Australian public service commissioner stephen sedgwick
box m8: advice to agencies to maximise the benefits of independent selection advisory Committees
Yüklə 6,32 Mb.
|
box m8: advice to agencies to maximise the benefits of independent selection advisory CommitteesAn ISAC is intended to provide a streamlined, cost‐effective and timely merit-based selection process. It is in the interests of the agency and the candidates for an ISAC to be finalised as quickly as possible as this allows for speedy staff placements and a more efficient workplace. It also ends uncertainty for the candidates involved. If an agency accepts the recommendation of an ISAC, any resulting promotions are not subject to the APS promotion review procedures. The office of the Merit Protection Commissioner works with agencies to conduct an effective and efficient ISAC. Delays or problems in the ISAC process can be minimised by: • ensuring availability of panel members—agencies are advised to check that panel members selected are available for the duration of the ISAC and do not have planned leave • organising an initial planning meeting to ensure that the ISAC and the agency understand the selection methodology and processes and to enable review and approval by the ISAC of all proposed assessments to be used before advertising • the ISAC developing a project time line with the agency delegate and key stakeholders— this ensures that the delegate understands the ISAC and has no ‘surprises’ when they receive the final recommendations • the ISAC holding regular meetings with the delegate throughout the process—this ensures that the delegate has the opportunity to contribute to the information before an ISAC and the ISAC is aware of any issues with candidates’ performance or Code of Conduct issues before the final recommendations are given to the delegate. Regular communication between the ISAC and the agency helps to develop an understanding of the process and ensures the process is appropriately collaborative (while maintaining the independence of the ISAC). This helps the delegate to understand and have confidence in the ISAC’s recommendations. Good communication between the ISAC and the agency also encourages the agency coordinators to refer issues to the ISAC and avoids actions that may be contrary to ISAC administrative procedures. employment-related services (Fee-For-service)The Regulations provide that the Merit Protection Commissioner may, but is not required to, undertake a range of employment-related functions on behalf of non-APS bodies, such as Commonwealth authorities to which the PS Act does not apply, or other government bodies. The Merit Protection Commissioner may charge a fee for such services. Some of the services are provided for a set period under a memorandum of understanding. Fee-for-service work can include staff selection services and training relevant to the Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions, as well as investigating grievances and providing career advice. In recent years, the majority of this fee-for-service work has involved providing members of selection panels for the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Table M8 provides information on these services in 2012–13, in comparison with the previous year. For the last two financial years, the work completed for this category was staff selection work undertaken only for the AFP.
whistleblowingThe PS Act and Regulations provide a scheme for APS employees to report alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct (such reports are known as whistleblower reports). A whistleblower report differs from an application for review of action in that the person making the report might generally be expected to have no direct personal interest in the report. The review of action scheme is more appropriate for employees seeking to have an independent review of a matter affecting them in their employment. In 2012–13 Ms Godwin made clear in a number of fora that, in her view, a whistleblower under the APS scheme is an ‘informant’ or witness to misconduct. Agency heads are responsible for establishing procedures for handling whistleblower reports. In the first instance, such reports are expected to be made to, and investigated by, the relevant agency head. Where the employee is not satisfied with the agency’s response to their report, or in other circumstances (for example, where it is not appropriate for the agency head to deal with the matter), a whistleblower report may be referred to the Merit Protection Commissioner or the Commissioner. Information on whistleblower reports made to the Commissioner is contained in Part 2 of his annual report. In 2012–13, the Merit Protection Commissioner received six whistleblower reports, three less than in 2011–12. All applications were acknowledged within six weeks of receipt with follow-up action undertaken within the period. Whistleblowing cases often comprise large volumes of material and it can take some time to determine whether the application meets the jurisdictional requirements. Table M9 shows action taken by the Merit Protection Commissioner in response to these cases and in the previous three years. The APS whistleblowing provisions are to be replaced from January 2014 when the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 takes effect.
The two inquiries underway at the start of the year were finalised. One complaint was not accepted as it was not a valid report and the second report was withdrawn by the complainant. Two of the six applications received in 2012–13 have been finalised. One was not accepted and one investigation was undertaken which found no evidence that warranted a recommendation to the relevant agency head to investigate a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. There were four reports on hand at the end of the reporting period, all of which were less than eight weeks old. The complaints received this year from APS employees largely concerned employment disputes, including allegations of bullying and harassment, poor handling of complaints and poor processes to manage compensation issues. There was also one complaint of poor management of a budgetary process which arose in the context of an employment dispute. As most whistleblower reports concern employment disputes, the Merit Protection Commissioner and her delegates, in reporting to agencies on the outcome of investigations, aim to support agencies by identifying ways to strengthen their people management practices. While the number of whistleblowing reports lodged is low, they often concern complex interpersonal matters and the issues can take a long time to assess, including whether any or all of the matters have been appropriately investigated by the agency in the first instance.
box m9: review case—dispute about a return to work and victimisation for making a whistleblower reportAn APS employee sought review by the Merit Protection Commissioner of the agency’s decision not to implement a return to work after a fitness for duty assessment which the applicant alleged constituted an adverse action taken against the employee for making a whistleblower complaint. Section 16 of the PS Act prohibits victimisation or discrimination of an employee because they have made a whistleblower complaint. The employee was on extended leave for a medical issue and was directed to attend a medical examination conducted by an agency‐nominated medical practitioner (fitness for duty assessment). The medical practitioner concluded the employee was not fit for duty. Several months later the employee was again assessed by an employer‐nominated medical practitioner as fit for work but with the proviso that the employee not return to work in that agency. On the basis of this conflicting advice, the agency advised the employee that it did not consider they were fit to return to work. On review, the employee argued that the agency had disregarded the medical advice and that it should be allowed to return to work in a different part of the agency. The employee also alleged that the agency decision not to return them to work was an adverse action taken against them for making a whistleblower complaint. The Merit Protection Commissioner considered that the agency’s decision was reasonable and that the medical practitioner’s opinion about where the employee should return to work was not the only relevant consideration. While a decision-maker can consider expert evidence, such as medical reports, they are not bound to accept it. In this case, in the view of the Merit Protection Commissioner there was conflicting medical evidence and the agency could not be confident that the employee was in fact fit to resume duty. The Merit Protection Commissioner also concluded that as the agency’s interpretation of the medical officer’s report could be supported, the decision not to return the employee to work on receipt of that report was appropriate. The Merit Protection Commissioner concluded that the agency’s action was not evidence of a breach of section 16 of the PS Act. investigation of Complaints by Former employeesRegulation 7.2 provides that the Merit Protection Commissioner may investigate a complaint by a former APS employee that relates to the employee’s final entitlements on separation from the APS. No requests were received during the reporting period. governance, management and accountabilityrole and FunctionThe office of the Merit Protection Commissioner, established under section 49 of the PS Act, is an independent office located within the Australian Public Service Commission. Ms Annwyn Godwin was reappointed as Merit Protection Commissioner by the Governor-General in January 2013 for a five-year term. During 2012–13, Mr Patrick Palmer acted as Merit Protection Commissioner for two periods between 7 and 15 March 2013 and between 13 May and 30 June 2013. Ms Karin Fisher acted as Merit Protection Commissioner between 16 and 20 July 2012 and between 22 and 26 October 2012. The Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions in 2012–13 were set out in section 50 of the PS Act and Parts 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Regulations. They included: • reviews of employment actions and promotion decisions • inquiries into whistleblower reports made to the Merit Protection Commissioner by APS employees alleging breaches of the APS Code of Conduct • employment services for APS agencies, in particular ISACs • other reviews, in particular reviews of the entitlements on separation of former APS employees and reviews of the employment-related actions of statutory office holders • employment services to non-APS organisations on request, including agencies in other jurisdictions • other inquiry functions, including inquiries into alleged breaches of the APS Code of Conduct by the Public Service Commissioner and inquiries into APS actions at the request of the Public Service Minister. The Merit Protection Commissioner charges a fee for establishing ISACs and for providing employment services. The Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions were amended with effect from 1 July 2013 by the Public Service Amendment Act 2013. The amendments do not significantly affect the primary role of the Merit Protection Commissioner as an independent review body on employment matters and the revised functions will be set out in next year’s annual report.
organisational structureThe office of the Merit Protection Commissioner is co-located within the Commission. The staff who support the Merit Protection Commissioner in the performance of her functions are employed by the Commissioner and are made available in accordance with section 49 of the PS Act. The Ethics Group in Canberra provides coordination and policy support for the Merit Protection Commissioner, and the Merit Protection Commissioner’s review and fee-for-service activities are performed in the Commission’s Sydney office by employees in the Ethics and Client Engagement groups. The principal adviser is based in the Ethics Group in Canberra and is the full-time delegate of the Merit Protection Commissioner for review decision-making. During 2012–13 the Merit Protection Commissioner was supported by three other delegates, including the Group Manager, Ethics. interaction of merit protection Commissioner and public service Commissioner rolesThe respective responsibilities of the Merit Protection Commissioner and the Commissioner are established by the PS Act. The two roles are complementary, particularly in relation to maintaining confidence in public administration. : The Commissioner is responsible for promoting the APS Values and Code of Conduct and evaluating the extent to which agencies incorporate and uphold the APS Values and comply with the Code. The Merit Protection Commissioner, by reviewing individual actions or decisions for consistency with the APS Values and other requirements, and through reviews of determinations of breaches of the Code and/or sanctions, helps to ensure consistent standards of decision-making and people management practices across the APS and also provides an important assurance role for the APS. In practice the two Commissioners work closely on systemic matters relating to the APS and independently on their respective review functions. This report and further information about the Merit Protection Commissioner’s role and services are available on the Commission’s website.
Corporate governanceThe Commissioner, as the head of the Commission, is responsible for its corporate governance. The Merit Protection Commissioner is a member of the Commission’s Executive—a senior management group chaired by the Commissioner. The Merit Protection Commissioner has taken on a wider governance role within the Commission. The Merit Protection Commissioner assists in the Commission’s governance arrangements by chairing the Audit and Risk Management Committee. The Merit Protection Commissioner also oversees the work of the Ethics and Corporate groups as appropriate, although there is no direct management role in respect of these groups. The Merit Protection Commissioner and the Commissioner have a memorandum of understanding for the provision of staff to assist the Merit Protection Commissioner.
information publication schemeAgencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 are required to publish information to the public as part of the Information Publication Scheme. This requirement is in Part II of the Act and has replaced the former requirement to publish a section 8 statement in an annual report. Each agency must display on its website a plan showing what information it publishes in accordance with the scheme’s requirements. Information about the Merit Protection Commissioner is included in the Commission’s plan, which is available at www.apsc.gov.au/freedom-of-information/ips. abbreviations and acronymsSection 5(1)(c) of Attachment A of the Requirements for annual reports for departments, executive agencies and FMA Act bodies ( June 2013) states that an annual report must contain ‘a glossary to make clear the meanings of any abbreviations and acronyms used’. This list of abbreviations and acronyms fulfils that requirement. ADF Australian Defence Force ANZSOG Australia and New Zealand School of Government APS Australian Public Service APSC Australian Public Service Commission APSED APS Employment Database APSEDii APSED internet interface AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
Commission Australian Public Service Commission Commissioner Public Service Commissioner DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations EL Executive Level FMA Act Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 HR human resources ICT information and communication technology ISAC Independent Selection Advisory Committee LAFIA Leading Australia’s Future in the Asia–Pacific OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PNG Papua New Guinea PRC promotion review committee PS Act Public Service Act 1999 RAMSI Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands SES Senior Executive Service Yüklə 6,32 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||