APS Code of Conduct: Duties and Evidence

Identify the Australian Public Service Code and Coverage

Locate the APS Code in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999. This Commonwealth framework is separate from accounting standards, psychological professional codes and state public-service conduct regimes.

The Australian Public Service Commission’s coverage guidance distinguishes the following groups:

• APS employees include ongoing and non-ongoing employees and the Senior Executive Service (SES).
• Former employees can face a breach determination for conduct during their APS employment. A sanction cannot be imposed on a former employee.
• Agency heads are bound by the Code, with a separate statutory inquiry framework.
• Statutory officeholders require a coverage assessment under section 14 and the regulations.
• Contractors are subject to their contractual arrangements. Agency employee breach procedures do not apply to them merely because they work for the Commonwealth.

For statutory officeholders, section 8 of the Public Service Regulations 2023 limits coverage by their working relationship with APS employees and other statutory conditions. Identify the actual office or appointment.

Record the connection between the alleged conduct and APS employment. Some duties apply at all times, but that does not give an agency unlimited authority over private behaviour.

Map the Conduct to the Actual Duty

Match the allegation to the relevant statutory requirement before describing it as misconduct. Section 13 distinguishes duties that can raise different questions about the same transaction.

Financial Conduct and the Duty to Examine

An agency policy can explain expected behaviour or evidence a direction. Identify the statutory element supporting misconduct action instead of treating every policy departure as a separate Code offence.

Poor performance can require management action. A suspected Code breach requires a conduct assessment. Criminal allegations and corruption referrals have their own thresholds and authorised channels. A bank anomaly alone establishes none of those outcomes.

Use the wider misconduct investigation process to organise evidence, while keeping Commonwealth coverage and decision requirements attached to this matter.

Prepare a Fair Financial-Evidence Record

Preserve each transaction with the records needed to understand authority and purpose. Keep the source statement and transaction identifier beside the expense claim, invoice, approval and relevant payroll or reimbursement entry.

Assign an authorised evidence custodian. Record where each item came from, who obtained it and who can access it. Preserve originals and distinguish working annotations from source records. Identify the legal basis before seeking personal banking material or disclosing records outside the agency.

Consider a fictional employee who buys equipment costing $640 for an agency project. A supervisor approved the purchase. The employee pays personally and later receives $640 through the reimbursement system.

The approval supports authority for the purchase. The receipt and project allocation address purpose. A payment record establishes who paid, while the reimbursement entry shows whether the agency repaid the employee. Establish any personal benefit separately.

An incorrect assessment calls the reimbursement a duplicate payment solely because $640 appears twice. A supported assessment traces the original payment and reimbursement, checks whether the agency also paid the supplier and considers the employee’s explanation.

A second agency payment could reflect a processing mistake or a reversed transaction. Preserve those possibilities and the records needed to test them. If access is lawfully restricted, identify the unresolved factual question without assuming the missing record proves dishonesty.

Keep reporting obligations separate from general case confidentiality. Assess any required referral through its authorised channel, with lawful disclosure and handling arrangements.

Use the Agency’s Proper Decision Process

Obtain the agency’s written section 15(3) procedure and apply it to the covered person. The APSC’s guidance on legislative roles explains why appointment and decision authority need separate attention.

1. Identify who authorises the investigation and appoints the breach decision-maker. Preserve those appointments under the agency procedure. A person’s management role alone does not establish authority.
2. State the alleged acts and relevant Code elements. Give the person sufficient details of the case and a reasonable opportunity to respond, including to material changes.
3. Assess the evidence and response fairly. Investigate practicable lines of inquiry that could support the person’s account. The breach decision-maker must reach their own conclusion.
4. Make any sanction decision separately. Identify the authorised sanction decision-maker and provide the required opportunity to comment on proposed sanctions and relevant factors.

Part 7 of the Commissioner’s Directions supplies basic procedural requirements, including impartial decision-making and written records. SES matters also require consultation with the Commissioner.

The APSC investigation guidance applies the balance of probabilities. Explain why the evidence supports each factual finding and why that finding satisfies the alleged duty. An interview alone does not necessarily fulfil the opportunity to respond to the completed case.

Verify the Decision and Institutional Record

Complete a finding record for each alleged duty, including a finding of no breach where that is the outcome. Connect the act, source evidence, response and reasons to the determination. Keep any sanction or referral decision distinct and identify its responsible officer.

Use the APSC recordkeeping guidance to organise the misconduct file separately from the personnel file. Apply secure storage and need-to-know access. Retention depends on the record class, applicable disposal authority and any disposal freeze or retention notice.

Provide the outcome and applicable review information. The APSC review guidance distinguishes non-SES breach and sanction reviews through the Merit Protection Commissioner from termination remedies and judicial review. Eligible former employees can seek review of a post-employment breach determination. Check eligibility and time limits against the current regulations for the actual decision.

Before closing the file, confirm that the notified outcome matches the signed determination and that the evidence remains accessible to authorised reviewers. Source-linked financial analysis must support the agency’s reasoning without replacing its legal conclusion about conduct.