Australian public service commissioner stephen sedgwick

Contents

Letter of transmittal

Overview

Focus on the year

Review and fee for service

Legislative reform

Ethics and integrity

Working within the APS

Parliament and government

Overseas involvement

National engagement

Outcomes for the year

Review of action performance

Promotion review performance

Whistleblower inquiries

Independent Selection Advisory Committees and fee-for-service activity

Outlook for the coming year

Review of performance

Contribution to outcomes 2012–13

Review of employment actions

Breaches of the Code of Conduct

Review of promotion decisions

Independent Selection Advisory Committees

Employment-related services (fee-for-service)

Whistleblowing

Investigation of complaints by former employees

Governance, management and accountability

Role and function

Organisational structure

Interaction of Merit Protection Commissioner and Public Service Commissioner roles

Corporate governance

Information Publication Scheme

Figures, tables and boxes

Figures

M1 Trends in review caseload, 2007–08 to 2012–13

M2 Cases reviewed by subject, 2012–13

M3 Trends in promotion review caseload, 2007–08 to 2012–13

M4 Independent Selection Advisory Committees casework, 2007–08 to 2012–13

Tables

M1 Review of employment actions workload for 2012–13 by type of review, compared with total reviews in 2011–12

M2 Timeliness in handling reviews, 2012–13 compared to 2011–12

M3 Reviews completed, by agency, 2012–13

M4 Promotion review caseload—2011–12 compared to 2012–13

M5 Review of promotion decisions, by agency, 2012–13

M6 Independent Selection Advisory Committees, 2011–12 and 2012–13

M7 Independent Selection Advisory Committees, by agency, 2012–13

M8 Other fee-for-service functions—2011–12 compared to 2012–13

M9 Whistleblower cases received by the Merit Protection Commissioner, 2009–10 to 2012–13

Boxes

M1 Code of Conduct case—a harsh sanction decision

M2 Review case—dispute about unsatisfactory performance

M3 Review case—dispute about underperformance

M4 Review case—complaint about racial harassment

M5 Code of Conduct case—reduction in classification for bullying and harassment

M6 Code of Conduct case—sexual harassment and lack of procedural fairness

M7 Advice to agencies to assist in the conduct of promotion reviews

M8 Advice to agencies to maximise the benefits of Independent Selection Advisory Committees

M9 Review case—dispute about a return to work and victimisation for making a whistleblower report

overview

In January 2013, Ms Annwyn Godwin was reappointed as Merit Protection Commissioner for a second five-year term.

The Merit Protection Commissioner is responsible for:

• independent and impartial review of actions, merit-based recruitment services, Australian Public Service (APS) whistleblowing inquiries and a range of fee-for-service activities

• contributing to high standards of public administration by ensuring effective application of the APS Values in employment decisions about individuals, and improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of agency employment-related decision-making.

^:

The report is divided into five parts—a focus on the year’s activities, a summary of outcomes for the year, the outlook for 2013–14, a review of performance and the governance arrangements applying to the role of the Merit Protection Commissioner. The report also includes a sample of case studies highlighting issues raised in review cases finalised in 2012–13.

Focus on the year

^:

2012–13 was a busy but rewarding year, dominated by work on legislative reform to the functions of the Merit Protection Commissioner, promoting the wider changes to the PS Act for the Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) and delivering fair and effective reviews and fee-for-service activities. A particular focus was improving the timeliness of reviews and there was success in this respect.

The institutional importance and personal impact of the review role was articulated in a comment from a review applicant. The applicant noted in responding to a review outcome:

The important role you play in ensuring a fair workplace which adheres to the principles enshrined in the Public Service Act cannot be overstated. The effect of poor decision-making can be devastating to individuals and their families, both professionally and personally.

Throughout the year the Merit Protection Commissioner has continued to support the Australian Public Service Commissioner (the Commissioner) with his statutory responsibility of promoting the APS Values and Code of Conduct. The Merit Protection Commissioner has also contributed to the corporate governance of the Commission as a member of the Executive, including as chair of the Commission’s Audit and Risk Management Committee.

review and Fee For service

Over the last few years significant work has been undertaken on streamlining internal case management and developing the capability of review staff. Although review casework is demand- driven, and therefore unpredictable, the time taken to complete reviews and the quality of the outcomes have steadily improved since 2010–11, a year of relatively poor timeliness largely resulting from the relocation of the review function from Canberra to Sydney.

During the year the management information database relating to the Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions was enhanced to capture more detailed data and to enable more comprehensive reporting of trends in review matters. While the original purpose of the database was to keep track of the nature of the casework and key dates, there have been increasing demands for other information in response to requests from parliament and other bodies, and to support submissions to various inquiries. Other improvements to the database enable better tracking of case handling which allows for better use of resources and further improves timeliness. This work was largely completed in 2012–13.

During 2012–13 delegates of the Merit Protection Commissioner worked with the review advisers to continue to build capability, particularly in the areas of assessing and weighing evidence in administrative decision-making. This year the developmental needs of the delegates has also been enhanced by a one-day workshop on intensive coaching skills, followed by action learning sessions with the trainer.

The Merit Protection Commissioner continued to meet regularly with her delegates and the Group Manager, Ethics, to monitor and report on the progress of cases, identify potential problems, and develop strategies to improve handling of cases. These discussions also allow agency-wide or systemic issues to be identified in order to feed them back to agencies, or to other relevant office holders or bodies, as appropriate.