WRITTEN BY John Wilson & Kieran Pender
The National Anti-Corruption Commission’s finding late last month that a senior public servant acted corruptly in getting her future brother-in-law a job drew considerable attention, as did its decision not to name the woman.
It is timely, then, to consider the question of conflicts of interest in the public service, when they might rise to the level of corruption, and the potential consequences.
The Public Service Act 1999, which governs federal public sector employment, contains within it the APS Code of Conduct. Relevantly, subsection 7 of the Code provides that an APS employee must take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with the employee’s APS employment” and disclose material personal interests in connection with employment.
This overarching provision in the Code of Conduct is then supplemented by the Australian Public Service Commission’s guidelines, and relevant departmental policies and procedures. Typically, public servants will be required to create a conflict of interest declaration, and update it as new real or apparent conflicts arise from time to time.
In the recent Commission case, the public servant had advocated for her sister’s fiancé for a role at the Department of Home Affairs, including approving the hiring and forging a witness signature to fast track the processing, all while intentionally concealing her familial relationship to the applicant. In a separate employment process, the official had also provided interview questions to her sister in advance.
The Commission held that this constituted corrupt conduct, in that the public servant had abused her office to give family members an improper benefit, and by misusing official information. The Commission would have recommended the public servant’s employment be terminated, had she not already resigned.
The finding was particularly significant because conflicts of interest were identified last year as one of the Commission’s top priorities, and nepotism and cronyism had been identified in the 2024 Commonwealth Integrity Survey as major risks in the APS. It was notable that, in announcing the finding, the Commissioner Paul Brereton described it as a “paradigm case” illustrating the “systemic risks” in APS recruitment.
Of course, not every conflict of interest in the public service will find its way to the Commission. As the Commission itself concedes, “conflicts of interest are inevitable.” The challenge is appropriately declaring and managing them – particularly in higher-risk contexts, such as recruitment.
A real conflict of interest arises when someone has a personal interest which improperly influences the performance of public duties. The recent recruitment case is a clear example; in other circumstances, a public official might stand to make some financial gain from a government decision – say because they have a shareholding in a company participating in procurement – which would raise red flags.
Apparent conflicts can be more abstract – when it appears an employee’s personal interests might improperly influence the performance of their duties, even when that is not in fact the case. These are still conflicts. As the Australian Public Service Commission’s guidance notes, “the appearance of a conflict can be just as damaging to public confidence in public administration as a conflict which gives rise to a concern based on objective facts.”
Where conflicts cannot be avoided, they must be disclosed and managed – hence the Code of Conduct obligation for public servants to disclose any material personal interests in connection with their employment.
Failure to comply with these obligations is a breach of the Code. In lower level cases, that might lead to a finding of breach and a sanction – from demotion or pay penalty, to dismissal in most significant cases. Where the conduct raises to a level of severity, it might warrant the attention of the Commission. In the recent recruitment case, the Commission held it was serious because of the public official’s seniority (an SES officer), the deception used, the personal benefits obtained and that it was repeated.
In some circumstances, conflict failures could also lead to criminal offences, which might be reviewed by the federal police or the Commission, and ultimately prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
In its report into the recruitment case, the Commission made a number of corruption prevention recommendations which APS agencies will no doubt be considering, such as stronger processes and recordkeeping in relation to conflict management in recruitment, including section 26 transfers and temporary employment register hiring.
The report also made a salient observation about the importance of whistleblowing (a topic we’ve written about often in these pages).
“The corrupt conduct in this case came to light as a result of a staff member’s decision to raise concerns that they held through reporting channels within Home Affairs,” the report said. “This is an illustration of a positive reporting culture, with a staff member making appropriate use of internal reporting frameworks to receptive leadership willing to pursue the matter. It is important to encourage these practices within agencies.”
With whistleblowing reform on the table in the new parliament, it is important to remember that integrity within the public sector, and the efficacy of our anti-corruption regulator, is significantly improved when public servants are willing to speak up.
The importance of the Commission’s work, and a speak-up culture in the APS in general, is not only the individual cases which are identified and addressed. It is the behavioural change that is inculcated across the APS. When public servants know they must disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest, that failing to do so could constitute corrupt conduct, and that other public servants might speak up if they don’t, it encourages proper conduct and ultimately the integrity of the system as a whole.
There will always be bad apples, and otherwise good people who do bad things in unfortunate circumstances. But the Commission’s latest investigation is a welcome development in working to improve and uphold an integrity culture in the APS. Sunlight is, as ever, a good disinfectant.
First published 4 August 2025 in the Canberra Times – “When does a conflict of interest in the APS constitute corruption?”