Consensual personal relationships

About this guide

Consensual personal relationships between employees of the same public sector organisation are permissible and private in nature.

However, they sometimes give rise to a conflict of interest. If this occurs, the conflict must be declared and managed in accordance with your organisation’s conflict of interest policy.

This is a guide to the usual obligations and processes for employees and organisations to follow.

Stricter requirements in some organisations

Please note that some organisations:

• have additional requirements as to when a consensual personal relationship must be declared, and/or
• will not allow employees in a consensual personal relationship to be in a direct hierarchical relationship, and/or
• discourage consensual personal relationships between employees.

Check your organisation’s policy if this may apply to you.

Definitions

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest exists if you have a private interest that could influence, or reasonably be seen to influence, how you perform your public duties.

The conflict can be actual, potential or perceived.

For details, see your organisation’s conflict of interest policy or our guidance and key definitions.

Perceived conflict of interest

A ‘perceived’ conflict of interest is about whether it is reasonable for people to believe you are or could be influenced in your public duties by the relationship. (Not whether they realise a relationship exists.)

Consensual personal relationship

A consensual personal relationship is a sexual, intimate or romantic relationship between consenting adults of any sex or gender identity who work in the same public sector organisation.

The relationship:

• may be on a casual, periodic or regular basis
• may or may not constitute a primary relationship
• also includes having a spouse or de facto partner who works in your organisation.

Direct hierarchical relationship

A direct hierarchical relationship is where the employees involved are:

• at different levels of seniority in the organisation, and
• in the same direct reporting line.

Employees of the same public sector organisation

In this guide, you are an employee of a public sector organisation if its conflict of interest policy applies to you. We use the term employee to cover both:

• employees
• contractors, consultants or labour hire employees required as part of their contract to comply with the policy.

In some organisations, the conflict of interest policy also extends to other groups specified in the policy, such as other workplace participants or volunteers.

Check your organisation’s conflict of interest policy.

When a relationship must be declared

Not all consensual personal relationships between employees in the same organisation need to be declared.

However, the relationship must be declared if:

• a direct hierarchical relationship exists, or
• no direct hierarchical relationship exists but a conflict of interest arises.

Direct hierarchical relationship is always a conflict

A direct hierarchical relationship is always a conflict of interest. It must always be declared.

This applies whether the senior employee is:

• the subordinate (more junior) employee’s day-to-day manager, or
• higher up the direct chain of management.

This requirement is because even if the senior employee is not the subordinate employee’s day-to-day manager, if they are higher up the direct management chain they:

• have some level of decision-making power or other authority over them
• can influence or override the decisions of those in between them in the management chain, including decisions that affect the subordinate employee.

It is reasonable for people to perceive that the relationship may result in biased decisions being made or influenced by the senior employee.

No direct hierarchical relationship

In some circumstances, even where no direct hierarchical relationship exists, a conflict of interest may arise. It must then be declared.

For example, an employee has the job of approving which candidates will attend a training course. If they are in a relationship with one of the applicants, it would be reasonable for people to perceive they may be biased in their decision.

A range of other factors can increase the risk of a conflict of interest between peers, including, but not restricted to, the particular operating environment and context. This will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but should be worked through early in the relationship to protect both parties. If there is any possibility of the relationship giving rise to a conflict, no matter how minor, it should be declared to the manager or respective managers.

Case study examples

As shown by the following case studies, what constitutes a suitable coflict of interest management plan will vary according to the circumstances.

The case studies are in 2 broad groups, consensual personal relationships where:

• a direct hierarchical relationship exists
• no direct hierarchical relationship exists but a conflict of interest arises.

• Open allClose all

• Case studies: Direct hierarchical relationships

  Bon is executive director of a branch with 200 staff dispersed over 5 offices. Bon begins a consensual personal relationship with Arlie, an employee of the branch. They work at different locations and have minimal contact at work.

  Bon and Arlie have confirmed that under their organisation’s policy, their relationship is allowed if the required declarations are completed.

  Bon and Arlie declare their relationship because it is a direct hierarchical relationship, even though Bon doesn’t directly manage Arlie.

  Bon’s manager (the CEO) will develop a conflict of interest management plan for Bon. They will liaise with Arlie’s manager, so that Arlie’s management plan is consistent.

  Case study 1: Record and monitor, Bon and Arlie

  One possible management plan is ‘record and monitor’. This means that the relationship would be recorded and the CEO would actively monitor the risk level or appoint a suitable independent third party (internal or external) to do so.

  However, it is likely that from time to time Bon will make decisions that could affect Arlie. Therefore, it would be better to plan from the start how to manage this. For example, to include certain restrictions along the lines of those set out in case study 2.

  Case study 2: Restrict, Bon and Arlie

  As it is likely Bon will need to make decisions that at times may affect Arlie, a more suitable management plan could be to restrict which of these decisions Bon can make.

  For example, for day-to-day decisions that will affect all or many of the branch employees, Bon’s decision won’t usually need to be restricted from applying to Arlie. For example, a decision that all branch employees must complete a particular training module.

  However, Bon should be restricted from making decisions that primarily affect Arlie. For example, whether to approve Arlie’s annual salary progression. Such decisions should be made or actively reviewed by Bon’s manager (the CEO) or a suitable independent third party (internal or external).

  Case study 3: Remove, Bon and Arlie

  Bon is scheduled to be on a recruitment panel. Arlie applies for the job.

  The most appropriate risk management strategy is almost certain to be that Bon is removed from the panel and any other part of the selection process, including from any discussion or decision about who will get the job.

  Case study 4: Recruit, Bon and Arlie

  The CEO tells Bon that office locations must reduce from 5 to 3. No one will lose their jobs. But staff in whichever 2 offices that shut will end up working about 50 km from where they do now.

  The CEO will make the final decision but Bon’s leadership of the project team that will do the research and make the closure recommendations is vital to the project’s success.

  Even though this decision will impact many employees, the conflict of interest risk level is high for Bon. The impact will be significant for those working in the offices that shut. It would be a reasonable perception that Arlie’s happiness may influence Bon’s recommendations.

  It would be advisable for the management plan to appoint an independent third party to actively oversee the probity of the process and the recommendations made by Bon to the CEO.

  Case study 5: Relinquish or resolve, Pan and Kee

  Time has passed. Bon and Arlie left the organisation to live in Chile.

  A new executive director, Pan, has begun a consensual personal relationship with a director, Kee.

  Because Kee is a director reporting directly to Pan, they declare their consensual personal relationship to the CEO.

  The CEO will develop a management plan that is proportionate to the risk. Depending on the circumstances, this could be that:

  • Kee reports directly to the CEO instead of reporting to Pan
  • Kee continues to report directly to Pan on a day-to-day basis. However, important decisions are made or reviewed by the CEO or an independent third party appointed by the CEO. For example, the CEO or independent third party makes any decisions that primarily affect Kee, such as Kee’s performance assessment.

  If these options aren’t suitable, relinquishing the relationship will not solve the issue in this instance, as it is reasonable for people to perceive that Pan’s decisions could still favour Kee even if the relationship ends.

  If, as a last resort, it is necessary to move Pan or Kee to another branch, the CEO should not automatically choose the more junior Kee.

• Case studies: No direct hierarchy in a relationship

  If no direct hierarchical relationship exists, it is only necessary to declare a consensual personal relationship if a conflict of interest arises.

  Case study 6: Training opportunity, Jan and Oleg

  Jan and Oleg are in a consensual personal relationship. They’ve not declared it to date as under their organisation’s policy there is no need to declare a non-direct hierarchical relationship unless a conflict of interest arises.

  Jan is a policy officer. Oleg is a corporate services officer who is in charge of the professional development program, including approving or rejecting employees’ applications.

  Jan applies for a professional development opportunity. This means the relationship must now be declared as a conflict of interest has arisen.

  A suitable management plan could be to include these elements:

  • restrict Oleg from making decisions that primarily affect Jan, such as whether Jan has approval to attend the training opportunity
  • appoint an independent third person, such as Oleg’s manager, to make decisions about Jan’s applications (or to review Oleg’s proposed decisions about them).
  • Oleg continues to make decisions that do not primarily affect Jan. For example, decisions about whether all employees must complete a certain training module.

  Case study 7: Training opportunity former relationship, Taz and Jem

  This is an example of when it may be necessary to declare a former consensual personal relationship.

  Taz and Jem are divorced. Jem recently took a job in the same organisation as Taz. They work in different areas, so no conflict of interest declaration has been made to date.

  Taz applies for a training opportunity. Jem’s duties include deciding whether such applications should be approved.

  Their former relationship must now be declared as a conflict of interest has arisen. It is reasonable for people to perceive that Jem’s decision about Taz’s application may be biased, favourably or unfavourably, due to their former relationship.

  Whether the management plan will be similar to the one for Jan and Oleg (case study above) will depend on the particular circumstances of this conflict of interest.

  Each management plan must be decided on its own merits.

When a former relationship must be declared

It is reasonable for people to believe that a former consensual personal relationship may bias an employee’s decision-making for or against the other person(s) they were in the relationship with.

Former relationship not previously declared

A former consensual personal relationship which didn’t need to be declared when it existed only needs to be declared now if:

• a direct hierarchical relationship commences. For example, one of you becomes the other one’s manager, or
• there is no direct hierarchical relationship but a conflict of interest arises. For example, one of you applies for a job and the other is on the selection panel.

This is because it is reasonable for people to believe that a former relationship may bias your decision-making for or against the other persons who were involved.

The management plan will vary depending on the risk level of the particular case. Often, for a former relationship the risk will be lower.

Seek advice from your manager if you are unsure whether a former relationship needs to be declared.

Stricter requirements in some organisations

Please note that some organisations have stricter requirements about when a former relationship must be declared. Check your organisation’s policy if this may apply to you.

Other situations where a declaration may need to occur

Some other situations where a consensual personal relationship may need to be declared are:

Relationship with an internal or external job applicant

If you have a current or former consensual personal relationship with an internal or external job applicant, you must declare it if you are:

• on the selection panel, or
• part of approving the panel’s decisions.

A conflict of interest management plan will then be developed.

Procurement or tender process

Similarly, if you are involved in a procurement or tender process on behalf of the organisation and someone you are in a current or former consensual personal relationship with is part of the application process, you must declare the relationship. This is because it is reasonable for people to believe that you may be biased for or against their application.

Contractors, consultants and labour hire employees

Contractors, consultants and labour hire employees covered by the organisation’s conflict of interest policy must comply with the policy in the same way as other employees.

When developing a conflict of interest management plan, usually it is good practice to consult with the firm that the person’s services are contracted through.

Relationships across organisations

Relationships with employees in other organisations only need to be declared if they are a conflict of interest as set out in your organisation’s policy.

Stricter requirements in some organisations

Please note that some organisations have stricter requirements about when a relationship must be declared. Check your organisation’s policy if this may apply to you.

Declaration and management plan: Overview of usual process

If you are in a consensual personal relationship that needs to be declared, follow what your organisation’s conflict of interest policy requires you to do.

The usual process is as follows.

The employee declares the relationship on a conflict of interest – declaration and management plan form (or similar name), which they lodge with their manager.

The manager develops a management plan in consultation with:

• the employee they manage
• if appropriate, the manager of the other employee, so the respective management plans are consistent
• if appropriate, the other employee.

The manager lodges a copy of the plan with the human resources manager or as specified by your organisation, as a confidential official record.

The employee implements the plan under the oversight of their manager.

The manager is responsible for reviewing the plan as set out in it.

The employee is responsible for notifying their manager of any change that may affect the plan or its risk level.

Alternatives to declaring to manager

Sometimes, an employee may wish to make their declaration to someone other than their manager. Or it may be inappropriate to make the declaration to their manager. For example, because their relationship is with the manager.

Your organisation should provide alternative contacts to whom an employee can make a declaration and who will then develop and oversee a conflict of interest management plan.

We recommend that organisations list these alternative contacts in their conflict of interest policy. For example, human resources manager, conflict of interest officer.

If only one employee declares the relationship exists

If you declare a consensual personal relationship but the other person(s) involved do not do so, your manager or theirs will check with them to ensure they understand:

• what constitutes a consensual personal relationship
• when a relationship must be declared
• the possible consequences of breaching the conflict of interest policy.

Content of management plan

The management plan for a conflict of interest will be based on the risk mitigation strategies in your organisation’s conflict of interest policy. These are likely to be similar to the key risk mitigation strategies in our model policy.

Key risk mitigation strategies

These key risk mitigation strategies are listed from lowest to highest response level.

The approach taken should be proportionate to the risk.

The key strategies are:

• Record and monitor
• Restrict
• Remove
• Recruit
• Relinquish or resolve.

For details of these strategies see the risk mitigation strategies, which are based on our model policy.

Usual approach

One or more strategies can be included or adapted in a conflict of interest management plan.

For a conflict of interest arising from a consensual personal relationship, usually ‘restrict’ or ‘remove’ – sometimes combined with ‘recruit’ – will achieve the necessary level of risk mitigation.

Resolving the conflict by moving an employee to a different position or location is usually a last resort. See the guiding principles below.

Guiding principles: Consensual personal relationship

These guiding principles apply to the development of a conflict of interest management plan for a consensual personal relationship.

The plan should:

• be proportionate to the seriousness of the risk
• have as little impact as possible on the employees’ careers and personal lives
• be fair and non-discriminatory. It must avoid discrimination or action that unfairly impacts the employee’s employment
• as far as practicable minimise disruption to the workplace
• never automatically favour the senior employee in a relationship.

Example: Moving an employee is a last resort

Any decision to move an employee to another position or location should:

• only occur if a lesser option is not appropriate
• be at level (and with the same shift opportunities)
• avoid relocation if possible (but if relocation occurs pay the standard expenses)
• never automatically preference the senior employee.

If a relationship ends

If a consensual personal relationship ends, any management plan that is in place should be updated to take into account the lower or higher risk level that may now exist.

Speak up

Your organisation may encourage employees to speak up about conflicts of interest which have not been declared by others. If you speak up in good faith, your organisation should:

• treat your report, including your identity, on a strictly ‘needs to know’ basis
• have a supportive discussion with the relevant employees outlining the requirements relating to consensual personal relationships.

Useful considerations for employees

Some useful considerations if you are contemplating entering into or are in a consensual personal relationship are:

Potential effect on career

Be aware that:

• research strongly indicates a consensual personal relationship between a senior employee and junior employee (particularly a direct hierarchical relationship) can negatively impact their career advancement
• engaging in a relationship with another employee may have a negative impact on workplace trust and culture.

Workplace behaviour when in a relationship

If you are in a consensual personal relationship, we recommend that you avoid public displays of affection in front of work colleagues.

Maintaining a low key approach will:

• demonstrate respect for work colleagues
• uphold standards of public sector professionalism
• help to minimise the impact on others
• help to combat the potentially negative impact on your career development.

Power imbalance

If you are the senior employee who is in, or is considering entering into, a consensual personal relationship be mindful that there is a risk the other employee may feel constrained by the power imbalance between you.

For example, be alert that:

• if a power imbalance exists, sometimes the other person may feel unable to say if they are uncomfortable with your actions, words and/or attitude towards them.
• it is not a consensual personal relationship if one of the employees involved feels compelled to consent or withdraws consent.

Model appropriate behaviour

Model appropriate behaviour that is consistent with the public sector values.

Context: a safe and fair workplace

Employees are entitled to a safe and fair workplace. Lawful sexual activity, gender identity, marital status and sexual orientation are protected attributes under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. Discrimination on these grounds is prohibited by law. Sexual harassment is unlawful and will not be tolerated in the workplace.

More information

For more information see:

• your organisation’s conflict of interest policy and guidance
• our conflict of interest guidance.