Appendixes

In this section:

return to top

Appendix A – Evaluation framework

This appendix outlines the approach undertaken by the Public Sector Commission to evaluate performance in accordance with the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act) (external website) and Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003 (PID Act) (external website).

Under ss. 21 and 22D of the PSM Act, the Public Sector Commissioner is required to monitor and report on the state of public sector administration and management each year, and compliance with standards and ethical codes. The Commission's jurisdiction under the PSM Act applies to all WA public sector bodies, which includes:

  • departments (established under s. 35 of the PSM Act)
  • senior executive service (SES) organisations
  • non-SES organisations
  • ministerial offices.

This does not include other government bodies such as:

  • public universities
  • local government authorities
  • other entities listed in Schedule 1 of the PSM Act (e.g. government trading enterprises, courts and tribunals, departments of the Parliament, electorate offices and the Police Force).

Under s. 22 of the PID Act, the Commissioner is also required to report on compliance with the PID Act and the Public interest disclosure code of conduct and integrity. The Commissioner's jurisdiction under the PID Act is broader and includes public universities, local government authorities and other PSM Act Schedule 1 entities.

Evaluation framework

The Commission monitors the state of the sector through performance assessments, general enquiries, surveys (of entities and employees) and other workforce data collection. The Commission makes every effort to ensure the integrity of public sector data but it relies on entities to provide accurate data.

Performance assessments and general enquiries

Breach of standard claims

The Public Sector Management (Breaches of Public Sector Standards) Regulations 2005 (external website) provide for people to lodge claims where they believe a public sector standard has been breached. Where breach claims referred to the Commission are substantiated, the Commissioner recommends relief be provided by the responsible entity.

In 2013/14, 105 breach claims were finalised by the Commission.

Matters of referral

Matters of referral include issues with management, governance, compliance with standards and unethical behaviour. Action taken by the Commission may include monitoring compliance with standards and ethical codes, using PSM Act powers or referring to another entity.

In 2013/14, 83 matters of referral were finalised by the Commission.

Advisory service

The Commission provides an advisory service to public authorities, their employees and members of the community. This service provides advice on matters such as standards, ethical codes and public interest disclosure, where appropriate.

In 2013/14, more than 2700 matters were managed by this service.

Employee perception survey (EPS)

The EPS evaluates employee views about their workplace, including ethical behaviour, equity and diversity, and job satisfaction. The EPS is a valuable tool to identify areas of opportunity and acknowledge good practice.

In 2014, employees from 21 public sector entities were invited to complete the EPS. These entities comprised a range of sizes and portfolios as, typically, the EPS is conducted in each entity with more than 20 employees approximately once every five years. The EPS continues to evolve and gather information about different topics from year to year. As such, trends across time may not be available for some items.

The average response rate for 2014 was 48 per cent. This report assumes there is no significant difference between those employees who were asked to participate and those who were not. It also assumes there is no difference between those participants who responded and those who did not. Some care should be taken in considering the EPS results as they may not be entirely representative of the views of the broader public sector.

State of the WA public sector statistical bulletin 2014 - Measuring up lists sector-wide EPS data by demographic categories.

Public sector entity survey (PSES)

The annual PSES (formerly the annual agency survey) requests information from public sector entities about their administration and management practices, such as capability development, occupational health and safety, and innovation. The survey also requests information about designated public interest disclosure officers, internal procedures and any disclosures received. The PSES provides entities with an internal planning and diagnostic tool.

In 2013/14, only public sector entities with more than 20 full-time equivalents (FTE)1 were asked to complete the PSES. All entities responded to the survey.

To reduce the reporting burden, those with between 20 and 100 FTE (19 entities) completed a shorter version of the survey for the first time. The standard PSES was completed by 67 entities (more than 100 FTE). The PSES continues to evolve and gathers information about different topics from year to year. As such, trends across time may not be available for some items.

Entity level responses are published in the State of the WA public sector 2014 - Measuring up statistical bulletin.

Public interest disclosure survey (PID survey)

The annual PID survey assists public sector entities with fewer than 20 FTE, as well as nonpublic sector entities, to meet their annual reporting requirement for compliance with the PID Act. The PID survey requests information about designated public interest disclosure officers, internal procedures and any disclosures received.

In 2013/14, 285 entities were requested to complete the PID survey and the average response rate was 86 per cent. Broken down by authority type, the response rates were:

  • 100 per cent of public sector entities with less than 20 FTE (24 surveys sent)
  • 93 per cent of local government authorities (138 sent)
  • 100 per cent of public universities (4 sent)
  • 100 per cent of other PSM Act Schedule 1 entities (21 sent)
  • 69 per cent of government boards and committees (98 sent2).

Human resource minimum obligatory information requirement (HRMOIR)

On a quarterly basis, the Commission collects and reports HRMOIR workforce data from public sector entities. The data includes demographic information such as age, gender, diversity status and occupation. State of the WA public sector statistical bulletin 2014 - Measuring up lists key HRMOIR statistics, both sector-wide and at the entity level.

return to top

Appendix B – Explanatory notes for benchmarking data

This appendix provides further information for the 'The public sector at a glance' section of this report and for other inter-jurisdictional comparison data throughout the report.

Data sources

Table B.1 lists the data sources used by the Public Sector Commission to benchmark the WA public sector results.

Table B.1 Data sources used to benchmark WA public sector results

Jurisdiction

Data source

Australian Capital Territory (ACT)

ACT Commissioner for Public Administration 2013, State of the service report

Australian Public Service (APS)

Australian Public Service Commission 2013, State of the service report 2012-13;2012, State of the service report 2011–12; and email correspondence

New South Wales(NSW)

NSW Public Service Commission 2013, Workforce profile report 2013 and 2014, People matter employee survey 2014: Main findings report

New Zealand (NZ)

NZ State Services Commission 2013, Human resource capability in the New Zealand State Services 2013

Northern Territory (NT)

NT Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment 2013, State of the service report 2012–13 and 2011, Northern Territory public sector employee survey report 2011

Queensland (Qld)

Public Service Commission 2013, Queensland public service workforce characteristics 2012/13; 2013, PSC profile data; 2013, Working for Queensland: Employee opinion survey 2013 report; and 2013, Whole-of-government service delivery research: Summary of outcomes

South Australia (SA)

SA Commissioner for Public Sector Employment 2013, State of the sector report 2012–2013 and 2013, South Australian public sector workforce information: June 2013 – summary tables

Tasmania (Tas)

Tas Department of Premier and Cabinet 2013, Tasmanian State Service annual report 2012–2013

Victoria (Vic)

Victorian Public Sector Commission 2014, The state of the public sector in Victoria 2012–2013 and Vic State Services Authority 2013, The state of the public sector in Victoria 2011–12

United Kingdom (UK)

United Kingdom Cabinet Office 2014, Civil service people survey 2013: Summary of findings

Explanatory notes

In general, the term 'workforce' represents the public sector workforce in each jurisdiction.

For WA, all workforce numbers are calculated based on data reported by entities through the human resource minimum obligatory information requirement (HRMOIR) process at 30 June 2014. Workforce respondent data is from the Commission's 2014 Employee perception survey (EPS).

Table B.2 explains some of the differences in workforce metrics and data definitions used by each jurisdiction. Caution should be exercised in drawing any comparisons across jurisdictions due to these and other differences.

Unless otherwise stated, data for other jurisdictions is from the 2012/13 reporting year, and data for WA is from 2013/14 due to the time of publication.

Table B.2 Explanatory notes for inter-jurisdictional comparisons

Metric

Explanatory notes

% workforce growth over the year (FTE or headcount)

Most jurisdictions express growth in full-time equivalents (FTE). However, growth in headcount is reported for Tas and APS.

Workforce as % of population

This metric is based on headcount (reported in the data sources listed in Table B.1) as a proportion of state population (estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 3101.0 – Australian demographic statistics, March quarter 2014). June 2013 population figures were used for all jurisdictions except WA, which used the March 2014 figure.

Senior executives as % of workforce

'Senior executives' are defined differently across jurisdictions. In WA, senior executives comprise those employees in the senior executive service (SES) as defined in Part 3, Division 2 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act).

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions except NSW (FTEbased). For Qld, the total number of senior executive positions excluding vacancies was used. For NSW, the workforce includes those in public trading enterprises.

Separation rate (% from entity or from workforce)

'Separation rate' is defined differently across jurisdictions. In WA, separation rate represents the number of separations during the reporting period as a proportion of total employees at the start of the period and all commencements during the period.

For most jurisdictions, this metric relates to permanent headcount leaving the public sector. For WA and NZ, it relates to permanent headcount leaving the entity. NSW includes permanent and casual headcount leaving the entity.

Professionals as % of workforce

'Professionals' are Major Group 2 employees as classified by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1220.0 – Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, 2013, version 1.2. These staff perform analytical, conceptual, and creative tasks through the application of theoretical knowledge and experience across a range of fields and disciplines, such as business, education and social welfare.

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions except Qld (FTEbased).

Working in metropolitan areas as % of workforce

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions. For the APS, 'metropolitan' represents those working in Australian cities.

Aged 55 years and over as % of workforce

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions.

Women as % of workforce

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions except Qld (FTEbased).

Women as % of senior executives

'Senior executives' are defined differently across jurisdictions. In WA, senior executives comprise those employees in the SES as defined in Part 3, Division 2 of the PSM Act.

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions except Qld and NSW (FTE). For Vic, senior executives includes those in public entities.

Aboriginal Australians as % of workforce

'Aboriginal Australians' is respectfully used to refer to people of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent who identify as such and are accepted as such by the community in which they live.

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions. APS data is for ongoing employees only. Tas data is based on responses to the 'Tasmanian State Service workforce survey'

People with disability as % of workforce

'People with disability' is defined differently across jurisdictions. In WA, people with disability have an ongoing employment restriction, due to their disability, that requires any of the following:

  • restriction in the type of work they can do
  • modified hours of work or schedules
  • adaptations to the workplace or work area
  • specialised equipment
  • extra time for mobility or for some tasks
  • ongoing assistance or supervision to carry out their duties.

This metric is based on headcount for all jurisdictions. APS data is for ongoing employees only. Tas data is based on responses to the 'Tasmanian State Service workforce survey'. SA data is from 2012.

% workforce respondents who believe they have good leadership

'Good leadership' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'my agency's senior leaders provide effective leadership'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NT data is from 2011.

% workforce respondents who believe they have ethical leadership

'Ethical leadership' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'senior managers lead by example in ethical behaviour'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NT data is from 2011, APS data from 2012 and NSW data from 2014.

% workforce respondents who are satisfied with the management of workplace change

'Management of workplace change' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'change is managed well in my agency'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NT data is from 2011, APS data from 2012, Vic data from 2012 and NSW data from 2014.

Employee engagement

'Employee engagement' represents a combination of employee perceptions such as work commitment, pride, satisfaction and motivation. Based on the UK Civil Service methodology, it is measured using an index based on employee responses to five survey items. Further information on this methodology is provided in Appendix C.

Within this report, the employee engagement index for NSW, Qld, and Vic are as reported in NSW's People matter employee survey 2014: Main findings report. The APS index was provided by the Australian Public Service Commission through email correspondence. NSW and Vic data is from 2014.

% workforce respondents who are satisfied with their job

'Job satisfaction' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'please indicate your level of satisfaction with your current job overall'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NSW data is from 2014.

% workforce respondents who believe they are supported to achieve work/life balance

'Support for work/life balance' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'your workplace culture supports people to achieve a suitable work/life balance'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NT data is from 2011 and NSW data from 2014.

% workforce respondents who are satisfied with their career opportunities

'Satisfaction with career opportunities' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'I am satisfied with the opportunities available to me for career progression in my current agency'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. Vic data is from 2012 and NSW data from 2014.

% workforce respondents who reported receiving formal performance feedback in the last 12 months

'Formal performance feedback' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'if you have been employed in your agency for more than 12 months, have you participated in one or more formal, documented performance management meetings with your supervisor in the past 12 months?'

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NT data is from 2011 and NSW data from 2014.

% workforce respondents who reported being subject to bullying in the last 12 months

'Bullying' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'during the past 12 months, have you been subjected to repeated bullying in your workplace?' Bullying is defined by WA to mean: 'repeated (i.e. on more than one occasion) unreasonable or inappropriate behaviour directed towards workers that creates a risk to health and safety. Bullying should not be confused with legitimate feedback given to staff (including constructive criticism) on work performance or work-related behaviour; or other legitimate management decisions and actions undertaken in a reasonable and respectful way.'

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. WA, NSW, and Vic data covers 'bullying' only. Data for APS, NT and Qld covers 'bullying and harassment'. NT data is from 2011, and NSW data from 2014.

% workforce respondents who believe they efficiently use time and resources in the workplace

'Efficient use of time and resources' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'the people in your work group use their time and resources efficiently'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NT data is from 2011 and NSW data from 2014.

% workforce respondents who are committed to delivering good customer service

'Committed to good customer service' is defined differently across jurisdictions. For WA, this is represented by 'employees in your workplace are committed to providing excellent customer service and making a positive difference to the community'.

This data is collected through employee perception surveys. NT data is from 2011 and NSW data from 2014.

% community respondents who reported that it is easy to carry out transactions with their state government

This metric is from Qld's Whole-of-government service delivery research: Summary of outcomes. This data was collected through interviews with some residents of Qld, WA, Vic, SA and NSW, which facilitated high level comparisons across jurisdictions.

The data represents the proportion of community respondents who indicated it was 'easy' to carry out transactions (such as registering a vehicle, obtaining a licence/permit or paying a fine) with their state government.

Where data has been collected through employee perception surveys, the methodology differs significantly across jurisdictions. For example, most jurisdictions conduct a census across all public sector entities whereas WA conducts a sample survey of around one in five entities each year.

Other differences include the employee survey response scales, where some jurisdictions use seven-point rating scales and exclude the 'don't know' option. These differences may result in higher positive and negative scores (due to the inclusion of slight positive, slight negative and 'don't know' scores). WA uses a seven-point scale however respondents can select 'don't know' as applicable.

return to top

Appendix C – Employee engagement model

For the first time, a theoretical model was developed by the Public Sector Commission, based on employee engagement research from Australian and international jurisdictions. This model is designed to measure the strength of relationships between workplace factors, job satisfaction and employee engagement, and several key organisational outcomes.

The model enables identification of factors that have the most impact on employee engagement. Examining the performance of these factors within an organisation can help identify priorities for capability and policy development.

Key drivers of employee engagement and outcomes

Analysis of the Commission's 2014 Employee perception survey (EPS) data identified eight key factors affecting employee engagement within a sample of public sector entities. These factors are shown on the left of the model diagram in Figure C.1.

The three factors with the most impact for the 21 entities surveyed were:

  • 'Senior leadership'
  • 'Job empowerment'
  • 'Ethics and integrity'.

Research has shown that higher levels of engagement across an organisation result in better productivity, lower levels of absenteeism, higher retention, improved service quality and increased innovation.3 Most of these organisational objectives cannot be measured within the current data collection, however the level of employee engagement was shown to affect intention to leave in the 2014 EPS sample.

Figure C.1 Employee engagement model

Figure C.1 Employee engagement model

The flow chart can be described as follows:

'Workplace factors' are:

  • Senior leadership
  • Job empowerment
  • Ethics and integrity
  • Merit and employment
  • Development and wellbeing
  • Immediate supervisor
  • Diversity
  • Productivity

These 'Workplace factors' drive 'Employee engagement' which feed into the 'Organisational objectives':

  • Lower intention to leave
  • Lower absenteeism
  • Better productivity
  • Increased innovation
  • Increased service quality

These 'Organisational objectives' result in 'Better organisational performance'.

Factor analysis

A principal components exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between 70 questions in the 2014 EPS and identify the possible factors driving employee engagement.

Factor analysis statistically groups together highly related survey questions. This is where one survey question shows a very similar pattern of responses to another question. Factors are considered to reflect underlying drivers of employee engagement and measure broader concepts than the individual survey questions.

The analysis extracted eight factors from the 2014 EPS questions.4 Those questions that were most strongly associated with each of the factors are shown in Table C.1 in order of the strength of relationship between the question and its factor.5

Table C.1 2014 EPS questions associated with each workplace factor

Factor

Question

Senior leadership

Change is managed well in my agency

I feel that my agency on the whole is well managed

In general, my agency makes sound financial decisions

My agency’s senior leaders provide effective leadership

My agency encourages creativity and innovation

In relation to your current job, please indicate your level of satisfaction with your agency as an employer

My agency encourages the public to participate in the design of services and programs

I am proud to work in the WA public sector

Job empowerment

My job allows me to utilise my skills, knowledge and abilities

I am sufficiently challenged by my work

I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are

I understand how my work contributes to my agency’s objectives

In relation to your current job, please indicate your level of satisfaction with the job overall

I have the authority to do my job effectively

I am satisfied with the opportunities available to me for career progression in my current agency

Ethics and integrity

Employees in your workplace behave ethically, professionally and fairly when making decisions that affect your agency’s clients and customers

Employees in your workplace are committed to providing excellent customer service and making a positive difference to the community

Decisions about purchasing are not influenced by favouritism, gifts or incentives

Your co-workers demonstrate honesty and integrity in the workplace

Confidential information in your workplace is only disclosed to appropriate people

Your agency actively encourages ethical behaviour by all of its employees

You are treated with respect by other employees in your agency

Senior managers in your agency lead by example in ethical behaviour

Conflicts of interest are identified and managed effectively in your workplace

Management practices in your agency create and sustain a culture of integrity

Merit and employment

Decisions to second or transfer employees to equivalent or higher levels are made fairly

Recruitment and promotion decisions in this agency are fair

Candidates for relieving or acting opportunities are selected on the basis of merit

Positions are generally advertised within a reasonable time of becoming vacant

Development and wellbeing

Training and development opportunities in your work area are available to all employees

You receive appropriate training or have access to information that enables you to meet your recordkeeping responsibilities

You are able to access and use flexible work arrangements to assist in your work/life balance

In your agency, there is adequate opportunity to develop the required skills for being a leader

Your workplace culture supports people to achieve a suitable work/life balance

Your agency is committed to health and wellbeing within the workplace

The feedback you receive helps you to improve your performance

Immediate supervisor

Your immediate supervisor makes use of appropriate communication and interpersonal skills when dealing with you

Your immediate supervisor is effective in managing people

Your immediate supervisor appropriately assesses risks relevant to your work area

You are treated with respect by your immediate supervisor

Your immediate supervisor demonstrates honesty and integrity

Your immediate supervisor appropriately deals with employees that perform poorly

Diversity

Your workplace culture is equally welcoming of people from all diversity groups

Your agency is committed to creating a diverse workforce

Your agency has supported you in feeling confident in working with people from different diversity groups

Your co-workers treat employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect

Your immediate supervisor treats employees from all diversity groups in the workplace with equal respect

Productivity

The people in your work group use their time and resources efficiently

The people in your work group cooperate to get the job done

Your workgroup achieves a high level of productivity

Determining employee engagement levels

An employee engagement index was calculated for the EPS respondents as a measure of the level of employee engagement within the sample. The index was the same as that reported for Victoria (Vic), New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (Qld), the Australian Public Service (APS) and the United Kingdom (UK) to enable benchmarking across jurisdictions.6

Calculating the engagement index

The index measures employee responses to five EPS questions that ask staff about:

  • pride – 'I am proud to tell others I work for my agency'
  • motivation – 'my agency motivates me to help it achieve its objectives'
  • inspiration – 'my agency inspires me to do the best in my job'
  • advocacy – 'I would recommend my agency as a great place to work'
  • attachment – 'I feel a strong personal attachment to my agency'.

An index is calculated by first converting responses to the five questions as per Table C.2, then averaging the scores for each employee.

Table C.2 Conversion scores for EPS engagement items

Response

Score

Strongly agree

100

Moderately agree

83.33

Mildly agree

66.66

Neither agree nor disagree

50

Mildly disagree

33.33

Moderately disagree

16.66

Strongly disagree

0

No index is calculated for employees that did not answer, or responded 'don't know' or 'doesn't apply', to any of the questions.

The employee engagement index for the WA sample overall was 66. This is similar to Vic (67) and NSW (65), and higher than the APS (62), Qld (58) and the UK (58). The engagement index for each of the 21 entities that participated in the 2014 EPS ranged from 49 to 72.

The impact of factors on employee engagement

A multiple regression analysis was used to model the effect of the key drivers on employee engagement as measured by the engagement index.

The factor analysis that was used to identify the drivers produces a score for each employee against each factor. These factor scores were used as the predictor variables in the analysis.

The regression analysis showed that all factors in Figure C.1 were significant drivers of engagement. The factors are ordered according to their impact on engagement, with 'Senior leadership', 'Job empowerment' and 'Ethics and integrity' having the largest impact. This was based on the size of standardised coefficients produced by the multiple regression.

return to top

Appendix D – Compliance statements

In accordance with s. 31(2) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (PSM Act) (external website), organisations which are not listed in Schedule 1 of the Financial Management Act 2006 (external website) are required to provide each year to the Public Sector Commissioner a statement on the extent to which they have complied with the public sector standards in human resource management, codes of ethics and any relevant code of conduct.

These compliance statements are reported below, in accordance with s. 31(4) of the PSM Act. Some non-senior executive service (non-SES) organisations report with an affiliated entity instead (under s. 31(1)), and this is indicated where relevant.

Compliance statements provided under the PSM Act, 2013/14

Architects Board of Western Australia

No compliance issues concerning the public sector standards, the Code of Ethics or the Board's code of conduct arose during the period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014.

Commissioner for Children and Young People (CCYP)

I am satisfied that, to the best of my knowledge, CCYP has complied with the public sector standards, codes of ethics and agency code of conduct in accordance with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act.

Commissioner for Equal Opportunity

In accordance with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act, the Commissioner has fully complied with regards to the public sector standards, Public Sector Commissioner's Instructions, the Code of Ethics and the agency's code of conduct.

Commission for Occupational Safety and Health

Reported under the Department of Commerce in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Conservation Commission of Western Australia

The Department of Parks and Wildlife, through an operational agreement signed in 2006, provides the framework for human resource management for the Conservation Commission.

In the administration of the Conservation Commission, the Director has complied with the public sector standards, the Code of Ethics and the agency's code of conduct. Information on both the Code of Ethics and the code of conduct is provided to employees on commencement with the Conservation Commission.

No complaints have been lodged under the Code of Ethics during the reporting period and there have been no instances of misconduct.

Environmental Protection Authority

Reported under the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Legal Practice Board

The Legal Practice Board has fully complied with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act as it relates to the operations of the Board. The Board continues to be fully compliant with regard to the public sector standards and ethical codes.

The Board is committed to maintaining a high standard of accountability, integrity and transparency in all its functions and activities in line with the public sector standards. As part of this, the Board continues to undertake a program to review and update all policies relating to both its internal and external functions, including (but not limited to) human resource management. The Board is also committed to continuing to develop its own code of conduct, both for Board members and for Board staff, in line with the Commissioner's Instruction No. 8 – Codes of conduct and integrity training.

In accordance with s. 31(2) of the PSM Act, the Board provides the following information regarding compliance during the period under review:

  • nil breach claims
  • information on standards is provided at recruitment and the Code of Ethics is included in the offer of employment contract
  • all employees receive an induction manual on employment with the Board, which includes the Code of Ethics (the manual sets out the Board's policies and conditions of employment and employees are required to sign that they have read the manual)
  • training is provided to recruitment panels to ensure compliance with relevant standards
  • the Board's policies are consistent with ethical principles and are subject to regular review and update.

The Board is committed to continually seeking to review and update its current practices through avenues such as auditing and review of its functions, performance management, ongoing training and seeking feedback from all stakeholders.

Office of the Director of Equal Opportunity in Public Employment

Reported under the Public Sector Commission in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)

The OIC has a code of conduct which was last updated in July 2013. The code has been distributed to all staff and is available on the intranet. New staff members are provided with a copy as part of their induction.

Among other things, the code outlines the requirement to:

  • refer to the Code of Ethics to guide decision-making
  • not divulge any information received under the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (FOI Act) (external website) for any purpose except in accordance with the FOI Act
  • adhere to the principles of natural justice when dealing with matters before the Information Commissioner
  • report conflicts of interest
  • treat stakeholders without discrimination
  • report any gift or hospitality offers.

The public sector standards are followed by the OIC. During 2013/14, no staff were redeployed, terminated or disciplined, and no grievances were lodged. Only one recruitment process was finalised during the year, which adhered to the Employment standard. The performance management policy for the OIC is currently under review, in order to more appropriately follow the Performance management standard.

Office of the Public Advocate

Reported under the Department of the Attorney General in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations (Ombudsman)

In the administration of the office of the Ombudsman, I have complied with the public sector standards, the Code of Ethics and the office's code of conduct.

I have put in place procedures designed to ensure such compliance, and conducted appropriate internal assessments to satisfy myself that the above statement is correct.

Parliamentary Superannuation Board

Reported under the Government Employees Superannuation Board in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Plumbers Licensing Board

Reported under the Department of Commerce in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Salaries and Allowances Tribunal

Reported under the Public Sector Commission in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Solicitor General

Reported under the Department of the Attorney General in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

State Heritage Office

Reported under the Heritage Council of Western Australia in accordance with s. 31(1) of the PSM Act.

Veterinary Surgeons' Board

The Board has complied with the public sector standards and ethical codes.

return to top

Appendix E – Abbreviations

ACT
Australian Capital Territory
AEDM
Accountable and ethical decision making
AO
Officer of the Order of Australia
APS
Australian Public Service
CEO
Chief executive officer
COAG
Council of Australian Governments
DSC
Distinguished Service Cross
DSM
Distinguished Service Medal
EO Act
Equal Opportunity Act 1984
EPS
Employee perception survey
FTE
Full-time equivalent
HRMOIR
Human resource minimum obligatory information requirement
MLA
Member of the Legislative Assembly
MP
Member of Parliament
NSW
New South Wales
NZ
New Zealand
PID
Public interest disclosure
PID Act
Public Interest Disclosure Act 2003
PSES
Public sector entity survey
PSM
Public Service Medal
PSM Act
Public Sector Management Act 1994
Qld
Queensland
QR
Quick response
SA
South Australia
SES
Senior executive service
Tas
Tasmania
Vic
Victoria
WA
Western Australia
WACHS
WA Country Health Service

return to top

Appendix F – References

For all Public Sector Commission publications, please refer to the Commission's website at www.publicsector.wa.gov.au

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013, 2002.0 – Census of population and housing: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Indigenous) profile, 2011 third release, viewed 19 September 2014, www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ Lookup/2002.0Main+Features12011%20Third%20Release?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013, 'E13_aug96 - Employed persons by occupation, state, sex, age', 6291.0.55.003 - Labour force, Australia, detailed, quarterly, May 2013, viewed 8 October 2014, www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6291.0.55.003May%202013?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012, 'TableBuilder basic: Disability, carers and need for assistance classifications, 2011 Census of population and housing, viewed 19 September 2014, www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilderdata2011basic?op endocument&navpos=240#tbb14_1_4

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, 1220.0 - ANZSCO - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, viewed 8 October 2014, www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/1220.02006?OpenDocument

Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate 2013, State of the service report – ACT public service 2012–2013, viewed 8 October 2014, www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/497345/2012_2013_state_of_the_service_report.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 2014, Global trends in professional learning and performance development, viewed 19 September 2014, www.aitsl.edu.au/ docs/default-source/default-document-library/horizon_scan_report.pdf

Australian Public Service Commission 2014, Privacy and transparency: disclosing outcomes of misconduct complaints – A discussion paper, viewed 19 September 2014, www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/Privacy-and-transparencydisclosing-outcomes-of-misconduct-complaints-a-discussion-paper

Australian Public Service Commission 2013, State of the service report 2012-13, viewed 8 October 2014, www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/state-of-the-service/sosr-2012-13

Australian Public Service Commission 2012, State of the service report 2011-12, viewed 8 October 2014, www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/parliamentary/state-of-theservice/2011-12-sosr

Beyondblue 2014, State of workplace mental health in Australia, viewed 19 September 2014, www.headsup.org.au/docs/default-source/resources/bl1270-report---tns-the-stateof- mental-health-in-australian-workplaces-hr.pdf

Center for Creative Leadership, Leadership development: Past, present, and future, viewed 15 September 2014, www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/research/cclLeadershipDevelopment.pdf

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia 2014, State of the future: A vision for WA, viewed 8 October 2014, http://read.uberflip.com/i/365860

Commonwealth of Australia 2014, Creating parity – the Forrest review, viewed 19 September 2014, https://indigenousjobsandtrainingreview.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/ files/files/The_Forrest_Review.pdf

Department of Planning 2014, State planning strategy 2050, viewed 8 October 2014, www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/6561.asp

Department of Commerce 2010, Code of practice – Violence, aggression and bullying at work, viewed 19 September 2014, www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/ files/code_violence.pdf

Department of Training and Workforce Development 2014, State priority 1 occupation list, viewed 19 September 2014, http://www.dtwd.wa.gov.au/ workforcedataworkforcedevelopment/occupationlists/spol/Pages/spol.aspx

Department of Treasury 2014, 2013-14 Annual report on state finances, viewed 8 October 2014, www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/TwoColumns_Content. aspx?pageid=13730&id=14092

Department of Treasury 2014, Evaluation guide, viewed 8 October 2014, www.treasury. wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/Treasury/Program_Evaluation/evaluation_guide.pdf

Department of Treasury 2014, The structure of the Western Australian economy, viewed 8 October 2014, www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/_Treasury/ Publications/2014_Structure_of_the_Economy.pdf

Economic Regulation Authority 2014, Inquiry into microeconomic reform in Western Australia: Final report, viewed 8 October 2014, www.erawa.com.au/inquiries/industry-andresources- inquiries/microeconomic-reform-2014

Ethics Resource Center 2006, Ethical culture building: a modern business imperative, viewed 15 September 2014, www.ethics.org/files/u5/ECOA-Report-FINAL.pdf

Graycar, A 2014, 'Awareness of corruption in the community and public service: A Victorian study', Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 271-281, viewed 17 September, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12081/full

Griffith University 2009, Whistling while they work: Towards best practice whistleblowing programs in public sector organisations, viewed 17 September 2014, www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/159199/whistling-july09-full-report.pdf

Hays 2013, Hays' global skills index 2013, viewed 19 September 2014, http://www.haysindex.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Hays-GSI-Report-2013.pdf

International Journal of Training and Development 2009, Organizational ethics education and training: A review of best practices and their application, viewed 16 September 2014, http://www.sekerkaethicsinaction.com/docs/pdfs/Sekerka%20IJTD%203-1-09.pdf

Institute of Public Administration Australia 2014, Shaping the future through co-creation, viewed 8 October 2014, www.ipaa.org.au/documents/2014/05/innovation-report.pdf

Jennings, C 2013, 70:20:10 framework explained, viewed 19 September 2014, www.702010forum.com/files/publication-abstract.pdf

LRN 2006, The impact of codes of conduct on corporate culture – Measuring the immeasurable, viewed 17 September, www.ethics.org/files/u5/LRNImpactofCodesofConduct.pdf

New South Wales Public Service Commission 2014, People matter employee survey 2014 – Main findings report, viewed 8 October 2014, www.psc.nsw.gov.au/About-the-Public-Sector/People-Matter-Employee-Survey/People-Matter-Employee-Survey-2014

New South Wales Public Service Commission 2014, Workforce profile report 2014, viewed 8 October 2014, www.psc.nsw.gov.au/Sector-Support/Workforce-Information/theworkforce-data

New South Wales Public Service Commission 2013, Workforce profile report 2013, viewed 8 October 2014, www.psc.nsw.gov.au/Sector-Support/Workforce-Information/theworkforce-data

Office of the Auditor General 2014, Beyond compliance: Reporting and managing KPIs in the public sector, viewed 8 October 2014, https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-andpublications/reports/beyond-compliance/

Office of the Auditor General 2014, Governance of public sector boards, viewed 8 October 2014, https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and-publications/reports/governance-public-sectorboards/

Office of the Auditor General 2014, Records management in the public sector, viewed 8 October 2014, https://audit.wa.gov.au/reports-and-publications/reports/recordsmanagement-in-the-public-sector/

Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment Northern Territory 2013, State of the service report 2012–2013, viewed 8 October 2014, www.ocpe.nt.gov.au/workforce_ planning/state_of_the_service_report

Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment Northern Territory 2012, State of the service report 2011–2012, viewed 8 October 2014, www.ocpe.nt.gov.au/workforce_ planning/state_of_the_service_report

Office of the Information Commissioner 2014, Achieving transparency with blurred government boundaries, viewed 17 September 2014, www.foi.wa.gov.au/materials/2014%20AIAL%20paper%20on%20FOI%20and%20blurred%20 government%20boundaries%20-%20S%20Bluemmel.pdf

Office of Public Employment and Review South Australia 2013, State of the sector report 2012-2013, viewed 8 October 2014, http://www.oper.sa.gov.au/page-64

Office of Public Employment and Review South Australia 2013, 2013 South Australian public sector workforce information summary tables, viewed 8 October 2014, www.oper.sa.gov.au/page-57

Office of the State Service Commissioner Tasmania 2013, The Tasmanian State Service annual report 2012-13, viewed 8 October 2014, www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/212079/Tasmanian_State_Service_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2000, Trust in government – Ethics measures in OECD countries, viewed 15 September 2014, www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/48994450.pdf

PricewaterhouseCoopers 2010, Workplace wellness in Australia: aligning action with aims – Optimising the benefits of workplace wellness, viewed 8 October 2014, www.pwc.com.au/industry/healthcare/assets/Workplace-Wellness-Sep10.pdf

Queensland Public Service Commission 2013, Working for Queensland: Employee opinion survey 2013 report, viewed 8 October 2014, www.psc.qld.gov.au/publications/workforcestatistics/assets/2013-WFQEOS-Final-Report.pdf

Queensland Public Service Commission 2013, Queensland public service workforce characteristics 2012/13, viewed 8 October 2014, www.psc.qld.gov.au/publications/workforce-statistics/assets/characteristics-qps-2013.pdf

Queensland Public Service Commission 2013, Whole-of-government service delivery research: Summary of outcomes, viewed 8 October 2014, www.psc.qld.gov.au/assets/Satisfaction_Final_Report_310721013.pdf

Queensland University of Technology, 2004, Public sector managers and ethical dilemmas, viewed 17 September 2014, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/1388/1/1388_2.pdf

State Services Authority 2014, The state of the sector in Victoria 2012-13, viewed 8 October 2014, www.ssa.vic.gov.au/products/public-administration-html-only/state-ofthe-public-sector-in-victoria-2012-13.html

State Services Authority 2013, The state of the sector in Victoria 2011-12, viewed 8 October 2014, www.ssa.vic.gov.au/products/public-administration-html-only/state-ofthe-public-sector-in-victoria-2011-12.html

State Services Commission 2013, Human resource capability in the New Zealand state services, viewed 8 October 2014, www.ssc.govt.nz/hrc-survey-2013

Transparency International 2013, Corruption perceptions index 2013, viewed 17 September 2014, www.transparency.org/cpi2013/in_detail#myAnchor3

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 2014, Directive on performance management, viewed 19 September 2014, www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=27146§ion=text

United Nations 2005, Integrity, transparency and accountability in public administration: Recent trends, regional and international developments and emerging issues, viewed 16 September 2014, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/ UNPAN020955.pdf

return to top

Appendix G – List of figures

Figure 1.1 Senior executives as a proportion of the public sector workforce (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2013 and 2014

Figure 1.2 Employee perceptions of leadership effectiveness (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2011, 2013 and 2014

Figure 1.3 Employee perceptions of change management (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2011 to 2014

Figure 1.4 Job satisfaction (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2013 and 2014

Figure 1.5 Employee satisfaction with career opportunities (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2012 to 2014

Figure 1.6 Employee separation rate (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2013 and 2014

Figure 1.7 Employee engagement across jurisdictions, 2013 and 2014

Figure 1.8 Performance and impact of employee engagement drivers in a public sector sample, 2014

Figure 2.1 Employee perceptions of ethical leadership (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2011 to 2014

Figure 3.1 Capability development initiatives offered to staff by entities, 2013/14

Figure 3.2 Employees reporting receipt of formal performance feedback (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2011, 2013 and 2014

Figure 3.3 Representation of Aboriginal employees across jurisdictions, 2013 and 2014

Figure 3.4 Representation of employees with disability across jurisdictions, 2013 and 2014

Figure 3.5 Employees who feel supported to achieve work/life balance (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2011, 2013 and 2014

Figure 3.6 Percentage of employees who reported being subject to bullying (percentage) across jurisdictions, 2011, 2013 and 2014

Figure 3.7 Strategies used by entities to monitor performance against the public sector standards, 2013/14

return to top

Appendix H – List of tables

Table 2.1 Strategies to encourage employee reporting of unethical behaviour, 2013/14

Table 2.2 Types of breaches of ethical codes, 2013/14

Table 2.3 Outcomes of breaches of ethical codes, 2013/14

Table 3.1 Representation of diversity groups in the public sector, 2014

Table 3.2 Outcomes of breach claims against public sector standards, 2013/14

return to top

Appendix I – Acknowledgements

Contribution of case studies

The Commission gives special thanks to the following entities featured in case studies in this year's report:

  • Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority
  • City of Gosnells
  • Challenger Institute of Technology
  • Central Institute of Technology
  • Department of Corrective Services
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Fisheries
  • Department of Health
  • Department of Mines and Petroleum
  • Department of State Development
  • Government House
  • Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council
  • Mental Health Commission
  • Regional Power Corporation
  • Tourism Western Australia
  • Western Australia Country Health Service
  • Western Australia Police

The Commission also thanks Professor Adam Graycar at the Australian National University for providing information for this year's report.

Contribution of photos

The Commission acknowledges the following entities for contributing photos of government employees and projects to this year's report:

  • Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority
  • Challenger Institute of Technology
  • Department of Agriculture and Food
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Fire and Emergency Services
  • Department of Fisheries
  • Department of Housing
  • Department of Training and Workforce Development
  • Horizon Power
  • Lotterywest
  • ScreenWest
  • South West Development Commission
  • South West Institute of Technology
  • Western Australia Institute of Public Administration Australia

return to top


1 Includes all current employees, except for casuals not paid in the final pay period fortnight of the financial year. One FTE equals one person paid for a full-time position at the end of the financial year.

2 Some boards and committees were not sent the PID survey in 2014 as their obligations under the PID Act are administered and reported by another entity.

3 MacLeod, D & Clarke, N 2009, Engaging for success: Enhancing performance through employee engagement, pp. 11-14

4Using direct oblimin rotation and extracted based on eigenvalues greater than 1.

5 With a coefficient of at least 0.4. Where questions loaded on more than one factor, they have been listed against the factor with the highest coefficient in Table C.1.

6 See Appendix B for information about inter-jurisdictional data sources.

return to top



Page last updated 20 November 2014