It’s time integrity assessment was compulsory during APS recruitment, including promotions and transfers. Results from the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) 2024 Commonwealth Integrity Survey, combined with multiple integrity-related inquiries and reports, suggest that more is needed than just a reminder to job applicants that APS staff must comply with and uphold the APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles.

The Public Service Minister, Senator Gallagher, has focused on four pillars of APS reform, one of which is building a strong culture of integrity. The 2020 Report into consultations regarding APS approaches to ensure institutional integrity recommended identifying the integrity framework knowledge required by APS employees soon after entry. But why wait until after entry? Why not insist that selection panels include integrity assessment as part of recruitment best-practice?

Another theme explored in the report is uncertainty about how well-equipped staff are to identify and act on integrity concerns. The NACC’s integrity survey results show that public servants’ overconfidence that they can identify corruption in their department is not matched by actual ability when asked to identify corruption in practice. Respondents were presented with five scenarios and asked which involved corrupt practice. Only 20% of respondents got all five correct. NACC’s benchmark of three correct was passed by 83%.

In one scenario, 34% of respondents failed to identify an employee granting a contract to a friend as corrupt, even though a positive result was delivered. Given efforts to cut outsourced labour and identified problems with contracts and consultants, applicants for contract management and procurement roles should demonstrate their integrity credentials. Applicants for all leadership roles, not just the SES, should surely have some assessment made of their capacity to foster a pro-integrity culture

NACC’s annual report shows that the Commission received a total of 3,190 referrals. Referrals and investigations reflect three dominant public sector domains: procurement; recruitment and promotion; and the public/private interface. The report states that: ‘In all these domains, the actual or perceived corrupt conduct typically involves preferential treatment of family, friends and associates, and the misuse of information or opportunity to gain an advantage’. And further, that ‘almost invariably, they have their origin in a conflict of interest’.

The Australian government has released multiple documents about the value and risks of artificial intelligence (AI). Concerns include legal, privacy, security and ethical risks and their impact on public confidence and trust. Yet another reason for making integrity assessment compulsory during recruitment processes.

There is no shortage of documents about APS integrity, but a focus on recruitment practice is missing. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Integrity Good Practice Guide states that it ‘brings together a sample of good practices, to shine a light on innovative work underway and to encourage the sharing and uptake of scalable ideas across the APS’. This document refers to the APS Commissioner’s Directions 2022 that introduced mandatory integrity training for APS employees within six months of being employed. A good idea, but recruitment practice is not mentioned.

The NACC’s Commonwealth Integrity Maturity Framework lists eight principles, the second of which is integrity knowledge and performance management. Two elements of this principle are:

•  ‘The knowledge and capabilities that employees need, upon commencement and at key stages of their career, to ensure they can effectively implement integrity policies and procedures.
•  Considering a person’s ability to model, champion and advance institutional integrity in leadership/management, recruitment and performance reviews.’

Integrity Maturity Indicators for this principle are performance management and education. Four ascending levels of maturity indicators are offered. For the above-mentioned elements, Level 1 indicators are:

•  ‘Performance management: Integrity is not explicitly referenced in employee duty statements or performance agreements.
• Education: integrity education is provided upon induction.’

Level 2 performance management indicator is ‘integrity is referenced in employee duty statements and performance agreements, but there are no mechanisms to ensure consistency of assessment’. Level 3 is ‘integrity is a core consideration in employee duty statements and performance agreements and is consistently monitored in performance assessments’. Again, despite referencing integrity in duty statements, there is no inclusion of integrity in the actual recruitment process.

Being a model employer is another pillar of APS reform. Modelling recruitment practice that gives a high priority to integrity will not only help build trust in the APS but might also encourage other sectors to follow suit.