being least corrupt out of 178
nations. I should emphasise that the rating was based on
all Australian public sectors—Commonwealth, State and
Territory—so clearly none of us are as bad as the media

sometimes likes to portray us.
There are, of course, areas where we are perceived
to have problems. Irrespective of our overall level
of integrity, a number of high profile administrative
incidents have brought the APS’s reputation into
question. Most of these—for example, the escape of
equine influenza from the Eastern Creek Quarantine
Station—were more the result of incompetence and
carelessness than outright corruption or failure of
integrity, (although it’s important to remember that
the Australian Public Service’s ethical framework
encompasses professionalism and diligence as well as
honesty), and the organisations involved have moved
quickly to make repairs.
But, I would have to say that one or two agencies
still struggle to appreciate what our ethical codes
are all about, and don’t understand that they sail
close to the wind. More often than not, this is due to
agency leadership not appreciating that the public
sector is different; that protecting the public interest
S P e e C h
(browsing) and the electronic storage and circulation
of inappropriate material. The level of misuse in the
APS, at least on a service-wide basis, is not high, but
when it occurs it tends to be concentrated in particular

organisations, and it attracts a high level of publicity. It
also comprises a significant percentage of misconduct
allegations. In 2006–07, 51 per cent of employees
investigated for misconduct were alleged to have had
been involved in unauthorised access to personal
information or improperly using email or the internet.
These breaches, when they were discovered, were dealt
with promptly and effectively, but my concern is that
they still occur at all.
Harassment and bullying is another area where we are
getting mixed messages. The 2007 State of the Service
Report revealed that 15 per cent of APS employees
reported that they had been subject to harassment or
bullying in the workplace. The same report reveals that
only 76 employees were investigated for misconduct
involving harassment and bullying over the same period.
The difference is startling, even allowing for the fact that
some cases of harassment and bullying may be resolved
informally and that some concerns may relate to the
same people. Does it mean a culture where harassing or
bullying is tolerated, or is critical performance feedback
or refusing to accede to unreasonable requests still
being misinterpreted by some staff as harassment or
bullying, either deliberately or through ignorance?
. . . in the public sector we must
treat our people well.
These examples highlight a broader issue. Despite
all the messages and strategies, the courses and good
practice guides, despite the surveys that show that most
employees are aware of and understand the APS Values
and the Code of Conduct, despite the responsibility
of APS leaders to model and promote them, we
can’t be certain that our leaders and employees will

necessarily behave ethically or make the right ethical
decisions in operational situations or that they will
report wrongdoings.
While we are good at dealing with ethical crises when
they arise, it would be far more preferable for us to be
able to detect, identify, codify and respond to emerging
ethical challenges quickly before they lead to serious
problems. I’m particularly conscious that while the public
sector may have overall high ethical standards, it’s the
few high profile failures that undermine stakeholder
confidence in public sector integrity.
Let me flag this now. The ability to identify and think
strategically about ethical challenges and have systems
is fundamentally different to protecting the bottom
line or promoting particular Ministers’ interests; and
that in the public sector we must treat our people well.
Any agencies that put ‘the way things are done around
here’ above the behavioural culture and standards set
out in the public service Values and Code of Conduct
will eventually find themselves in deepwater. I cannot
emphasise too strongly that our Values and the Code
are fundamental to what keeps us sound, professional
and safe.
. . . so clearly none of us are as
bad as the media sometimes likes to
portray us.
The interface between the Australian Public Service
and Ministers and their offices has been an issue for
ethical debate, with some perceptions in the broader
community about a growing ‘politicisation’ of the public
sector. The APS Values require us to be apolitical and

impartial but they also require us to be responsive, to
provide frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and
timely advice based on a full understanding of all
relevant issues and options, the Government’s objectives
and the environment in which it operates.
There is a view that the balance between independence
and responsiveness has shifted and that responsiveness
itself has come to mean simply telling the Government
what it wants to hear. While I believe that this view has
been somewhat overstated, I also believe that there have
been times when public servants have felt themselves
under pressure to make decisions or tailor advice in
ways that furthered a Government’s political interests.
That is why it is essential to create an environment
where public servants believe that they can be frank in
their advice and where the public has confidence that
they will do so.
As I indicated earlier, the Rudd Government has
emphasised the need to reinvigorate the Westminster
tradition and has moved to restore confidence in
it through a series of initiatives around agency
head appointments, Secretaries’ incumbency and
remuneration, relations with lobbyists, advertising and
information activities, the conduct of Ministerial staff,
and proposed improved whistleblower and freedom
of information arrangements. When released later this
month, my 2008 State of the Service report will show some
dramatic results in this regard.
There are other areas of ethical vulnerability. Let’s
look at the issue of the misuse of information and
communications technology (ICT), in terms both
of unauthorised access to personal information

J u l y – S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 8 27
in place to equip staff to meet them is the best guarantor
of ethical health. We are vulnerable until we can achieve
this capability, particularly in an increasingly changing
environment.
There are other areas of ethical
vulnerability.
Let’s look at the environment. As a result of employment
policies, labour market pressures and other changes
over the last decade, the APS is no longer a closed
organisation, and I expect that this is the same in other
Australian jurisdictions. In 2006–07, around 20 000
staff were recruited from outside the APS. Just over
half of these recruits were aged 30 and over. A third
were recruited to senior and middle management
positions (APS 5 and above). In other words, people
with a variety of previous experiences in different
employment cultures are moving into the public sector
and many of them are occupying leadership positions.
We can no longer rely solely on long term workplace
socialisation to ensure that staff understand and apply
public sector ethics.
The continuing emergence of new technologies and
more diverse and informal means of communicating
also raises ethical issues. It means, on the one hand,
that the public sector is increasingly going to have to use
online communication, in particular, weblogs, or ‘blogs’,
both to canvass community and stakeholder opinion
in policy development and to provide information on
policy and programme implementation. It also means

that individual public servants, both in their official
capacity and in their private lives are going to have
access to, or should we say be tempted by, a range of
different online vehicles for self expression—Facebook,
YouTube, Wikipedia.
The issue with online communication is the ease with
which it can be accessed and speed and breadth with
which it can spread, which means that one can never
be certain of where and in what form it might end
up. This means that the public sector ethical issues
around communication—information versus advocacy,
private versus public comment, misuse of resources to
circulate partisan or offensive material—will become
exponentially more challenging to manage, making one
of our key vulnerabilities suddenly a lot more complex.
But looming beyond these developments, and impacting
upon them as a challenge in managing ethics, are
the factors I mentioned earlier, the issues identified
by Mr Rudd, and flagged by other governments and
commentators around the world—that in order to
develop effective policy advice and implementation
in a rapidly changing environment, public sectors are
going to have to broaden their strategic capabilities and
use evidence more often to inform policy advice. This
will mean working with and drawing on a wide range
of sectors, including academia, States and Territories,
private enterprise, the not-for-profit or third sector
and the community. This has two crucial, interrelated
implications for public sector ethics.
Firstly, as I’ve indicated, I already have concerns even
now about the ability of all public servants to make
the right ethical decisions in all situations. How much

more of a challenge will this become when many more
of us will have to work in partnership with people and
organisations with different cultures, different ways of
working and, in some cases, different ethical outlooks
and priorities?
In response to this key challenge, to encourage better
ethical decision making in increasingly diverse situations,
I believe that the APS needs to foster a new ethics
educational drive. This should include:
• a mandatory ethics component in all Australian
Public Service Commission courses involving both
ethical awareness and ethical decision making,
especially for the SES and executive level staff
• further promotion and if necessary upgrading of
APS and SES induction training in ethics
• encouraging and assisting agencies to better
integrate ethics into their management systems
• further advice, guidance and training for all staff on
ethical decision making
• further advice, guidance and training on the
differences between harassment and bullying and
the legitimate exercise of management responsibility
• more analysis and debate, at both APS-wide and
agency levels, of reports and investigations that
are critical of APS performance and integrity, to
review the decisions that were made from an ethics
standpoint and to suggest alternatives.
Let me be clear that I am not proposing simply that

we do more of the same stuff that we have been doing
off and on for years. Instead, we need to ensure firstly
that these initiatives recognise the changing world in
which we operate and, secondly, that they actually
facilitate confident and accurate grass roots ethical
decision making.
To take an example in relation to the first challenge, we
will need new guidelines on public comment and ICT
use to cover blogs. One of the issues we will need to
cover is the ethical responsibilities of a blog moderator
whose role is to monitor a Government site that is
collecting public views and comment to help policy
development. The job of a moderator is normally to
filter out irrelevant or offensive comment, but in an
evidence gathering exercise it could be perceived as
political censorship and a breach of the APS Value that
emphasises apolitical and impartial advice. We will need
to look carefully at these sorts of issues.
S P e e C h
Improving ethical decision making in the workplace
turns on the role of public sector leadership. The APS
legislation requires our leaders—agency heads and
the Senior Executive Service—to promote the APS
Values and the APS Code of Conduct, including by
personal example. As a key element in a renewed ethics
campaign, I want to encourage our leaders to be more

proactive in promoting ethics in the workplace. The
most effective form of practical promotion is to have
the conversation—to talk with staff about how to handle
ethical challenges in the workplace and to run through
examples of what can happen that they need to know
about. This not only increases their knowledge of how
to apply the Values and the Code in the workplace and
about what is behind the decisions taken, but also opens
up opportunities for reflection and enables employees
to more confidently ask for help when ethical issues are
testing them or to stand firm when under pressure.
. . . we will need new guidelines
on public comment and ICT use to
cover blogs.
Transparency is also a key element in the maintenance of
ethical health in the public sector. The more transparent
the actions of governments are, the higher their ethical
and administrative standards and the more comfortable
the public will be that it is getting value for money;
and that the resources it has granted the Government
are being used efficiently, effectively and ethically.
Transparency—the assurance that actions will be open
to scrutiny—is also key element in encouraging and
maintaining ethical decision making in the public sector.
In recent forums I’ve been encouraging thinking and
debate about the need for a more open and effective
information disclosure environment, particularly in the
areas of public interest disclosure (or ‘whistleblowing’)
and freedom of information arrangements The Rudd
Government is committed to improving government
transparency and, as I indicated earlier, is looking
at options both for widening and strengthening the
Commonwealth’s public interest disclosure provisions
and for improving and streamlining freedom of

information.
The second challenge is that, as we become more exposed
to outside organisational cultures and values, we may
have to think about the ways in which we interpret and
manage our own ethics. I’m not suggesting that the core
public sector values under the Westminster system—
independent, merit based, professional, inclusive,
responsive and fair—are going to change in any way
in the foreseeable future, but I am suggesting that the
APS will need to identify and emphasise the common
ethical values that we have with other sectors, to build
bridges with them on the basis of these values and in
some cases even modify our practices to take account of
other cultures.
This key ethical challenge comes from the need identified
by the Prime Minister to work more closely with
outside organisations to enhance information, ideas and
experience in policy development and implementation.
He expects this to include other levels of government
in Australia and to involve a greater exchange of
information and experience; the development,
where appropriate, of systems that can work across
governments; and higher levels of personnel exchanges
to develop capabilities and to broaden outlooks.
This inevitably means that we will have common ethical
issues to deal with. As far as I am aware, all Australian
States and Territories have their own sets of public
sector values, principles and codes of conduct and while
they differ in areas of detail, they express a similar
basic ethical framework. In the case of the Northern
Territory Public Sector, as I understand it, the Public
Sector Employment and Management Regulations

set out principles of public administration, principles
of human resource management and principles of
conduct. While I haven’t precisely mapped these sets
of principles to the APS Values and the Code of
Conduct, there are clear areas of common ground. Both
of our ethical frameworks emphasise independence
and professionalism in the provision of advice to
Government. Both systems mandate merit, fairness
and the prevention of unlawful discrimination in public
sector employment. Both systems require efficiency,
integrity and client service. Both systems require
standards of personal behaviour that focus on courtesy,
honesty, diligence and the management of conflicts
of interests.
I should also emphasise that the other State and
Territory ethical frameworks generally cover a similar
set of principles.
What I would like you all to think about is the case
for a common national set of core ethical standards
and principles that could apply to all Australian,
State, Territory and possibly even local government,
jurisdictions. Such a system need not exclude elements
that are jurisdiction-specific but it would mean that
when we all work together to solve common problems,
as I suggest we increasingly will, there will be core ethical
standards that we can all subscribe to and work within.
It will also mean that all politicians will be aware of these
common standards and, I contend, will be less prepared
to push the public service to compromise national ethics
standards governing all public officials.
J u l y – S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 8 29

Of course, there will be unexpected vulnerabilities
looming over the horizon. Who would have predicted
the recent global economic conditions? And how will
they impact on our working environment? But not
knowing what might be around the corner makes it all
the more important that we do what we can now about
meeting the challenges around what we do know within
a clear ethical framework.
Furthermore, I cannot emphasise enough that in any
society, no matter how well it usually performs, ethics
are important and that ethical standards in the public
sector should always be seen as potentially vulnerable.
Ultimately, they are dependent upon the quality,
perspective and behaviour of the government in power
and the standards of leadership demonstrated by the
top of the public sector. It is all too easy for ‘the way
things are done around here’ to become the accepted
standard, rather than what is right, what is expected by
the community, and what is actually required of public
servants working in the public interest. It is up to every
public servant to be vigilant, to protect what is right; and
to ‘call’ bad behaviour and bad examples whenever they
see them. This should not be seen to be casting blame,
but rather reinforcing high standards of public service
integrity.
I would like to conclude by emphasising once again what
I hope is a key message, namely that we can and must
put in place systems, processes and training to ensure
that leaders and employees know and understand their
ethical obligations because we cannot be complacent
that they will always make the right ethical decisions.
This is particularly important in light of the range

of emerging vulnerabilities resulting from changing
labour markets, from new technologies and from the
need to think and co-operate outside our own ‘boxes’
to meet national and global challenges, as well as from
the existing challenges of operating ethically in a highly
charged political environment.
The solutions lie partly in rethinking the ways in
which we embed ethics in the public sector workplace
and also in building common ethical ground with the
organisations with which we need to cooperate. But they
also require continuing vigilance about public sector
ethical health.
opportunity to
contribute to public
sector professionalism
the institute of Public
Administration (iPAA) is a
not-for-profit professional
association which promotes
excellence in public
administration in Australia.
IPAA is looking to further strengthen
its national capacity as the voice of the
profession, to promote informed debate on
national issues of public administration,
to build links with similar organisations
overseas and to disseminate information on
good practice to members across our State
and Territory Divisions.
The National Executive Officer is critical
to achieving these and any other strategic

directions set by IPAA’s National Council.
Duties include managing roundtables of
experts and assisting with the management
of national conferences, developing and
maintaining international relationships,
managing IPAA’s national website and
overseeing our national journals, working
with Divisions to ensure cross-fertilisation of
ideas amongst members nationally, ensuring
administrative and policy support for National
Council, and working closely with the
National President.
The successful candidate will be self-
motivated, well organised, have a good
knowledge of public administration, together
with proven leadership, relationship-building,
communication and business skills.
The position is preferably located in Brisbane,
but other options may be possible. While
we would prefer an essentially full-time
appointment, part-time arrangements and
flexible hours are certainly possible. The
remuneration package is negotiable up to
the executive level in the APS. Accordingly,
the position may suit someone with family
responsibilities or looking to transition to
retirement, who has high-level public sector
experience and is now looking to contribute
in a different way.
Applications should include:
• brief covering letter
• comprehensive curriculum vitae

• comments against the selection criteria
Full job details (including the selection
criteria) can be obtained from the IPAA
National website: www.ipaa.org.au
applications close Friday
23 january 2009 and should be
sent to [email protected]
NATIONAL ExECUTIvE OFFICER
Institute of Public Administration Australia
For further information please call IPAA Secretariat
representative, Peter Rumph on (07) 3228 2800 or 0413 339
841.
The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 68, no. 2,
pp. 119–136 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00633.x
FROM THE FIELD
Testing APS Ethics: Where’s the Integrity?
Lynelle Briggs
Australian Public Service Commissioner1
In recent years there has been a good deal of discussion in
Australia about public service
integrity. This article seeks to consider the Australian public
service’s standards of integrity
by analysing the ethical framework under which the public
service operates and the par-
ticular ethical issues and tensions that this involves; testing and

benchmarking the ethical
performance of the public service; and providing some
suggestions as to the next steps in
ethics considerations in the Australian public service.
Key words: public service, ethical performance, accountability
The Westminster Model as a Basis for an
Ethical Framework
Most organisations and institutions have val-
ues and ethical standards of one sort or an-
other. Principles like honesty, integrity, fair-
ness, respect, loyalty are shared by public and
private organisations alike, but public services
are unique in terms of the ethical framework in
which they operate and the types of behaviour
expected of them. The Australian Public Ser-
vice (APS) serves the government of the day,
which is elected by the Australian people. There
is a division of responsibility, with the govern-
ment making the decisions about policies and
programs and the public service providing the
advice and information that helps the govern-
ment to make these decisions. Once the deci-
sions are made, the public service implements
them.
One of the key working premises of the West-
minster system of government is that the public
service’s advice to the government is objec-
tive and impartial and canvasses a wide range
of views and options that may not otherwise
be heard. As the prime minister said to public
service leaders: ‘[w]e cannot afford a public
service culture where all you do is tell the gov-

ernment what you think the government wants
to hear’ (Rudd 2008).
The public service also manages public
money on behalf of the Australian government,
that is, money granted to the government by the
Parliament elected by the citizens. The APS is
accountable for the efficient, effective and ethi-
cal management of these funds through its work
in developing and implementing government
policies and programs.
There is a fundamental difference between
the public sector and the private sector. Citizens
can choose whether to buy private sector prod-
ucts and services and they can choose whether
and where they want to invest their money. But
they must all, in one way or another, pay taxes
and they are all affected, in one way or another,
by decisions of the government. The quid pro
quo for this is that citizens in our democracy
are entitled to, and expect, a particularly high
standard of stewardship of the resources – in-
tellectual, personnel, material and financial –
that they have granted the public sector. Their
expectations include that:
• these resources will be managed effectively
and that their use will be accounted for;
• they will not be used for partisan polit-
ical purposes or for personal advantage;
and
• the standards of behaviour of the people
paid to manage these resources should be

C© 2009 The Author
Journal compilation C© 2009 National Council of the Institute
of Public Administration Australia
120 Testing APS Ethics June 2009
beyond reproach and meet or be better than
the standards in other sectors.
Given these expectations, there are three key
characteristics of an ethical public service un-
der the Westminster model:
• there are clear, explicit standards of be-
haviour and professionalism that employees
understand and must comply with;
• there is a high level of confidence among
stakeholders – government, Parliament,
clients and the community – that these stan-
dards are being complied with. A defining
element of this level of confidence is that
standards are not only being met but are
perceived by stakeholders to be met; and
• the level of confidence is reinforced by
internal and external systems of account-
ability which evaluate and report on ethical
standards and can detect and deal effectively
with ethical lapses.
In the case of the APS, these standards of be-
haviour and professionalism are expressed in

the APS Values and the APS Code of Conduct
as set out in the Public Service Act 1999 (the
Act).2
I would argue that the characteristics of an
ethical Australian public service based around
these interrelated elements and our profes-
sional values and code of conduct include:
• a commitment to the provision of a high
standard of independent and comprehensive
advice to the government and to the effi-
cient, effective and ethical implementation
of government decisions;
• the avoidance by public servants of any
statement or action that could lead to per-
ceptions that standards of advice or imple-
mentation are affected by political or per-
sonal factors;
• levels of mutual respect between public
servants and the government, and between
public servants themselves, that permit a
free flow of ideas and information without
fear of reprisal and that also accept the ulti-
mate responsibilities of ministers and man-
agers to make decisions;
• a career structure that is independent from
political and other forms of patronage and
that is based on merit;
• stakeholder confidence that decisions by
public servants are not affected by their per-
sonal, financial, political or other interests

or those of their relatives or friends;
• leadership that understands and models eth-
ical behaviour;
• a high standard of ongoing ethical decision-
making at all levels of the public service;
• the highest standards of individual be-
haviour, including in relations with col-
leagues and clients and in the use of public
resources;
• public servants feeling they can identify
wrongdoing and report it without fear of
reprisal; and
• appropriate independent safeguards that can
review and evaluate decision-making.
Ethics in a Values-Based Australian
Public Service
The Australian public service has an enduring
inheritance from 1901 of a public service based
on the principles of merit, apolitical profession-
alism and accountability and responsiveness to
the elected government.3 For many years, how-
ever, most of these tenets were hidden away
in detailed regulation rather than openly ex-
pressed as principles. The merit principle as
it applied to selection for engagement or pro-
motion, for example, was expressed primarily
through a series of sequential processes. Public
servants who followed these processes could be
reasonably certain that they had complied with

the merit principle, even if they did not quite
understand what the merit principle was.
The last quarter of the 20th century saw a
whole series of rolling reforms in the Aus-
tralian public service with a focus on improving
performance, enhancing flexibility and respon-
siveness and devolving decision-making. The
legislative culmination of these reforms was
the Public Service Act 1999, with its emphasis
on:
• improved efficiency and effectiveness, with
a clear focus on objectives and assessing
performance based on results; and
C© 2009 The Author
Briggs 121
• the importance of the public service being
more responsive to the elected government.
The Act completed the move from a prescrip-
tive, rules based ethical framework to one based
on an understanding of values and principles.
A key element in this framework is the articula-
tion in the Act of the APS Values. These values
have three key, interrelated functions.
Firstly, they explicitly formulate the princi-
ples of good public service and delineate the

key distinguishing features of the Australian
public service. In effect they ensure a clear
set of standards against which government,
Parliament and the community can measure
the professionalism and integrity of the public
service.
Secondly, the values4 allow agencies to be
much more innovative and adaptive in the way
in which they operate than in a rules-based sys-
tem. To return to the merit example, public ser-
vants who assess candidates for engagement
or promotion now have much greater flexibil-
ity to develop and apply processes that meet
their agency’s particular skills requirements
and timeframes, provided that these are con-
sistent with the merit principle.5
Thirdly, the values, together with the code of
conduct, have legal force. As the Commission’s
guide to the Act notes:
What makes the APS Values and Code important
from an ethical point of view is that, because they
are in legislation, they have legal as well as moral
weight. They are more than aspirational: they are
mandatory.
The legally enforceable nature of sanctions for
breaches of the APS Values and Code, when
combined with the robust Australian system
of parliamentary scrutiny through the Senate
Estimates process and other committees, such
as the Joint Committee on Public and Parlia-
mentary Accounts (JCPAA), has provided the
Australian public service with a high degree of

assurance around its ethical approach. It means
that while agencies and individual public ser-
vants have a good deal of flexibility in how
they apply the values in their operations, they
remain accountable for understanding, main-
taining and adhering to them.
This culture of accountability, transparency
and integrity is also reinforced by the inde-
pendent reviewer role of statutory officers, like
myself and the Merit Protection Commissioner.
Independent reviews are another important pil-
lar in the integrity and accountability frame-
work because they hold public service decision-
makers accountable for the integrity of their
decision-making processes, not just for the
outcomes.
Inherent Ethical Tension Points
The APS Values regulate the integrity and pro-
fessionalism of public servants in their relation-
ships with the government and the Parliament,
the public, in the workplace and in terms of
their personal behaviours. They cover the way
the APS operates as an institution, both inter-
nally and externally, and they also cover the
way in which individual public servants work
together.
The APS Values are equally weighted and
require appropriate balance. Overemphasis on
one value or group of values can have the ef-
fect of undermining others. No value should
be pursued to the point of direct conflict with
another. This balancing act requires ongoing

adjustment and fine tuning in parallel with on-
going administrative reforms, new government
priorities and even changes in government.
Few decisions that officials make are
straightforward. Most often this inherent ten-
sion between the values arises in the context
of being apolitical, impartial and professional
in performing day to day functions, but it may
also arise in other circumstances.
The different types of work undertaken in
the public service – policy, service delivery and
corporate/administrative – also have their own
inherent tensions. From a policy perspective,
there are potential points of tension between
complying with a ministerial direction not to
discuss or pursue a matter with colleagues,
while maintaining adherence to overall govern-
ment policy outcomes – a cooperation versus
competition continuum. Within a service deliv-
ery or operational environment, there are inher-
ent tensions between practical experience and
local knowledge in implementing a program
C© 2009 The Author
that has been supported and funded from a
policy position – a theoretical versus practical
conundrum. For corporate and governance ar-

eas, there are inherent tensions between com-
pliance and adherence to technical rules, re-
quirements and standards while not delaying or
being considered a hindrance to providing a re-
sponsive service to government – the regulation
versus responsiveness spectrum.
These tensions often require us to set one
value against another, where neither value is
wrong. American ethicist Rushworth M Kidder
considers the tough decisions to be ‘those that
pit one “right” value against another’ (Kidder
2005).
Time critical, emotionally charged situations
and the pressure to cut corners are common
across most working environments. What dif-
ferentiates the public and private sectors is the
multidimensional aspects of the stakeholder in-
terests and the use of taxpayer funds, which
means that there will often be winners and
losers who will be deeply affected by what hap-
pens. It is in this context that I have sought to
test the ethical standing of the Australian public
service.
An Ethical Checklist to Assess APS
Performance
Any assessment of how the Australian public
service measures up ethically needs to bench-
mark its performance against a reliable stan-
dard. It needs to look at the ethical issues con-
fronting the public service today and consider
our broader vulnerabilities, with a view to de-
ciding where to put future effort.

A few years ago the Organisation for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
developed an ethics checklist6 for the public
sector. The checklist asks five basic questions:
1. Are the basic principles and standards
clear?
What are the ethical values; how are they
supported by political leaders; how do pub-
lic officials know what is expected of them
and what guidance is available to them?
2. How is an ethical culture fostered?
What are the standards of ethical lead-
ership; what is the extent to which hu-
man resource policies and practices re-
flect and support ethical values, the extent
to which guidance and support to assist
ethical decision-making is available and
the way in which values and ethics are
communicated?
3. Is there adequate oversight and account-
ability?
What are the accountability mechanisms;
who is responsible for their management
and do public sector employees understand
their rights and responsibilities in relation
to reporting misconduct?
4. Are there procedures and sanctions for
dealing with misconduct?
What regulation and process is available
for dealing with breaches of ethics and

are these processes sufficiently indepen-
dent and resourced?
5. And finally, is the public well informed?
Are there frameworks and mechanisms for
effective public scrutiny?
To see how the Australian public service mea-
sures up in terms of its ethical position, I have
reviewed its performance against each of the
elements of the OECD’s checklist.
1. Are the Basic Principles and Standards
Clear?
Australia has a clear set of public service val-
ues and a code of conduct set out in the Public
Service Act 1999 against which APS employ-
ees can be held accountable. Australia is a party
to the United Nations Convention against Cor-
ruption which requires parties to regulate the
recruitment and conduct of public servants and
to promote accountability and transparency in
public finance. We have a government that is
committed to the concept of an independent
and professional public service and has spelt
out priorities in specific areas. Agency heads
and the senior executive service are required
to model and promote the values and ethical
conduct. We also have a broad body of policy
and good practice guidance available to APS
agencies and employees on the interpretation
and application of the code and the values.
C© 2009 The Author

Briggs 123
APS employees’ knowledge of the values and
code of conduct has been tested annually for
the last six years and, during that time, we have
found growing recognition of the ethical frame-
work and significant improvements (of the or-
der of 15 percentage points) in compliance with
it. My 2008 State of the Service Report found
that:
• 91% of employees reported that they were
familiar with the APS Values;
• 84% of employees agreed that their or-
ganisation actively encourages ethical be-
haviour by all its employees;
• 71% of employees agreed that their agency
operates with a high level of integrity; and
• only 1 in around every 240 employees
were found to have breached the Code of
Conduct.
These results are excellent by any objective
standard, although it would be interesting in
a future study to find out how many staff can
accurately describe all, or at least the majority
of, the APS Values.
The results are further reinforced by the
Transparency International Corruptions Per-

ceptions Index7 which measures the perceived
levels of corruption in countries. In 2008, Aus-
tralia’s combined public services8 scored 8.7 on
the index, which ranks Australia equal ninth in
the world (with Canada) in terms of being least
corrupt out of 178 nations.
There is no doubt, however, that a number
of high profile administrative incidents9 have
brought the Australian public service’s reputa-
tion into question. While these incidents tended
to be administrative issues rather than ethical
failings, systemic fraud or corruption, cumula-
tively they have affected public perceptions of
our integrity. On top of this, the government
expressed concern that elements of the tradi-
tional Westminster approach to the appropriate
relationship between the government and the
public service had been watered down.10
It is immediately apparent that the OECD’s
checklist misses the important fact that it is
very difficult to have good governance if you
do not have good governments in power as well
as good public institutions (Bourgon 2008). It
is therefore crucial that we recognise the influ-
ence that governments necessarily have on their
public services’ ethical practices, which extend
well beyond legal frameworks.
In countries where corruption flourishes,
politicians and officials both tend to be corrupt.
In countries where governments stretch prac-
tices to their own ends, officials tend either to
not understand or lose sight of what is right and

proper, or find it increasingly difficult to with-
stand pressure from governments to do things
that might not be correct. In countries where re-
lations between governments and officials are
ruled by fear and retribution or where senior
officials can be sacked at the whim of govern-
ments, there is a risk of complicity11 between
officials and governments in bending ethical
codes if it means protecting officials’ jobs and
livelihoods, or it may mean that officials are
afraid to call poor practice.
In many countries unethical practice is overt
and embedded in their systems. This is clearly
not the case in Australia. But it is important
that governments and officials alike understand
that the lead set by the government of the day
can be as important in establishing good, sound
government and in promoting ethical practices
in the public service, as is the lead shown by
senior officials.
The APS Values require public servants to
be apolitical and impartial but they also require
them to be responsive, to provide frank, hon-
est, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice
based on a full understanding of all relevant is-
sues and options, the government’s objectives
and the environment in which it operates.
There is a view that the balance between
independence and responsiveness has shifted
in Australia and that responsiveness itself has
come to mean simply telling the government
what it wants to hear. While I believe that this
view has been considerably overstated, there

have been times when Australian public ser-
vants have felt themselves under pressure to
make decisions or tailor advice in ways that fur-
thered a government’s political interests. That
is why it is essential to create an environment
where public servants believe that they can be
frank in their advice and where the public has
confidence that they will do so.
C© 2009 The Author
These issues and concerns are being dealt
with. In the wake of the administrative failures
mentioned above, lessons and experience have
been shared across the public service about
officials’ responsibilities, governance arrange-
ments and things to look out for that might sig-
nal the emergence of problems within agencies
through agency health checks.
Importantly, the government has also moved
to restore Westminster traditions through a se-
ries of initiatives around ministerial briefings;
agency head appointments; Secretaries’ incum-
bency and remuneration; relations with lobby-
ists; advertising and information activities; the
training and conduct of ministerial advisers;
a new ethics advisory service; and proposed
new whistleblower and freedom of informa-
tion legislation. The prime minister has empha-

sised that public servants should provide clear
and comprehensive advice, without fear of
retribution.
The 2008 State of the Service Report shows
the effect these changes have had on the public
service. There have been significant reductions
in public servants expressing concern about
their ability to balance the responsibilities en-
visaged in the values as they manage their re-
lationship with the government.12
The principles that the APS Values encom-
pass and represent are fundamental to the main-
tenance of an ethical APS. Nevertheless there
are elements in their current organisation and
content that can be confusing. Some of the val-
ues, for example, describe the processes needed
to support and maintain principles rather than
the principles themselves. This confusion adds
support to the argument that 15 values are too
many, and that they are difficult for employees
to remember and apply in their everyday work.
Of the other Australian jurisdictions that have
explicit values in legislation, Victoria has six
while Tasmania and the ACT have five. These
jurisdictions supplement their values with sets
of principles or standards that derive from
their values but which apply more specifically
to aspects of public sector administration and
employment.
There is a good case for a review of the APS
Values, taking these issues into account. Sim-
plification and rationalisation of the values will

ensure that the principles underlying the values
are foremost in public servants’ minds, easily
recalled and able to guide every day interac-
tions, particularly when dilemmas arise.
Another issue that affects the implementa-
tion and upholding of the APS Values, as well
as impacting upon the issue of clarity in basic
ethical principles and standards, is the existence
in some agencies of agency-specific ‘values’.
These values may reflect an agency’s profes-
sional or technical standards, they may set out
the sort of specific behaviours and processes
that agency employees are expected to use when
dealing with each other or with clients, or they
may emphasise and draw out specific aspects
of the APS Values. Examples of some individ-
ual agency values include: ‘respect’; ‘profes-
sionalism’; ‘achieves results and demonstrates
creativity’; and ‘accountability to our Minis-
ters and Parliamentary Secretary, Parliament
and the public’.
I have no problem with agencies adopting
local standards of behaviour where these help
them to do their job and provided, of course, that
they do not contradict the APS Values. But, I
am in no doubt that the Parliament would want
me to ensure the primacy of the APS Values,
which are the only legally enforceable values,
in setting the ethical standard for the APS as a
whole.
Similarly, I am concerned about the growth
of agency-specific cultures that give the local

values equality with or even superiority over
the APS Values. Most agency documentation
links agency values back to the APS Values
in various ways, but employees in a few agen-
cies seem to believe that, for them, the local
values are the primary drivers of integrity. If
APS employees are, as I suspect, already con-
fused by too many APS Values, then a pro-
liferation of additional agency values is likely
to make matters even worse. This is particu-
larly an issue when agency values cover the
same areas, in slightly modified forms, as the
APS Values, as the values described above that
cover respect and accountability appear to be
doing. My strong preference is for agencies not
to use the term ‘values’ when describing in-
ternal standards of behaviour or key business
principles.
C© 2009 The Author
Briggs 125
It is certainly the case that ethical percep-
tions can differ between individuals and agen-
cies. The Commission has tended to provide
light touch guidance to agencies about how
to conduct their business and manage values
and code issues – giving agencies flexibility
to devise agency specific implementation ap-
proaches. Perhaps we should be clearer in some
areas about expected standards; ICT misuse be-

ing the obvious example.
2. How is an Ethical Culture Fostered?
The basic tools for fostering an ethical culture
in the APS on the basis of the APS Values and
the Code of Conduct exist already. The tools in-
clude the Commission’s publication APS Values
and Code of Conduct in Practice, which pro-
vides a detailed analysis of the requirements of
the values and the code and how they link to-
gether, and what employees must do to comply
with the values and code in a variety of differ-
ent situations, including dealing with ministers,
dealing with the private sector and dealing with
clients. The Contemporary Government Chal-
lenges series also provides agencies assistance
with agency health and organisational culture.
It is commonly held that ‘rationality’ is
the hallmark of good decision-making. While
obtaining information, assessing it for bias,
identifying options and mitigating risks are
important, this can discredit the role of emo-
tion. Studies have found that emotions such
as empathy and guilt are essential in promot-
ing moral behaviours and in inhibiting immoral
behaviours such as cheating and aggression
(Diensteber, Hillman et al. quoted by Zhong
2005:5). Hence, the APS needs to develop pub-
lic service capability and understanding to con-
sider not only if a decision is legal and techni-
cally correct, but also if it is the right thing to
do.
Adhering to the letter of the law is not
enough, public servants must also accept re-

sponsibility for their actions or inaction, and
they need to be supported to make this call con-
sistently when they are under economic, profes-
sional and social pressure. In all environments,
rationalisation and laziness are constant temp-
tations, and some of the more common excuses
are:
• if it’s legal and permissible, it’s proper . . .
• it’s all for a good cause . . .
• I’m just fighting fire with fire . . .
• it doesn’t hurt anyone . . .
• everyone’s doing it . . .
• it’s okay if I don’t gain personally . . .
• I can still be objective . . . (Josephson
2002).
To support APS staff through these and other
situations, the Commission developed the ‘RE-
FLECT’ ethical decision-making model as part
of the Commission’s Being Professional in the
APS – Values Resources for Facilitators pack-
age of materials to address situations specific
to the APS. REFLECT provides a series of
steps that public servants at all levels can use
to recognise, evaluate and respond to a situ-
ation involving an actual or potential ethical
issue.13 Encouraging them to ‘Stop, Think, and
then Do’, rather than the other way around, is
critical.
The government is taking this even further.
The ability of APS staff to understand and ap-
ply ethics in their work will be strengthened
by the Commission’s new Ethics Advisory Ser-

vice. A core element of the new service will
be a call and email centre where all APS em-
ployees, including agency heads and senior ex-
ecutive service (SES) staff, can seek advice to
assist them in ethical decision-making. Details
of requests for advice will be maintained on a
database which will form the basis of an annual
report to Parliament on any action that might
need to be taken to strengthen awareness of the
APS Values and the Code of Conduct – giving
us for the first time an early warning system
about new ethical issues.
The advisory service will also undertake a
number of initiatives to help agencies enhance
their ethical awareness and decision-making
capabilities, including reviewing and upgrad-
ing Commission publications and guidelines on
ethical issues; establishing and maintaining an
ethics web page; revising Commission learning
and development strategies to enhance training
in ethics; and establishing and coordinating a
network of agency ethics contact officers that
will share information and experience on pro-
moting and managing ethics in line agencies.
C© 2009 The Author
The APS leadership group has been given
a strong role in fostering and supporting an

ethical culture. The Public Service Act 1999
specifically requires the Senior Executive Ser-
vice to promote the APS Values and compli-
ance with the Code of Conduct, including by
personal example. Core criteria in the recruit-
ment, promotion and development of Senior
Executive Service staff encompass integrity,
professionalism and probity.
While there is no evidence of a systemic
ethical breakdown in the APS, we cannot be
complacent. I am not always convinced that the
messages and strategies contained in the Com-
mission’s support documents are getting across
to everyone. There still appear to be pockets of
the public service where I continue to be sur-
prised by ethical failures of one sort or another,
or which are in a state of denial about failures –
there may even be a few areas where dysfunc-
tional cultures are so entrenched that only staff
turnover can resolve them.
On top of this, I am not confident that we have
yet achieved an overall level of consistency of
approach in compliance with the values and the
code of conduct or in responding to allegations
of breaches of the code. We can all say that we
are ethical and comply with our obligations un-
der the Act, but when confronted with difficult
ethical situations or challenges, it is not always
easy to know what to do and I often find that
public servants in these circumstances simply
don’t know how to manage themselves.
This is because ethical issues are not always
absolute or black and white. They require pub-

lic servants to consider many things – such as
the facts they know and the many things that
they might not know; the rules they are re-
quired to operate under; the assumptions they
have; what their role and responsibilities might
be; their personal values and the APS Values.
Resolving ethical issues and making ethical de-
cisions requires judgement and discretion to be
exercised. Rules and procedures may not al-
ways be enough to help public servants. In these
circumstances, one of the most important ethics
aids is the conversation about ethical behaviour
that needs to occur in all workplaces between
managers and their staff.
In turn, senior executive officers tell me
that they model the values in the everyday
example that they set for staff, but this isn’t
enough. As public service leaders, the Act
also requires them to promote the values in
the work place. The most effective form of
practical promotion is to have the conversa-
tion – to talk with staff about how to han-
dle ethical challenges in the workplace and
to run through examples of what can hap-
pen that they need to know about. This not
only increases their knowledge of how to ap-
ply the values and the code in the work place,
but also opens up opportunities for reflection
and enables employees to more confidently ask
for help when ethical issues are testing them.
It also gives managers a chance to deal with
false perceptions about ethical failings, which
can be amplified and become folklore if not
addressed.

It is especially important that centrally
coordinated programs and advice are sup-
ported by agency level initiatives that address
the specific ethical challenges in their par-
ticular operational environment; right across
Australia. Often, this is the best way to en-
sure that employees hear what they need to
know.
A good example of an agency-led initiative
to encourage ethical decision-making is the
Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s
Immigration Dilemmas: Ethics, APS Values
and Leadership (IDEAL) program that com-
menced in 2006. IDEAL is a series of scenarios,
based on the Commission’s Being Professional
in the APS package, involving ethical dilem-
mas across a range of issues in the Depart-
ment’s central, regional and overseas locations.
In working through these scenarios, leaders
and their teams can gain a better apprecia-
tion of what the values and the code actu-
ally mean and how they apply to day-to-day
work in the department. An independent eval-
uation of IDEAL indicates that it is having a
positive effect on staff understanding of ethi-
cal issues. Many other agencies could pick up
on this initiative and use it to start the ethi-
cal conversations that are needed in their work
places.
C© 2009 The Author

Briggs 127
3. Is there Adequate Oversight and Account-
ability?
Agency heads are responsible for managing
the day to day application of the ethics frame-
work, with the Commission having overall APS
oversight and accountability responsibility for
agency heads.
The State of the Service Report tracks ethics
standards annually. Figures from the report in-
dicate a high level of employee awareness of
their rights and responsibilities in relation to
reporting misconduct. Seventy-nine percent of
staff surveyed indicated that they had been
made aware by their current agency that they
can report a suspected breach of the code of
conduct to an authorised person in their agency,
and 78% were aware of the protections against
victimisation for staff who report suspected
breaches.
I am nonetheless concerned that there may
be a tendency to tolerate or turn a blind eye
to suspected breaches, or for our employees to
fear reprisal (or other forms of disapproval or
personal discomfort) if they report an issue in
the work place.
The way in which suspected breaches are
detected tells us a great deal. In 2007–08,
23% were detected by agency compliance/
monitoring systems, 23% were the result of
conduct detected by managers and 38% as a

result of conduct detected by colleagues. Of
course, the highest number of alleged breaches
involved misuse of information and commu-
nication technology (ICT), so the result is not
all that surprising. Still, it would appear that in
some of the ICT cases, supervisors were aware
of and were even involved in the misconduct.
An ethics education drive therefore needs to in-
clude a core element on the responsibilities of
supervisors and reinforcement with appropriate
sanctions when detected.
There is some reluctance by APS employ-
ees to report breaches of the code of conduct.
The 2006–07 State of the Service Report, which
specifically collected data on this issue, found
that only 60% of employees who witnessed
what they believed to be a serious breach of
the code actually reported it. The reasons given
for not reporting fell into two basic categories:
• fear of reprisal and/or damage to career
prospects; and
• the person who committed the alleged
breach was already under investigation
or the misconduct had been reported by
someone else.
APS leaders must deal directly with the fear
issue by creating a workplace climate where
employees feel comfortable to raise issues and
report problems such as misconduct, and where
they believe inquiries will be handled sensi-
tively and thoughtfully.

It is equally important that all APS employ-
ees understand that reporting what they ob-
serve to be breaches of the code is an obli-
gation, not just an option. It is also important
that agencies put further effort into promot-
ing employees’ responsibility to report mis-
conduct and into creating a culture where em-
ployees who report misconduct feel protected.
Likewise, we need to ensure that the frivolous
or the sometimes malicious complaints we re-
ceive are dealt with, and reported, appropri-
ately. Of equal concern are the discrepancies
between the relatively small number of reports
of misconduct and the survey reports of percep-
tions of widespread bullying and harassment14
and the apparent failure of one in eight senior
staff to uphold the values.15 Is fear of report-
ing breaches much more widespread than the
statistics indicate? Is it a matter of not wanting
to rock the collegiate boat or is it the Australian
cultural dislike about ‘the dobber’? On the other
hand, do the levels of abuse of the values re-
ported in surveys actually involve misconduct,
or is it simply the sort of generic grumbling that
goes on in some organisations?
I also wonder whether we have got the bal-
ance right between correcting (as it happens)
what might be an innocent mistake or over-
sight, before rushing off to a code of conduct
breach inquiry. It may be that the spectre of
imposing a code breach on a colleague is seen
by many of our employees as too severe a label
(with potentially damning reputational conse-
quences for colleagues), when all that is really

necessary is quick correction. Over the next
year, I have decided to look at what we can do
C© 2009 The Author
to shed more light on the psychology of observ-
ing and reporting misconduct.
4. Are There Procedures and Sanctions for
Dealing with Misconduct?
The values and code of conduct are designed
primarily to focus on the integrity of the pub-
lic service, rather than to assign blame. Every
APS agency is required to have in place sys-
tems to deal with allegations of breaches of the
code of conduct, with sanctions that can range
from reprimand to termination. Except in cases
where the sanction imposed is termination of
employment (where the avenue for a review
is the Australian Industrial Relations Commis-
sion, under the unfair dismissal provisions of
the Workplace Relations Act 1996), APS em-
ployees16 may seek a review of a misconduct
determination or sanction by the Merit Protec-
tion Commissioner.
In 2007–08, the Merit Protection Commis-
sioner received 40 applications for a review,
around 4% of those finalised agency investiga-
tions were where employees were found to have

breached the code. Of the 24 reviews completed
in 2007–08, 15 were confirmed, seven varied
and two set aside. The low levels of requests
for review, and the low number of determina-
tions that are actually changed as a result of the
review process, seem to indicate, prima facie,
that the system works.
What we don’t know, however, is whether
APS employees actually regard agency pro-
cesses for handling breaches and allocating
sanctions as being objective, fair or consistent.
This is an area worth further examination and
the Merit Protection Commissioner is consider-
ing ways to obtain feedback and provide more
practical assistance and guidance to agencies
on best practice approaches.
Another issue is consistency of sanctions for
misconduct across the APS. The Public Service
Act 1999 gives agency heads the power to im-
pose certain sanctions – termination of employ-
ment, reduction in classification, reassignment
of duties, reduction in salary, a fine, or a rep-
rimand. Within this legislative framework, it is
up to agencies to determine and apply sanctions
in individual cases, and I have observed con-
siderable variation in sanctions from agency to
agency. These variations appear to reflect the
nature of the work of different organisations;
variations in approach as to how suspected mis-
conduct is dealt with (through formal or infor-
mal investigation); and some agencies taking a
stronger line in relation to sanctions, particu-
larly where the proven breach is fundamental

to core business requirements.
I understand and accept that agencies with
differing responsibilities need some flexibil-
ity in the way that they apply sanctions, and
recognise that sanctions can be reviewed and
amended by the Merit Protection Commis-
sioner. However it may not be consistent with
the value that requires the APS to provide a
fair workplace to have too great a discrepancy
between sanctions for the same offence, par-
ticularly within agencies. Agencies may need
better guidance on the application of sanctions
and I will be looking at how this could be
developed and managed through the Commis-
sion. The Merit Protection Commissioner has
already had discussions with agencies on how
to address the practical issues of privacy and
security and sought external legal input on the
core factors critical to sanction determination.
A gap in the sanctions framework, which I am
moving to correct, is that code of conduct in-
vestigations cease when those against whom an
allegation is made move agencies or leave the
public service.
5. Is the Public Well Informed?
Public scrutiny of the ethical health of the APS
is provided through the annual agency report-
ing system and through the Commission’s State
of the Service Report. The Australian National
Audit Office, the Commonwealth Ombuds-
man and the Privacy Commissioner also
report on probity and behaviour in the APS.
Occasionally, ethical standards and ethical
decision-making come under scrutiny through

Parliamentary Committee inquiries and
hearings.
If we were to improve reporting on ethical
health at both the individual agency and the
APS-wide level, some form of checklist along
the lines of the OECD checklist could be used
to enhance the clarity and consistency of ethics
analysis and reporting in both agency annual
C© 2009 The Author
Briggs 129
reports and the State of the Service Report. I
will look into the feasibility of this.
I am mindful that the average citizen gets
very little information about the way in which
the APS as a service performs and behaves.
They are obliged to take it on trust until there is
a scandal, and then they, not surprisingly, tend
to think that the scandal is typical of the way
in which the APS operates. How then do we
establish and maintain an APS that is more tran-
sparent and accountable on an ongoing basis?
Public interest disclosure arrangements are
important because they give citizens a measure
of assurance that people within the system are
encouraged to report wrongdoing or misman-
agement and are protected when they do so.

There has been criticism of the adequacy of
the national public interest disclosure regime
in that it only permits disclosures by APS em-
ployees about other APS employees, only cov-
ers breaches of the APS Code of Conduct and
doesn’t spell out in any detail the protection that
whistleblowers might actually expect or the ac-
tion that might taken against any person who
victimises them.
The government is committed to expanding
and upgrading the Commonwealth’s public in-
terest disclosure regime and, at its request, the
House of Representatives Standing Commit-
tee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs under-
took an inquiry into whistleblowing protections
within the Australian government public sec-
tor. The report of this inquiry recommends new
public interest disclosure legislation that would
considerably broaden the grounds on which
a public servant could make a public interest
disclosure, strengthen the protections against
reprisals and extend coverage to the broader
Commonwealth public sector. The government
is also moving to reform the current freedom
of information laws as a key part of its commit-
ment to more open and more transparent gov-
ernment. As part of these new arrangements
we can expect to see more material being re-
leased without recourse to freedom of infor-
mation requests, and more open disclosure of
government decision-making processes.
There have been calls for the establishment
of a national independent anti-corruption com-
mission to monitor the ethical standards of

members of parliament and public servants.
I do not believe that the APS needs a full
blown state-style anti-corruption commission –
this would be overkill in my view. There is no
evidence of systemic corruption in the APS and,
apart from the particular issues which I have
identified and which we are moving to address,
the APS measures up pretty well against the
OECD ethical checklist and the Transparency
International Corruptions Perceptions Index. I
am also mindful of the nature of the work in
the APS, which tends to focus on national pol-
icy development and program delivery issues
where employees may be less likely than their
state or local government sector counterparts
to be subject to local business, community and
family pressures. In expressing a similar view,
the founding commissioner of the New South
Wales Independent Commission against Cor-
ruption, Mr Ian Temby QC, said ‘[t]here tend
to be lower levels of corruption as the level
of government gets higher . . . It’s essentially a
state and local government problem’ (Salusin-
ski 2009).
An emerging ethical accountability issue,
however, is the tension between the way in
which the APS reports on its effectiveness and
probity and the expectations of the government
and other stakeholders about how it should op-
erate. The government has emphasised the im-
portance of joined-up cross agency and whole
of government approaches to public adminis-
tration, and of broader lateral cooperation with
other sectors of the community. The govern-

ment also wants to give average Australians
the opportunity for wider participation in the
process of government through its policies of
inclusion. Australia’s accountability reporting
systems still tend to focus on individual agen-
cies reporting vertically to Parliament. As we
go forward, the APS will need to look at differ-
ent ways of reporting this new focus on cross
agency and whole of government accountabil-
ity and on lateral reporting to outside stakehold-
ers and on its engagement with citizens.
Where to Now?
In assessing the APS against the OECD check-
list, I have noted that we are in pretty good
C© 2009 The Author
ethical shape overall, and that recent changes
will go some way toward reducing perceptions
of politicisation. There are still some issues and
challenges that we need to be prepared for –
such as the psychology of employees reporting
of alleged breaches, rethinking the parameters
for private use of communication resources and
fostering consistency in determining sanctions
for misconduct – and which will require further
thinking.

There are also new challenges that we need to
manage. The APS is in an environment where
the pace of change has accelerated exponen-
tially and with it a range of new ethical ques-
tions not previously considered – such as inter-
net based social networking that have blurred
the lines between professional and private ac-
tivities, and medical advances that enable the
growing of human ‘spare parts’.
A key next step in identifying what we need
to do to enhance and maintain ethical health in
the APS is to identify any other emerging or
future ethical challenges. There are some other
underlying issues that may also need further
consideration.
Encouraging Ethical Decision-Making
It is important that all public servants are sup-
ported in understanding and practising consis-
tent and sound decision-making processes to
deal with the ongoing tensions between the val-
ues. All decisions, both large and small benefit
from the questioning of assumptions and the
assessment of how a particular scenario or de-
cision is similar or different to previous situ-
ations – past solutions may not be applicable
if there has been a fundamental shift in a key
aspect, such as a change in government pol-
icy, expectations of new ministers, or public
expectations.
This time to pause and reflect is vitally im-
portant and requires self awareness and re-
silience at all levels but particularly in APS

REPORT ON ETHICS & INTEGRITY IN THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SECTOR.docx

REPORT ON ETHICS & INTEGRITY IN THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SECTOR.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to REPORT ON ETHICS & INTEGRITY IN THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SECTOR.docx

Similar to REPORT ON ETHICS & INTEGRITY IN THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SECTOR.docx (20)

More from chris293

More from chris293 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

REPORT ON ETHICS & INTEGRITY IN THE TASMANIAN PUBLIC SECTOR.docx