Analysis of Australian Social Workers' Code of Ethics

The assignment provides a detailed analysis of the code of ethics for Australian social workers, discussing its key principles, such as promoting human rights, respecting diversity, and giving equal services. It also compares two codes of ethics, valuing diversity and difference, and giving respect on the basis of fairness, equity, etc. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of understanding the significance of respect and giving value to people without any preconceived notions.

Discussion on Ethic
Code in workplace

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................2
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION
Code of ethics guides employees on what values and ethics they have to follow, how
problems will be solved, etc. It governs employees on how to engage with stakeholders to deal
with them. It states that everyone within company is equal. In this assignment code of ethics of
Australian social workers will be analysed.
MAIN BODY
There are several codes of ethics which I as a social worker have to compliance with in
Australia. These are stated in Constitution of AASW (2008).
 Belief in equal worth of all human beings
 Respect for other including compassion, fairness, equity and justice
 Acceptance of the uniqueness of each individual
 High quality social work service provision.
Besides this, there are some other ethical responsibilities as well which are as follows :-
 Safety in professional practice
 Freedom from discrimination at workplace
 Hold membership of union
 A culturally safe and respectful workplace.
The general ethical responsibilities include
 Respect for human dignity and worth
 Culturally competent, safe and sensitive practice
 Commitment to social justice and human rights
 Social work service and propriety
 Commitment to practice competence
 Professional boundaries and dual relationships
Moreover, I also have to follow some ethical responsibility towards clients as well. They
are priority of client interest, self determination, informed consent maintaining privacy of their
information.
From all these code of ethics the most surprising one for me was promoting human rights and
high quality social work service provision. This is because I think that promoting human rights is
done at individual level rather than at workplace. Besides this, each individual enjoy these rights
in their own way. So, I can practice this code of ethics at NGO (Greenslade, McAuliffe and
1

Chenoweth, 2015). Here, I can ensure that each individual enjoys human right. Through this, I
will be able to ensure that each individual knows his or her fundamental right.
A scenario can be taken in which lady came to our NGO with a problem. She told that she is
suffering from domestic violence. Her husband constantly beats her. Due to this she was
suffering from depression and her mental health was not very well. Here, I thought that this is a
personal matter of domestic violence. So, the lady should either go to court or file a complaint in
police station. Therefore, our NGO should not interfere in it as it is a legally matter. But as a
social worker it was my duty and human right to help that lady in this matter. Also, it was my
duty to provide
In my view there is a particular code that needs to be changed in the document. Here, it is
written that belief in equal worth of human being must be given. This is unacceptable in my
opinion as I think that every human being from birth must know that they are worthy. It means
that his or her existence is important for their surroundings including family, friends or for
himself.
Therefore, some adjustments should be made so that every individual who visit a NGO or health
care is given equal services (Brown, 2015). They must be educated since beginning that they are
important and has contribution in the society. Thus, there must be some changed required and he
or she must be taught that fundamental right to get equal services.
In my view there are two codes of ethics which can be compared. First is valuing
diversity and difference and another is giving respect to others on basis of fairness, equity, etc.
Here, valuing diversity means to give respect to different creed, caste, colour, etc. Whereas
giving respects is sometime misunderstood and is given on basis of personal contacts, age,
designation, seniority, etc. thus, the basic difference between these two codes of ethics is
understanding the significance of respect and giving value to people without any precede
notions.
The main difference between these two ethics is that respect is only given by people on
basis of their convenience. Whereas value is given when individual find out that they are
important to them. Hence, it is necessary to eliminate this gap. It can be done by inculcating
people that they should give respect and value people collaboratively. They should not
differentiate people on basis of colour and religion.
2

CONCLUSION
I came to a conclusion that as social worker I need to follow several codes of ethics in my
professional practice. I think that promoting human right has to be done at individual level rather
at organisation. It is because it will help people to know about what are their fundamental right.
Also, they must be educated about their rights which can be used by them to get equal services.
3

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Brown, G., 2015. Ethical and Moral Courage is Distress among Professional Nurses: A
Workplace Issue. ABNF Journal, 26(3).
Greenslade, L., McAuliffe, D. and Chenoweth, L., 2015. Social Workers' Experiences of Covert
Workplace Activism. Australian Social Work. 68(4). pp.422-437.
4