Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The Attorney-General has providedthe following answer to the honourable senator's question:

( 1) (a) and (b), ( 2) (a) and (b) and ( 5)

Responses from the Attorney-General ' s Department and portfolio agencies are detailed in the table below and refer to breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.

* Australian Federal Police, Australian Government Solicitor and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation employees are not employed under the Public Service Act 1999 and therefore are not subject to the APS Code of Conduct.

Responses to questions 3 and 4 from the Attorney-General's Department and portfolio agencies are detailed below.

(3) Attorney-General's Department

Breach 1 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 1 and 2.

Breach 2 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 2 and 5.

Breach 3 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 1, 2, and 5.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

No breaches to report.

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

No breaches to report.

Australian Crime Commission

Breach 1 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2, 5 and 8.

Breach 2 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 5, 8 and 11.

Breach 3 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 5 and 8.

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

Breach 1 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3, 8 and 11.

Breach 2 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3, 8 and 11.

Breach 3 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 4 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 4 and 5.

Breach 5 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 4, 5, 8 and 11.

Breach 6 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1 and 8.

Breach 7 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1 and 8.

Breach 8 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 9 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 10 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 11 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 4 and 11.

Breach 12 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3, 8 and 11.

Breach 13 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2 and 5.

Breach 14 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2 and 5.

Breach 15 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2 and 5.

Breach 16 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 17 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 3, 5 and 11.

Breach 18 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1 and 4.

Breach 19 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2, 7, 10 and 11.

Breach 20 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 2 and 8.

Breach 21 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 9 and 11.

Breach 22 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 9 and 11.

Breach 23 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 24 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 25 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 8 and 11.

Breach 26 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 1.

Breach 27 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 10 and 11.

Breach 28 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 4, 8, 9 and 11.

Breach 29 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 2, 10 and 11.

Breach 30 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 10 and 11.

Breach 31 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 4 and 5.

Breach 32 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 4 and 10.

Breach 33 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Breach 34 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 4, 5 and 9.

Breach 35 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 4 and 11.

Breach 36 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 4, 10 and 11.

Breach 37 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 1.

Breach 38 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2, 8 and 11

Breach 39 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 4, 8 and 11

Breach 40 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3, 8 and 11

Breach 41is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2, 5, 7, 8 and 11

Breach 42 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 5, 7 and 9

Breach 43 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 4 and 11

Australian Federal Police & the Australian Institute of Police Management

Not applicable. Employees are engaged under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 and are therefore not subject to the APS Code of Conduct. The AFP Code of Conduct applies to all AFP employees.

Australian Government Solicitor

Not applicable. Employees are engaged under the Judiciary Act 1903 and are therefore not subject to the APS Code of Conduct. The AGS Ethics and Conduct Framework applies to all AGS employees.

Australian Human Rights Commission

No breaches to report.

Australian Institute of Criminology & the Criminology Research Council

No breaches to report.

Australian Law Reform Commission

No breaches to report.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

Not applicable. Employees are engaged under the Australian Security Intelligence Act 1979 and are therefore not subject to the APS Code of Conduct. The ASIO Code of Conduct applies to all ASIO employees.

Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre

Breach 1 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 2, 3, 5 and 11.

Breach 2 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3, 5, 8 and 11.

Breach 3 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 3 and 11.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

No breaches to report.

CrimTrac

In all cases the following APS Code of Conduct elements were thought to have been breached: 1, 2 and 10.

Family Court of Australia

The breach is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 3.

Federal Court of Australia, Australian Competition Tribunal, Copyright Tribunal of Australia & Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal

The breach is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 5.

Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

No breaches to report.

High Court of Australia

No breaches to report.

Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia

Breach 1 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 3, and 4.

Breach 2 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 8 and 11.

Breach 3 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct element 3.

Breach 4 is thought to have breached APS Code of Conduct elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 11.

National Native Title Tribunal

No breaches to report.

Office of Parliamentary Counsel

No breaches to report.

(4) Attorney-General's Department

For Breach 1 the sanction imposed was termination of employment.

For Breach 2 the sanction imposed was a reduction in classification.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Not applicable.

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity

Not applicable.

Australian Crime Commission

For Breach 1 the sanction imposed was a reduction in salary.

For Breach 2 the sanction involved was a fine and reprimand.

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

For breach 1 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and a fine.

For breach 2 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 3 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and reassignment of duties.

For breach 4 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and a fine.

For breach 5 the sanction imposed was a reduction in classification.

For breach 6 the sanction imposed was a reprimand.

For breach 7 the sanction imposed was a reprimand.

For breach 8 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 9 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 10 the sanction imposed was a fine.

For breach 11 no sanction was imposed as the employee resigned prior to a decision being made.

For breach 12 no sanction was imposed as the employee resigned prior to a decision being made.

For breach 13 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 14 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 15 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 16 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and a fine.

For breach 17 the sanction imposed was termination of employment.

For breach 18 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 19 no sanction was imposed as the employee resigned prior to a decision being made.

For breach 20 the sanction imposed was a fine.

For breach 21 the sanction imposed was a reprimand.

For breach 22 the sanction imposed was reassignment of duties.

For breach 23 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 24 no sanction was imposed as the employee was found not to have breached the Code.

For breach 25 the sanction imposed was a fine.

For breach 26 the sanction imposed was a fine.

For breach 27 the sanction imposed was a reprimand.

For breach 28 the sanction imposed was a reprimand.

For breach 29 the sanction imposed was termination of employment.

For breach 30 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and a fine.

For breach 31 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and reassignment of duties.

For breach 32 no sanction was imposed as the employee resigned prior to a decision being made.

For breach 33 no sanction was imposed as the employee resigned prior to a decision being made.

For breach 34 no sanction was imposed as the employee resigned prior to a decision being made.

For breach 35 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and reassignment of duties.

For breach 36 the sanctions imposed were a reprimand and reassignment of duties.

For breach 37 the sanction imposed was a reprimand.

Australian Federal Police & the Australian Institute of Police Management

Not applicable.

Australian Government Solicitor

Not applicable.

Australian Human Rights Commission

Not applicable.

Australian Institute of Criminology & the Criminology Research Council

Not applicable.

Australian Law Reform Commission

Not applicable.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

Not applicable.

Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre

For Breach 1 the sanction imposed was a 5% reduction in salary and a reprimand.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Not applicable.

CrimTrac

The sanction imposed was for the behaviour to be managed through a formal performance improvement plan. Whilst this was the recommendation, the individual concerned has engaged legal representation and the formality of this recommendation has yet to be instigated.

Family Court of Australia

The sanction imposed was a formal reprimand for the conduct of the employee; and, a reduction in pay of one increment.

Federal Court of Australia, Australian Competition Tribunal, Copyright Tribunal of Australia & Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal

Investigation is still underway.

Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

Not applicable.

High Court of Australia

Not applicable.

Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia

For Breach 1 the sanction imposed was termination of employment.

For Breach 2 there was no sanction imposed as the employee resigned.

National Native Title Tribunal

Not applicable.

Office of Parliamentary Counsel

Not applicable.