Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 35:15 to 44:16
Discussion on reports of unacceptable workplace behavior, bullying, and harassment. Senators also query staff attrition rates and matters referred to the Fair Work Commission.
Topics: Workplace culture, Public service staffing, Integrity
Speakers: Speaker 5, Tim Simpson, Speaker 3, Matthew Gson, Tess Bishop, Mr. Matthew Gson, Mr. Tim Simpson, Ms. Tess Bishop, Speaker 9
>> Uh Senator that will most likely be due to some of the reprofiling of um and the movements of funds with regards to the steps money. Um I would say that that is an estimate at a point in time.
So can I just clarify that suppliers are external contractors are they effectively or >> they'll be a combination of those. Yes. >> Right. But they're not people employed by the department. >> Yes. So that could be it. So this steps program is having a big impact on your um on your on your accounts. Okay. Probably something we should look at more. Okay. All right. Um moving off the uh statements. Just got some questions from last estimates. Uh at the last estimates, Senator McKenzie asked for a breakdown of bullying and harassment incidents. In the answer to SQ2500 4, um uh you have reported this or sorry last financial year 2425 um quite a bit of an increase in uh unacceptable workplace behaviors. So the previous two years had them at 152 141 and then last financial year jumped to 206. Uh is there some reason behind that increase or has anyone looked at why is it increase in unacceptable workplace behaviors?
>> Senator Tim Simpson, chief people officer. Um sorry, what was a corn again? I've got them here in front of Uh
the number I've got here which I think is your numbering is SQ25 >> 04.
>> Thank you. >> And yours was in relation sorry the question particular was about the unacceptable behavior.
>> Yes that particular row as I said it's gone 152 141 206.
Uh Senator, we do we do regularly look at this obviously from an organizational and culture perspective. Uh we don't have a definitive reason about why but the numbers have increased more broadly across the scheme because we have really promoted our integrity function uh and the proactive reporting for staff. Um so we don't have a definitive answer no but there is a range of reasons or contributions to why the reports go up.
>> How do you have you do you benchmark yourself against the the rest of public service? I mean percentage of incidents
reported etc. Not necessarily on the number like a benchmarking point. No.
>> Right. So you can't >> I might just add the APS census is a is a fairly good barometer across departments of those sorts of issues. Obviously it's a different data set to to the one we're talking about here. And I just wanted to point out that the 26 you're talking about isn't bullying and harassment. It's overall unacceptable
behavior. >> Unacceptable. That's what I said. Unacceptable behavior.
>> Yeah. I just thought you started off talking about increases in bullying and harassment. But actually
>> the question was about that. Yes. But the table went to different slightific. The bullying and harassment and sexual harassment they're not subsets of unacceptable workplace behaviors. They're separate incidents. >> Separate categories. Yes. >> Separate categories. >> So what's an unacceptable workplace
behavior? So for us we categorize I guess anything that doesn't fit into the bullying harassment and sexual harassment general complaints about management or interactions between individuals um would fall into that
category. >> Okay. I mean more definitively if fraud and corruption um incidents have almost doubled from two years prior. >> Is there a reason for that?
>> Uh there's not Senator. I think the bit for us as I said earlier is we've actually been real proactive or really proactive in encouraging staff to report potential incidents so we could actually uh assess them internally or refer them to the external agencies. So uh there is no kind of reason there is no increase for us I think in outcomes which is the most important part but it's about a
proactive reporting culture. >> Okay. Um the 2526 Inspector General uh of biocurity report uh into the department's regulatory approach did say and I quote a lack of consequence sorry staff there was a survey staff survey and then staff did express concern and I quote about a lack of consequence for repeat offenders and inconsistent enforcement due to perceived political pressure to prioritize trade facilitation over robust regulation. Is that something that's been looked into by the department? that that finding it's on page 29 of that report.
>> Senator, I suggest the IGB outcomes uh a question for outcome one or two where our colleagues can answer them in
detail. >> Although I would have thought if you find if staff are expressing such a concern that surely is a matter for management not just the inspector
general himself. Yeah, the accounting for how we've dealt with different IGB reports are sort of managed out of outcome too, Senator, but it does not mean that that didn't translate into action in our corporate area, but we can just maybe come back to you >> in outcome two if that's okay and provide a bit more of a substantive
answer to that question. >> Um, I just um uh I forgot to mention on the or ask in the unaccepted workplace behaviors category, do you classify those about if they're reports about the uh those at a secretary level?
Uh, Senator, the department doesn't deal with matters in relation to department heads or secretaries. That's u a matter for the APSC commission commission.
>> And is there any particular action the department's taking in response to the uptick in unacceptable workplace
behaviors? >> Again, Senator, I think we need to be careful to say that the uptick in reports of these rather than outcomes as Mr. Simpson has said. Um but I'll I'll see if others want to add um what the internal measures we are we are doing in order to support people who wish to speak up about unacceptable behavior.
>> Okay. Um I think we've got information that uh back from you that um 320 staff left between the 1st of July 2025 and 30th of November 2025 and five SCES staff in that period does seem like a significant number of staff leaving. Is it higher? Is it a higher attrition rate than normal?
>> Senator I don't have the specific numbers in front of me. What I what I would say is the department has a very uh healthy attrition rate at the moment which is closely aligned to the APS average um in the numbers you talk about I'd have to look at them from a percentage perspective but we do operate I think um as I said earlier at a very healthy rate from a for an organization of our size and complexity
>> is that the attrition rate you've got what's the latest period you've got it for
>> so one
Um
so um our current 12 month attrition or separation rate as we'd call it at the end of December is 8.1%. >> That's for last calendar year. So 12 months we do it rolling 12 months. So
yeah, >> you don't have it for the 6 months of
last year. >> Uh I don't have it for 6 months. I've only got a rolling 12 month kind of average in front of me.
>> You could take that on notice, thanks. >> Um but my rough calculations of your staff counts that would be 320 would be a bit above average. Um above certainly above 4%. Um uh first for well it's less than 6 months the figures I read out there. It's only five month period. Um so uh I believe also that uh six matters have been referred to the Fair Work Commission involving staff separations between July and November last year. Is that correct?
>> I just need to get back to I'm assuming
that's from the quan senator that you >> uh I'm not sure which quan it's from. I think it is from Aquan. Yeah, actually I think I've got it here. SQ2500570.
>> Senator, of those uh five separations, um two moved to another agency and three
retired, >> but they are are they before the Fairwork Commission, those five >> or are you talking >> are you talking about the SCS staff? >> Yes. >> Sorry, that was a separate question, but thank you for the information. I'm return sorry, six matters, not five. I have my questions about the six matters that referred to the Fair Work
Commission. >> Uh, Senator, I have to take on notice the updates each. I probably wouldn't comment because they are before the Fairwork Commission before the Fairwork. >> I believe they are, but I'd take that on notice. I'll come back to you as quick
as we can with an update. >> Okay. Have you got a financial cost of how much it's uh cost so far to uh to deal with these matters?
>> Uh, I don't with me, but we need to take