annual report 2014-15 - apsc.gov.au web viewannual report of the merit protection commissioner. ......

AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONERTHE HON JOHN LLOYD PSM

1 October 2015

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MPPrime MinisterParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600

Dear Prime Minister

In accordance with section 44 of the Public Service Act 1999, I am pleased to present my annual report for the year ended 30 June 2015. This report includes the annual report of the Merit Protection Commissioner, as required by section 51 of the Act.

This report has been prepared in accordance with section 44(1) of the Act, which requires that you table the report in parliament. It reflects the Requirements for annual reports for departments, executive agencies and other non-corporate Commonwealth entities approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit in June 2015.

The report includes the Commission’s audited financial statements prepared in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Financial Reporting) Rule 2015.

In addition, I certify that I am satisfied that the Commission has prepared fraud risk assessments and a fraud control plan; has in place appropriate fraud control mechanisms that meet the Commission’s needs; and has taken all reasonable measures to appropriately deal with fraud relating to the Commission.

Yours sincerely

John LloydAustralian Public Service Commissioner

2

ContentsLetter of transmittal

Part 1: Overview

Australian Public Service Commissioner’s review

2014−15 snapshot

Commission overview

Part 2: Performance review

Program 1.1: Australian Public Service Commission

APS people and organisational performanceInvesting in APS development and capabilityAustralian Government employment workplace relations

Program 1.2: Parliamentarians’ and judicial office holders’ remuneration and entitlements

Part 3: Management and accountability

Part 4: Financial statements

Appendices

A: Entity resource and outcome resource statementsB: Work health and safetyC: Staffing profile and equal employment opportunityD: Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performanceE: Advertising and market researchF: Disability reporting mechanismsG: Information Publication SchemeH: List of requirements

Annual report of the Merit Protection Commissioner

Abbreviations and acronyms

3

Contact usThe Commission welcomes your comments on this report. To make a comment, or to request more information, please contact:

Dr Julie Padanyi-RyanCommunicationsAustralian Public Service CommissionAviation House16 Furzer StreetPhillip ACT 2606

Tel: (02) 6202 3812Fax: (02) 6123 5006Email: [email protected]

Website: www.apsc.gov.auInternet address for report:www.apsc.gov.au/annualreport

4

http://www.apsc.gov.au/annualreport

http://www.apsc.gov.au/

Part 1: Overview

5

COMMISSIONER’S REVIEW During 2014−15, the Commission continued to work with APS agencies to strengthen their capability to respond to the government’s agenda. Our key areas of focus have been initiatives to deliver a smaller, more flexible APS. These include modernising and streamlining our industrial relations framework, managing a reduction in APS staffing numbers, and developing the leadership cadre of the APS.

In my first six months as Commissioner, I have set out an agenda for APS reform.

First, it is about getting the basics right. Effective management of performance and attendance is critical to the APS meeting its challenges. It will also build community and government confidence in the APS.

Second, our employment framework must be contemporary and reflect community standards. Streamlined enterprise agreements are a key part of this, as are flexible and modern approaches to hiring, developing and, where necessary, reducing our workforce.

Third, I have placed a heavy emphasis on developing talent within the APS, and extending our engagement with non-government sectors. Mobility across, to and from the APS is fundamental to a capable, well-balanced and representative public service.

Finally, reducing red tape by streamlining processes and removing unnecessary administrative burdens is an essential reform. It underpins a more efficient, effective and productive APS.

Significant progress has been made over the course of this year in many of these areas, although much remains to be achieved.

Agencies across the APS have developed enterprise agreements that better reflect community standards. Restrictive practices and unnecessary processes have been removed, allowing employers and staff to focus on core entitlements. The agreements exhibit improved clarity and support more agile, flexible organisations.

Targeted reductions in APS numbers, and the maintenance of long-term capability through strong graduate and diversity programs, have positioned the APS as a high-performing organisation into the future. At 31 December 2014, the APS headcount had reduced by 14,414 since the introduction of interim recruitment arrangements in late 2013.

6

Part 1Overview

The Commission continued to invest in building capability across all APS levels. The final talent development program for the Senior Executive Service Band 1 commenced. A fresh suite of APS core skills programs became available.

We completed a program of independent capability reviews. The program provided 24 agencies with forward-looking assessments of their organisational strengths and opportunities to improve. We continue to assist agencies as they take action to meet future objectives and challenges.

The commitment of APS employees and the willingness of agencies to collaborate with the Commission are appreciated. What we put in place now can have far-reaching benefits for our workforce in terms of delivering quality outcomes for government, business and the community.

I acknowledge the significant contribution of my predecessor, Stephen Sedgwick AO―particularly in relation to his vision and leadership of APS reform.

Performance summaryThe Commission met its deliverables and key performance indicators for 2014−15. I am also pleased to report that the Commission continued to achieve its outcomes within its given financial resources.

Outlook for 2015−16We will continue to support a flexible, efficient and high-performing APS. In the coming year the Commission will focus on modernising the APS employment framework. I consider that the current employment framework operates as a constraint to creating a modern, flexible, efficient and high-performing APS.

We will also work with agencies to boost the capability of human resource managers. Managers focus too much on transactions and not enough on workforce improvement strategy. Initiatives to improve the professionalism of human resource management in the public sector will be introduced.

Performance management, learning, development and talent management, and APS workplace bargaining will continue to be areas of focus and attention.

Internally, we will continue to refine our organisation so that it is best positioned to deliver our improvement strategy. Our objective will be to offer expertise to assist and facilitate outcomes, rather than concentrate on compliance. We will continue to promote integrity and accountability as values that underpin the work and conduct of the APS.

7

Part 1Overview

COMMISSION OVERVIEWThe Australian Public Service Commission is a central agency within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. The Commission supports two statutory office holders: the Public Service Commissioner—who is also agency head—and the Merit Protection Commissioner. Their functions are set out in sections 41 (1) and 50 (1), respectively, of the Public Service Act 1999.

Our ministerThe Commission’s minister throughout the reporting period was Senator the Hon Eric Abetz, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service.

Our visionThe Commission’s vision is to lead and shape a unified, high-performing APS.

Our role and responsibilitiesThe Commission works with agencies to strengthen the capability of the APS to meet the evolving needs of citizens and the government; supports leadership, learning and development in the APS; and fosters ethical behaviour and workplaces that value diversity.

We have an important evaluation role in working with agencies to ensure that the APS is performing effectively and in a manner consistent with the APS Values.

The Commission also administers employment-related policies on behalf of the government.

Strategic prioritiesThe Commission’s strategic priorities for 2014−15 were to:

• build a unified, citizen-centric APS by leading its organisational and human capital strategies

• lead APS agencies’ adoption of best human capital practices and assure agencies’ organisational capability

• develop outstanding leaders and shape a cohesive leadership network

• instil and enliven APS ethics and values to inspire excellence

• invest in and grow the Commission’s capability to deliver its role.

Outcome and program structureThe Commission’s outcome is increased awareness and adoption of best practice public administration by the public service through leadership, promotion, advice and professional development, drawing on research and evaluation.

9

The Commission worked to achieve its outcome through two programs:

• 1.1: Australian Public Service Commission

• 1.2: Parliamentarians’ and judicial office holders’ remuneration and entitlements.

The Commissioner makes available staff to assist the Merit Protection Commissioner to perform her prescribed functions. The annual report of the Merit Protection Commissioner follows the appendices to this report. The Commission also provides secretariat support to the Remuneration and the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunals. The Commission’s financial statements include the activities of the Commissioner, the Merit Protection Commissioner and the tribunals.

Organisational structureFigure 1 shows the Commission’s organisational structure at 30 June 2015.

10

Part 1Overview

Figure 1: Organisational structure at 30 June 2015

11

Funding and financial performance The Commission’s activities are funded through a combination of appropriation and revenue generated through the sale of leadership services, learning and development training courses, employment-related and international assistance services, and workplace relations activities. More than half of the Commission’s funding is provided by agencies—either on a fee-for-service basis or through subscriptions supported by a memorandum of understanding. Much of the Commission’s revenue is earned in a competitive market where agencies choose the source and level of the services they purchase.

In 2014–15, the Commission received $21.6 million in departmental appropriation funding and own-source income of $22.7 million from the rendering of services.

The Commission’s operating result for 2014–15 was a small surplus of $0.05 million, following a deficit of $0.4 million in 2013–14. The result includes the effects of the government’s net cash funding arrangement where depreciation and amortisation expenses are no longer funded by an appropriation. Excluding this factor, the Commission delivered an operating surplus of $1.1 million as a result of prudent management of its financial resources.

Payments of $61.3 million were made from the special appropriation for the parliamentarians’ and judicial office holders’ remuneration and entitlements administered program.

Table 1 summarises the Commission’s financial performance in 2014–15.

Table 1: Summary of financial performance, 2014-15Budget estimate

($ million)*Actual result

($ million)

DepartmentalProgram 1.1: Australian Public Service Commission 44.7 44.4

AdministeredProgram 1.2: Parliamentarians’ and judicial office holders’ remuneration and entitlements 62.0 61.3

Total Outcome 1 106.7 105.7

*Full-year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2014-15 Budget.

Departmental expenses were $0.3 million lower than the budget estimate as the Commission managed the expenses in line with lower than anticipated fee-for-service revenue. Administered expenses were $0.7 million lower than the budget estimate due to levels of remuneration and entitlements for members being lower than projected.

Table 1 should be read in conjunction with Table A2: Expenses and resources for Outcome 1, 2014–15 (Appendix A).

12

Part 1Overview

Part 2: performance review

13

PROGRAM 1.1: AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONThis section:

• summarises the Commission performance against its key performance indicators for program 1.1

• details the Commission’s objectives, deliverables and achievements under program 1.1 during 2014−15 in terms of the following components:

APS people and organisational performance

Investing in APS development and capability

Australian Government employment workplace relations.

Key performance indicators Table 2 summarises the Commission’s performance against its key performance indicators for program 1.1 in 2014–15 and the previous year. The majority of indicators were either met or exceeded.

14

Part 2Performance review

Table 2: Program 1.1 key performance indicators, 2013–14 to 2014–15

Key performance indicators2013−14

Actual2014−15

Target2014−15

Actual

Degree of satisfaction of Minister and agency heads, as expressed through feedback about the quality and timeliness of services and advice provided by the Commission

Not available

Very good

or above

Very good

or above

Percentage of high-level use of and satisfaction with the State of the Service Report and other research and evaluation products by the SES, agencies and other clients* 85% 75% 85%

Percentage of responding surveyed participants that attended a Commission program who agreed that the program improved their knowledge and skills 92% 80% 98%

Level of satisfaction of the President of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal with the quality and timeliness of the services provided by the secretariat

Very good

or above

Very good

or above

Very good

or above

Level of satisfaction of the President of the Remuneration Tribunal with the quality and timeliness of the services provided by the secretariat

Very good

or above

Very good

or above

Very good

or above

Number of reviews, excluding promotion reviews, finalised on behalf of the Merit Protection Commissioner 227 195 160

Percentage of reviews conducted on behalf of the Merit Protection Commissioner completed within published timeframes† 95% 70% 82%

* Results refer to the financial year in which the State of the Service Report was tabled, not the reporting period on which the report is based.†The Merit Protection Commissioner’s annual report addresses the performance of the review function against timeliness targets and measures to address challenges in meeting targets.

The 2014–15 Portfolio Budget Statements included the following additional key performance indicators for program 1.1:

• APS agencies have access to high-quality, contemporary, strategically aligned leadership and talent development programs that build the capability required in the APS.

• Programs improve leadership and management effectiveness.

• APS agencies have a range of means for accessing core skills development programs.

• The quality and consistency of core skills delivery improves across the APS through agency use of quality-assured providers and learning designs.

• APS agencies have access to thought leadership, support and advice on their leadership development and talent management initiatives.

• The APS supports the Australian Government’s aid program by strengthening the capability of partner governments to develop and implement strategic initiatives that improve their public sector effectiveness and efficiency and the quality of services to citizens.

15

The Commission’s achievements in providing the APS with leadership and talent development programs and core skills programs are discussed on pages 26–8. The Commission’s international assistance is discussed on pages 30–1.

APS people and organisational performance

ObjectivesThe Commission’s objectives during 2014−15 were to:

• provide high-quality policy advice to the Australian Government, the Minister and the Australian Public Service Commissioner, and employment services, on matters covered by the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act)

• provide an evidence base for the alignment and quality of APS human capital planning and management to enhance APS-wide and agency capability

• facilitate the continuous improvement of the approach to APS-wide workforce planning that supports effective deployment and management of human capital

• manage and provide quality policy advice on the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s statutory responsibilities in relation to Senior Executive Service (SES) employees, agency heads and statutory office holders

• undertake agency capability reviews to assist agencies to improve their institutional capabilities and strengthen accountability for their performance

• support the review, inquiry and reporting functions of the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner and contribute to improving the standards of decision-making and people management practices across the APS

• work with agencies to implement the amended PS Act and embed the revised APS Values, and promote public service ethics and integrity

• work with agencies to build a high-performance culture across the APS

• ensure that APS agencies have access to leadership strategies to enhance agency-specific capability and leadership development through guidance, networks and client engagement activities

• deliver initiatives under the Indigenous Employment Strategy to improve the retention of Indigenous staff in the APS and work with agencies to continue to focus on the strategies in the APS Indigenous Pathways Program

• contribute to enhancing the diversity of the APS to ensure it reflects and is responsive to the wider community, and to work with agencies to implement the As one—Australian Public Service Disability Employment Strategy, aimed at strengthening the APS as a progressive and sustainable employer of people with disability.

16


Key achievements During 2014−15, the Commission’s achievements included:

• promulgating the Commissioner’s new directions for performance management

• successfully managing the interim arrangements for recruitment, which resulted in a significant reduction in the size of the APS

• facilitating agencies’ recruitment of 80 Indigenous employees under the APS Indigenous Pathways Program

• revising the requirements for gazetting termination of employment decisions

• launching an updated edition of Handling misconduct: A human resource manager’s guide

• delivering three agency capability reviews and six agency health checks

• releasing the State of the Service Report 2013–14 in December 2014.

Deliverables Table 3 summarises the Commission’s performance against its deliverables for 2014–15.

Table 3: Deliverables—APS people and organisational performance, 2014–15Deliverables 2014–15 result

Provide high-quality policy advice to the Australian Government, the Minister and the Australian Public Service Commissioner on matters covered by the PS Act

Met

Monitor and support the continuous and sustainable development of agencies’ workforce planning and capability frameworks and benchmarking processes Met

Support the review, inquiry and reporting functions and contribute to improving the standards of decision-making and people management practices across the APS Met

Work with agencies to embed the APS Values so that they are effective in driving performance and cultural change, and promote public service ethics and integrity Met

Provide agency capability reviews, reports and capability improvement plans Met

Embed attitudinal and behavioural change in the management of performance to build a high-performance culture across the APS In progress

Improve retention, over time, of Indigenous staff through strategies under the Indigenous Employment Strategy and support the As one―Australian Public Service Disability Employment Strategy aimed at strengthening the APS as a progressive and sustainable employer of people with disability In progress

Publish the State of the Service Report and other reports to assist in advising the government and the APS Met

Deliver the Ethics Advisory Service to assist employees and agencies Met

Meet performance benchmarks in discharging statutory functions in respect of SES matters Met

17

Legislation

Australian Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 2013

The Commissioner issued a revised direction under section 11A of the PS Act amending the requirements for notifying termination of employment decisions in the Public Service Gazette. It came into effect in November 2014.

Another new direction was introduced to support the APS Employment Principle requiring effective performance from each employee. It will come into effect on 1 July 2015.

Public Interest Disclosure Act

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act) came into effect on 1 January 2014. The Commission worked closely with the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office to develop guidance on the connection between the PID Act and management of breaches of the APS Code of Conduct.

Upholding integrity in the APS

Integrity Agencies Group

The Integrity Agencies Group, chaired by the Australian Public Service Commissioner and comprising senior APS leaders, focuses on integrity and ethical decision-making. The group met twice during the reporting period—in December 2014 and June 2015.

Handling misconduct

The Commission released a revised edition of Handling misconduct: A human resource manager’s guide in June 2015. The guide reflects recent changes to a number of Acts and provides advice in new areas.

Ethics Advisory Service

The Ethics Advisory Service received 565 inquiries in 2014−15. The categories with the highest proportions concerned reporting and managing misconduct, relationships in the workplace and conflicts of interest. The inquiries came from staff in 77 agencies.

The Ethics Advisory Service delivered information sessions and training on the APS Values and Code of Conduct to APS agencies. In addition, the Commission supported the Ethics Contact Officer Network, which met twice during 2014-15.

APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice

Work is well advanced on updating APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice: A guide for official conduct for APS employees and agency heads. The revised guide will be launched in the first half of 2015−16.

18


Disclosing outcomes of misconduct complaints

The Commission released a public discussion paper as part of a review of its guidance on the information that should be disclosed to a complainant about the outcome of their complaint of misconduct by an APS employee. Feedback on the discussion paper will contribute to revised guidance to be published on the Commission’s website during 2015−16.

Inquiries into allegations of misconductThe Commissioner’s functions include inquiring into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by agency heads and statutory office holders.

Twelve reports were finalised in 2014–15, including three carried over from 2013–14. None of these reports resulted in an investigation. One report was on hand at the end of 2014–15.

Under certain circumstances, the Commissioner also has the function of determining whether an APS employee, or former employee, has breached the Code of Conduct. One inquiry was completed during 2014–15.

The whistleblowing provisions in the PS Act, dealing with allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct, were repealed in January 2014 when the PID Act came into effect. Transitional provisions allowed for the one whistleblowing report on hand at the end of 2013−14 to be finalised in 2014–15.

Two inquiries into allegations against statutory office holders made by APS employees or members of the public were finalised. Neither resulted in a recommendation to commence proceedings.

Other inquiriesAt the request of the Prime Minister, the Commissioner conducted a general review of the roles and responsibilities of individual public servants during the Home Insulation Program. The review was completed in March 2015.

Strategic leadershipThe Commission provides support to a number of high-level APS strategic leadership groups. The Commission also supports Australia’s participation in cross-jurisdictional and international forums.

Secretaries’ performance framework

In early 2015, the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet reviewed the annual performance management framework for secretaries. The aim of the review was to ensure that the framework encourages a culture of high performance and excellence. This worked resulted in a simplified framework that places a greater emphasis on setting clear forward objectives to support key government policy priorities.

19

Public Service Commissioners’ Conference

The Commission provides secretariat and research support to the Public Service Commissioners’ Conference, which is held twice a year. The conference is a cross-jurisdictional forum for Commonwealth, state and territory public service commissioners and New Zealand’s State Services Commissioner. Conferences were held on 14 November 2014 in Melbourne and on 1 May 2015 in Sydney.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

The Commission regularly provides responses to requests by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for information or validation of Australian data. During 2014−15, most of this activity centred on the OECD’s planned release in 2015 of its biennial publication Government at a glance. The Commission also provided input to the OECD’s assessment of its possible future activities.

Stephanie Foster, Deputy Public Service Commissioner, is Australia’s delegate to the OECD’s Public Governance Committee.

APS recruitment and selection servicesThe Commission provides agencies with selection and recruitment services on a fee-for-service basis. Agencies can also request advice on legislative requirements and contemporary best practice.

During 2014−15, 271 employment-related requests were received from 26 agencies.

Workplace equity and diversityThe Commission continued to focus on improving the representation of Indigenous Australians and people with disability in the APS.

Indigenous representation

The Commission continued its initiatives to support agencies to improve Indigenous employment outcomes. Indigenous representation in the APS was 2.6% in 2014–15.

The Commission assisted agencies to employ 27 graduates and 53 trainees through the APS Indigenous Pathways Program. More than 1,100 Indigenous Australians have been employed through the program since it was introduced 10 years ago. This equates to 25% of all Indigenous engagements in the APS.

The Commission continued to provide Indigenous employees with opportunities for professional networking and training. Initiatives in 2014–15 included a strengthened orientation program for new graduates and trainees and a formal induction for supervisors of trainees to ensure that they are aware of their obligations.

The Indigenous Careers Facebook site and an Indigenous Careers Portal were launched to provide information about employment opportunities and tips for navigating recruitment processes.

20


In consultation with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Commission developed the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Employment Strategy. The strategy will support the Commonwealth in achieving an Indigenous representation rate of 3% in the APS by 2018.

Diversity networks and forums

The Disability Champions Network was established under the auspices of the APS Diversity Council and met for the first time in June 2014. The network brings together senior-level advocates to focus on disability employment matters.

As part of the network, the Commission facilitated an open forum involving 10 employees with disability and 10 senior executive Disability Champions. The aim of the forum was to raise awareness of the areas in which the employment experience of employees with disability could be improved.

The Commission ran Indigenous employee forums in 10 locations across Australia. These forums, attended by approximately 400 employees, contributed to identifying, and acting on, issues experienced by Indigenous employees. The Commission also continued the quarterly Indigenous employment human resources forum.

The Commission provides secretariat support to the APS Diversity Council. During 2014−15, the council met twice and advanced several key initiatives, which included:

• a research program on Indigenous employee retention

• implementation of the RecruitAbility scheme across the APS

• the APS Diversity Awards.

Capability reviewsIn 2011, the Commission commenced a program of agency capability reviews. These independent reviews identify organisational strengths and areas for improvement with the aim of raising productivity. Follow-up ‘health checks’ are available to agencies to evaluate the extent to which their capability has improved.

During 2014−15, three capability reviews were undertaken, six reports were publicly released and six health checks were completed.

The Commission has now delivered 24 capability reviews. Additional reviews will be undertaken when requested by agencies.

Performance managementThe performance management diagnostic―a tool for reviewing agency performance management systems―was introduced in 2014. Several agencies have since adopted the tool.

21

Amendments to the PS Act to include the APS Employment Principles were passed in July 2013. New Commissioner’s directions on the effective performance principle were promulgated in December 2014. The directions outline specific performance-related obligations for agency heads, supervisors and employees.

During May and June 2015, the Commission conducted an outreach program to assist agencies to prepare for the 1 July commencement of the new directions. Presentations were conducted in Brisbane, Canberra, Western Sydney, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne and Tasmania.

The Commission released its core skills modules for performance management in August 2014. At June 2015, more than 1,200 public servants had participated in the courses.

Policy advice and employment servicesThe Commission provides employment and policy advice to agencies and administers the Commissioner’s responsibilities under the PS Act and subordinate legislation.

Senior Executive Service employment

Until 1 July 2015, the Commissioner’s Directions 2013 required all SES selection exercises that resulted in promotion or engagement to be endorsed by the Commissioner. During 2014−15, the Commissioner endorsed 125 selection exercises, compared to 89 in 2013−14. Over the past two years, the number of endorsements has been significantly lower than the long-term average, reflecting the Australian Government’s smaller government agenda.

The Commission administers a cap on the number of SES positions in the APS. The downward trend in the number of positions continued in 2014−15, reducing by 147 on the previous year, from 2,898 to 2,751.

During 2014−15, 150 SES employees retired from the APS with the payment of an incentive amount under section 37 of the PS Act. This compares to 181 in 2013−14. The number of retirements continues to be higher than the long-term trend.

Senior Executive Service advisory service

The Commission’s SES Adviser provides confidential advice on a range of employment matters to SES employees across the APS. In 2014–15, the SES Adviser responded to 70 queries, compared to 71 in 2013–14.

Interim arrangements for APS recruitment

The interim arrangements for APS recruitment were introduced in late 2013 as part of the Australian Government’s commitment to reduce the size of the APS.

During 2014–15, the Commission worked with agencies to implement the interim arrangements, while supporting them to advertise critical roles. This included support for entry-level recruitment

22


programs― graduate development programs and diversity programs for Indigenous people and people with disability.

Between 30 June 2013 and 31 December 2014, the APS reduced its headcount by 14,414.

The Commissioner considered almost 1,000 requests from APS agencies to advertise jobs in the Public Service Gazette. More than 450 employees were redeployed through the APS Redeployment Register.

In the 2015−16 Budget, the government announced that the interim arrangements for APS recruitment would be modified. From 1 July 2015, agency heads will be able to advertise vacancies in the Public Service Gazette as open to all eligible members of the community without the prior approval of the Commissioner. The interim arrangements will be replaced with a system to monitor agencies’ staffing numbers against their budgeted average staffing levels.

APSjobs employment portal―electronic Public Service Gazette

APSjobs is an online employment portal that offers a simple, user-friendly system to job seekers looking for employment in the APS. It also incorporates the electronic Public Service Gazette, which enables agencies to satisfy legislative requirements.

During 2014−15, the Commission published 49 issues of the Public Service Gazette, listing advertised vacancies, recruitment outcomes, and certain other APS employment decisions. The APSjobs portal was modified twice during the year to support the interim recruitment arrangements.

Table 4 shows the number of notices lodged in 2014–15 compared to the previous three years.

Table 4: Number of gazette notices lodged, 2011−12 to 2014−15Number of notices Percentage change on previous year

2011–12 42,254 –8

2012–13 30,829 –27

2013–14 17,230 −44

2014–15 15,259 −11

Data analysis and benchmarkingThe Commission, through its statistical analysis and research capability, advises the APS and its leadership on emerging workforce challenges. APS performance is benchmarked against comparable overseas jurisdictions.

APS Statistical Bulletin and snAPShots

The Commission publishes two sets of APS demographic data each year. The first is the APS Statistical Bulletin, which is part of the State of the Service Report series of publications. The bulletin provides an overview of APS-wide staffing at 30 June and includes staff movements. Agencies can use

23

the data to benchmark themselves against APS-wide workforce trends. The bulletin also shows 15 years of data on population, engagements and separations. The second publication, snAPShots, contains employment data at 31 December. Both publications are available on the Commission’s website.

APS Employment Database

The Commission collects data from APS agencies’ human resource systems to build a career history for every APS employee. This data is stored on the APS Employment Database (APSED). APSED is used for reporting to government, analysis for the State of the Service Report, workforce planning, benchmarking and policy research. It is also the source for the APS Statistical Bulletin and snAPShots.

The Commission uses APSED to monitor the size of the APS workforce as well as employee engagements to and separations from the APS. APSED data was used by the Northern Australia Taskforce in the preparation of the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia, released in June 2015. Data was also used to set the Commonwealth Indigenous Employment Strategy target.

APSED internet interface

The APSED internet interface (APSEDii) promotes better practice in workforce planning and benchmarking. It presents data from APSED using tables and charts with functions that allow customised access to the data. Registered users from APS agencies can access more detailed data and can also make comparisons with other agencies or groups of agencies.

APS Remuneration Report

The APS Remuneration Report is a public document that provides a picture of remuneration of APS employees and annual changes in levels of remuneration. The report is based on data sent to the Commission by APS agencies for all active employees at 31 December each year. The data covers salaries, allowances, bonuses and superannuation. APS agency heads receive a confidential individual agency report that benchmarks remuneration in their agency against the wider APS.

State of the Service Report

Under section 44 of the PS Act, the Commissioner is required to report annually on the state of the APS. The State of the Service Report 2013–14 was tabled in parliament in December 2014.

The report takes a systems-level view of the APS, providing analysis centred on three themes—efficiency, effectiveness and evaluation. Areas of specific focus include leadership capability, managing risk and change, innovation, and performance and accountability. The report is available on the Commission’s website.

The data presented in the report was drawn from a wide range of sources, including the Commission’s own research and databases, particularly APSED; published and unpublished material from other agencies; Australian National Audit Office reports; and, where available, comparable data from other Australian and international jurisdictions.

24


Two surveys conducted by the Commission also contributed to the report:

• An agency survey provided information on a wide range of management and capability issues in agencies. The Commission conducted the agency survey online and achieved a response rate of 100%.

• The APS employee census, which was sent to all APS employees, provided data on attitudes to, and understanding of, a variety of work-related issues. The 2014 census achieved a response rate of 68%.

Human capital analysis and evaluation activitiesThe Commission conducts a wide range of activities to inform and support agency-level and APS-level business decision-making. These include an APS entry and exit survey, the APS Human Capital Research Forum, the publication Human Capital Matters, complex evaluations, and customised surveys to meet specific agency needs. The Commission also provides agencies with tailored analysis of existing data sources―for example, extra analysis of APS employee census data or agency survey data.

Investing in APS development and capability


• reinvigorate strategic leadership by enhancing the capability of current and future APS leaders

• enhance the core skills of the APS workforce

• enable agencies to enhance their approach to leadership development, talent management and core skills learning and development

• assist APS agencies to achieve effective and efficient procurement of capability development services

• assist identified international governments to build public sector capability and capacity on behalf of the Australian Government.

Key achievementsDuring 2014–15, the Commission’s achievements included:

• delivering new SES Band 1 talent development, Executive Level 2 (EL 2) leadership and core skills programs

• coordinating the APS Human Resources Summit 2014, which addressed current and future business challenges, including strategies and practices required to respond to those challenges

• partnering with Jawun (a not-for-profit organisation) to coordinate the short-term secondment of 74 APS employees to Indigenous organisations

25

• partnering with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to assist in establishing the Pacific Leadership and Governance Precinct in Papua New Guinea.

DeliverablesTable 5 summarises the Commission’s performance against its deliverables for 2014–15.

Table 5: Program 1.1 deliverables—Investing in APS development and capabilityDeliverables 2014–15 result

Develop and review the APS Leadership and Core Skills Strategy to ensure that it reflects the current and emerging business needs of the APS, drawing on evidence-based research and best practice Met

Design, develop and deliver best practice, contemporary leadership development programs and interventions Met

Design, develop and deliver intensive development for high-potential leaders Met

Design contemporary, best practice learning programs and interventions relating to management and core skills Met

Conduct quality assessments of development providers Met

Centrally procure programs where there is a return on investment in terms of efficiency and/or cultural benefits Met

Improve evaluation of program outcomes Met

Provide thought leadership, support and advice to agencies on best practice in the areas of leadership, learning and development Met

Provide a range of leadership and professional development programs that build knowledge and skills to improve capability Met

Establish and manage panels of high-quality suppliers whose services support APS development and capability Met

Strengthen the capability of partner governments to develop and implement strategic initiatives that improve their public sector effectiveness and efficiency and the quality of services to citizens Met

APS leadership, learning and developmentThe Commission released new talent development, leadership and core skills programs that reflect contemporary thinking and practice. Programs developed in previous years continued to be delivered and improved, and support for national programs, such as the Jawun Indigenous secondment program, was maintained.

Talent development

The new SES Band 1 talent development program commenced in July 2014. Two cohorts completed the program and another is due to conclude in October 2015.

26


Leadership

Following endorsement by the Secretaries Board in November 2014, two new EL 2 leadership programs were developed and delivered:

• EL 2 Leadership Practice, for new middle managers

• EL 2 Leadership Expansion, for experienced middle managers with existing leadership capabilities.

Core skills

A range of core skills programs were piloted and evaluated during 2014−15. Comprehensive learning materials relating to the programs were also released for APS agencies to use, including facilitator and participant guides. Table 6 lists the core skills programs released in 2014−15 and those in final development for piloting during the second half of 2015.

Table 6: Core skills programsPrograms released during 2014−15

Appearing before parliamentary committeesIntroduction to the Cabinet process and preparing for Cabinet submissions

APS ethics and values Performance management

Briefing and responding to APS decision-makers, ministers and parliament Planning and managing change

Building and leading high-performing teams SES risk management

Building relationships and engagement Structuring work

Coaching and developing others Understanding government

Compelling communications Working in teams

Dealing with change Working with the minister

Programs in final development as of 30 June 2015

Analytical thinking Procurement essentials and contract management

APS decision-making Working with diversity

APS frameworks Working with stakeholders

Getting the most out of diversity

27

Program delivery

Table 7 details the number of programs delivered in 2014–15 and the total number of participants.

Table 7: Total number of programs and participants, 2014−15 APS level No. of programs No. of participants

SES 20 279

Executive Level 1 and 2 194 2,939

APS 1−6 268 4,056

Graduate 1 69

Total 483 7,343

Executive Level Leadership Network

The Executive Level Leadership Network provides an opportunity for middle-level APS managers to strengthen their leadership practice by hearing from a range of engaging speakers, sharing experiences with colleagues, and building collaborative networks. During 2014–15, a total of 1,000 participants registered for two seminars.

Graduate events

Graduate events provide an opportunity for APS graduates to build their knowledge of current issues and establish strong networks with their colleagues across agencies. Four events were held during the year, with an average registration of 650 participants for each event:

• Working Together to Close the Gap, August 2014

• Candid Reflections, November 2014

• A Taste of Government, March 2015

• Great Graduate Debate, June 2015.

Panel servicesThe Commission’s panel services facilitated the procurement of capability development services by 67 government agencies under memorandums of understanding.

Overall, 438 contracts were entered into, with a large number using the learning and development and business services panels. This amounted to over $60.6 million worth of products and services.

Table 8 shows the total number of contracts and estimated contract value by panel.

28


Table 8: Number of panel services contracts and estimated value by panel, 2014−15

Panel No. of contracts entered intoEstimated contract value ($

million)

Learning and development 259 14.5

Business services 117 38.5

Executive search and recruitment 43 5.9

E-learning 13 1.5

Research 6 0.2

Total 438 60.6

Regional forums and networksThe Australian Government Leadership Networks (AGLNs) bring together agency heads and other senior APS leaders who are based outside Canberra.

The People Management Networks (PMNs) engage human resource professionals and APS employees working in people management.

Nearly 2,000 people from across the country attended AGLN and PMN events during 2014–15. In addition, 450 people attended the annual AGLN conferences held in all state capital cities under the theme ‘Towards excellence―building capacity for change’.

APS Human Resources Summit 2014The annual APS Human Resources Summit is part of a broader strategy to improve human resources capability in the APS. The 2014 summit attracted more than 120 heads of human resources who heard the former Commissioner and a panel of secretaries speak about current and future business challenges. A panel of deputy secretaries outlined ways to improve change and risk management and shared service capability. Other speakers included a company board member and human resources executives from the private sector.

National programs and relationships with higher education institutionsThe Commission maintained its support of the Sir Roland Wilson Foundation, the Jawun Indigenous secondment program, the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG) and the Public Sector Management Program.

Sir Roland Wilson Foundation

The Commission continued to coordinate the Sir Roland Wilson Foundation Scholarships, which support research in areas of priority public interest. Nominations for the fourth round of scholarships resulted in the selection of four high-potential APS Executive Level employees who began their studies in February 2015.

29

Jawun Indigenous secondment program

The Commission partnered with Jawun in coordinating the short-term secondment of 74 APS employees to Indigenous organisations.

Australia and New Zealand School of Government

The Commission continued to administer the deed of agreement between the Commonwealth and ANZSOG in relation to a $10 million repayable capital grant made to ANZSOG in May 2005. Interest generated from the grant supports the Sir John Bunting Chair of Public Administration at the Australian National University and other academic research appointments.

Public Sector Management Program

The Public Sector Management Program continued as a national leadership program for emerging public sector managers across Australia. It targets staff in the APS 6 to EL 2 ranges.

The Queensland University of Technology introduced a new curriculum in 2015. There were approximately 400 new enrolments for the 2015 academic year.

In April 2015, the program’s board of management was replaced by a curriculum advisory committee. The Commission manages the contract with Queensland University of Technology and provides secretariat support to the committee.

International programsThe Commission continued its partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to develop public sector capacity in the Asia–Pacific region and Africa. Programs were delivered in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Ghana, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati.

Papua New Guinea

The Commission continued a long-standing partnership with the PNG Department of Personnel Management. The key aims of the Commission’s collaboration are developing a PNG State of the Service Report and establishing an emerging women leaders program to promote and empower women in the PNG public service.

The Commission is partnering with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in establishing the Pacific Leadership and Governance Precinct. The precinct will include PNG’s School of Government at the Institute of Public Administration and a new School of Business and Public Policy at the University of Papua New Guinea.

Indonesia

The Commission has established institutional partnerships with the Indonesian Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and the new Indonesian Civil Service Commission to support the implementation of reforms across the Indonesian public sector.

30


The focus in 2014–15 was on supporting implementation of the Indonesian civil service law and capability reviews and also developing an employee performance management framework.

Ghana

In December 2014, the Commission completed a three-year partnership with the Ghana Public Services Commission that focused on strengthening accountability across the public service. A key outcome was the delivery of Ghana’s first State of the Public Service Report in March 2015.

Pacific island countries

The Commission worked with the Republic of the Marshall Islands Public Service Commission to implement public sector workforce planning. Public sector agencies in the Marshall Islands have begun aligning their workforce profiles with organisational, whole-of-government and national strategic priorities.

The Commission assisted the Kiribati Public Service Office to implement improvements to human resource management practices. As a result, all public service agencies in Kiribati now develop annual workforce plans and use a standardised individual performance management system.

Official international visitsThe Commission hosted 19 delegations from Bangladesh, Canada, China, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa and Thailand.

Australian Government employment workplace relations


• foster efficient APS workforce relations to ensure employment bargaining supports affordable and productive workforce arrangements and to provide advice and support for workplace relations within Australian Government employment

• strengthen and streamline the employment bargaining framework

• enhance and maintain employment frameworks, including classification and work-level standards, to support cost-effective whole-of-APS delivery to government and stakeholders

• advise agencies on the impact of machinery of government changes on the terms and conditions of employees

• assist in the process of modernising the APS Award and several non-APS awards

• assist the Remuneration Tribunal and the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal to meet their statutory obligations.

31

Key achievementsDuring 2014–15, the Commission’s achievements included:

• assisting agencies to develop modern, flexible enterprise agreements that support organisational agility

• working with agencies through enterprise bargaining to focus on workforce productivity and compliance with government policy

• modernising the APS Award to reflect terms and conditions of employment appropriate to contemporary workplaces

• amending the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 to provide agencies with consistent work-level standards to apply when allocating an APS level or Executive Level classification.

DeliverablesTable 9 summarises the Commission’s performance against its deliverables for 2014–15.

Table 9: Program 1.1 deliverables—Australian Government employment workplace relationsDeliverables 2014–15 result

Provide high-quality advice to agencies and the Minister on workplace employment arrangements Met

Administer enterprise bargaining arrangements Met

Maintain and support the policy and employment frameworks, including the APS-wide work-level standards and classifications, to ensure that these arrangements support a unified APS Met

Provide high-quality advisory and administrative support to the Remuneration Tribunal and the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Met

Australian Government public sector bargainingUnder the Australian Government Public Sector Workplace Bargaining Policy, agencies are required to negotiate remuneration increases that are affordable and offset by genuine productivity gains that satisfy the Australian Public Service Commissioner.

During 2014–15, the Commission worked with APS and non-APS agencies to ensure that proposed remuneration increases complied with the policy. The Department of Finance assisted the Commission by providing assessments on the affordability of remuneration increases proposed by agencies.

Over successive bargaining rounds, Australian Government public sector enterprise agreements have accumulated extraneous content and unnecessary detail. This has curbed operational decision-making and limited flexibility. The Commission worked closely with agencies to develop draft enterprise agreements that are consistent with government policy. These agreements are modern, clear and simple, and better support organisational agility.

32


Modernisation of Australian Government public sector awardsThe Commission worked with the parties to the Australian Public Service Award 1998 and the Fair Work Commission to develop a simple, easy-to-understand modern award.

The Fair Work Commission made the Australian Public Service Enterprise Award 2015 on 14 May 2015. The 2015 Award is now in effect, and replaces the 1998 Award. The 2015 Award sets a relevant safety net of terms and conditions for APS employment.

A number of Australian Government agencies are covered by their own awards. The Commission will work with these agencies to modernise award coverage in Australian Government public sector employment.

APS classification reviewIn December 2014, the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 were amended to mandate the use of work-level standards issued by the Commissioner for allocating an APS level or Executive Level classification. The Commission also released a role evaluation tool to assist agencies to make decisions about classifications.

APS Executive Remuneration PolicyThe Commission has responsibility for the APS Executive Remuneration Policy. The policy requires the agreement of the Commissioner when offers of remuneration made to APS employees are above a specified amount. This amount is calculated as a percentage of the base remuneration of the secretaries’ classification structure. No requests were received by the Commissioner in 2014−15.

Defence Force Remuneration TribunalThe Commission provides secretariat services to the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT). The Commission’s DFRT Advocate undertakes work to inform the Commonwealth’s position on remuneration arrangements in the Australian Defence Force (ADF). This includes representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service in matters before the DFRT.

During 2014-15, the Commission worked with the ADF, including the Defence Force Advocate, to review and develop cases referred to the independent tribunal.

The parties made progress on completing phase two of the salary-related allowances review. These allowances compensate ADF members for the restrictions and hardships associated with military service. Major cases included the reviews of the field allowance and allowances for Special Forces. A significant salary case was the 2014–17 Workplace Remuneration Arrangement. The arrangement provides ADF members with annual pay rises of 2%.

The tribunal reports annually on its activities on its website.

33

Remuneration TribunalThe secretariat to the Remuneration Tribunal supports the tribunal—an independent statutory body established under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973—to inquire into and determine, or provide advice on, remuneration and related matters for a range of Commonwealth offices. The Commission continued to provide secretariat support during the reporting period.

The tribunal is required by the Remuneration Tribunal Act to report annually to the Minister. Details of the work of the tribunal are provided in that report.

34


PROGRAM 1.2: PARLIAMENTARIANS’ AND JUDICIAL OFFICE HOLDERS’ REMUNERATION AND ENTITLEMENTSObjectiveThe objective of program 1.2 is to facilitate the payment of remuneration, allowances and entitlements to parliamentarians and judicial office holders.

DeliverableThe key deliverable is the payment of remuneration, allowances and entitlements to parliamentarians and judicial office holders.

Data is not provided for the deliverable because the administered items are paid by the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Attorney-General’s Department.

Key performance indicatorTable 10 summarises the Commission’s performance under program 1.2 against its key performance indicator in 2013−14 and 2014−15.

Table 10: Program 1.2 key performance indicator, 2013−14 and 2014−15

Key performance indicator

2013–14 2014–15

Actual Target Actual

All variations to remuneration and entitlements are processed in a timely manner with an accuracy of at least 99 per cent Achieved 99% Achieved

35

Part 3Management and accountability

Part 3: Management and accountability

37

KEY ACHIEVEMENTSThe Commission continued to implement its strategic priorities for 2014−15, while planning for new priorities that will be brought into effect on 1 July 2015.

During the year, the Commission:

• planned an organisational restructure aligned with its new strategic priorities

• launched its third Reconciliation Action Plan

• started the process of bargaining for a new enterprise agreement for its non-SES employees

• consolidated its financial processing and human resource systems in the Shared Services Centre.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKThe Commission’s outcome and anticipated use of resources are set out in its Portfolio Budget Statements for 2014−15. Actions to achieve the Commission’s outcome are detailed in group business plans and individual performance agreements, which provide the framework for staff compliance and accountability.

Corporate committees

Executive CommitteeThe Executive Committee establishes the directions and work program of the Commission. It convenes fortnightly and comprises the Australian Public Service Commissioner, the Deputy Public Service Commissioner, group managers and the Merit Protection Commissioner. The Executive approves business plans and budgets and determines senior staffing issues.

In early 2015, the Executive Committee worked on developing a new set of strategic priorities for 2015−16. Plans were put in place to make the necessary structural adjustments to accommodate the new priority work areas. The restructure will take effect on 1 July 2015.

The Executive Committee is supported by two advisory committees in its management and accountability role.

Audit and Risk Management Committee The Audit and Risk Management Committee is established in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and its responsibilities are detailed in its charter. The committee met four times in 2014–15.

38


Workplace Relations/Health and Safety CommitteeThe Workplace Relations/Health and Safety Committee’s membership is stipulated in the enterprise agreement and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

The committee facilitates the consultation process between management and staff on workplace issues, including work health and safety. It also monitors the implementation of the Commission’s enterprise agreement and assists the Commission to review and implement measures designed to protect the health and safety at work of employees and visitors.

In accordance with the Work Health and Safety Act, the committee met quarterly. Further information on work health and safety matters is provided in Appendix B.

Risk managementRisk management is integrated into the business planning activities of the Commission to support good decision-making and promote the cost-effective use of resources.

The Commission’s risk management framework is reviewed each year and consists of a risk management policy and a risk assessment handbook.

The aims of the Commission’s risk management policy are to:

• develop a Commission-wide understanding of risk management

• create an environment where all employees assume responsibility for managing risk

• ensure that relevant risks are considered in decision-making processes

• ensure that significant risks faced by the Commission are identified and understood

• ensure that material risks are appropriately monitored through documented review processes and that key mitigating actions are reported to management on a regular basis.

Strategies to mitigate these risks were developed and implemented. Progress against the strategies was monitored by the Commission’s Audit and Risk Management Committee.

The Commission continued to participate in Comcover’s annual risk management benchmarking survey.

Commission plansThe Commission has a number of plans that support the implementation of its strategic priorities.

Workforce planThe Commission’s workforce plan guides the development and maintenance of a skilled, capable and diverse workforce that is valued and engaged. During 2014–15, the Commission conducted a demand and supply analysis of its current and future workforce needs. The analysis identified a need to ensure

39

greater retention of the skills and experience that will be required in the future. Work on an updated workforce plan commenced in May 2015.

Fraud control planThe Commission’s fraud control plan covers the 2013−15 period and establishes a framework for detecting, reporting on and investigating fraud within the Commission. The plan also outlines ongoing fraud awareness steps to ensure that staff understand their responsibilities.

Business continuity planThe Commission’s business continuity plan details the steps to be taken in the event of a disruption to business operations. The plan’s objectives are to maintain the continuity of essential services as far as is practicable and to minimise the impact of any disruption to their availability. The plan provides practical assistance and guidance to staff on how to ensure that the Commission is able to resume normal business operations following a disaster.

Compliance and accountabilityEvery six months, the Commission conducts a review of its compliance with the financial management and accountability framework. The results of the 2014−15 reviews confirmed that the Commission’s internal control environment is operating effectively.

The Commission also has an ongoing process of reviewing its human resource policies to ensure that they are consistent with better practice and contemporary human resource management principles.

Ethical standardsThe Commission supports a culture of strong commitment to the APS Values, and has mechanisms in place to ensure that the APS Values are reflected in its day-to-day work. For example:

• The Commission’s performance management framework requires employees to demonstrate their commitment to the APS Values.

• The Commission has developed a set of leadership behaviours that apply to all senior staff.

• The orientation and induction package for new staff includes information on the APS Values and Code of Conduct and the Commission’s expectations of employees.

Internal auditThe Commission’s internal audit function was undertaken by Ernst & Young.

Five audit programs were completed:

• implementation of the Australian Privacy Principles

• sustainability of data management processes and systems

40


• data analytics compliance check

• benefit realisation of programs funded under memorandums of understanding

• compliance reporting process.

No major issues were identified and implementation of the recommendations is underway.

EXTERNAL SCRUTINYThere were no reports into the operations of the Commission by the Auditor-General, a parliamentary committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Australian Information Commissioner in 2014–15. Reports of general application are considered by the Commission’s Audit and Risk Management Committee.

There were no judicial decisions or decisions of administrative tribunals in 2014–15 that had a significant impact on the operations of the Commission.

PEOPLE MANAGEMENTStaff profileThe Commission's workforce decreased by 8.6% in 2014–15 to 221 employees, excluding employees engaged on an irregular or intermittent basis. Ninety-one percent of the Commission’s workforce is based in Canberra.

Of the Commission’s workforce, 72% are women, 86% work full-time and 94% are ongoing employees. Female employees make up 87% of the part-time workforce.

Other notable staffing statistics include:

• 3.6% of employees identify as Indigenous Australians

• 7.7% of employees have identified themselves as having a disability

• 1% of employees are from a non-English-speaking background.

More detailed information about the Commission’s workforce is set out in Appendix C.

Succession planningThe Commission has continued to consider succession planning in light of the fact that 34% of current ongoing employees may elect to retire either now or within the next five years. Forty-five per cent of ongoing Commission employees are mature-age workers. The majority of potential retirees are at the EL classification.

41

Leave managementThe average use of personal leave with pay, including sick, carer's and emergency leave, was 11.14 days per employee in 2014–15, which is an increase on 9.6 days per employee in 2013−14.

Workforce diversityThe Commission has a workforce diversity program, including you, that works in conjunction with its Indigenous employment strategy, creating paths. The Commission has continued to support the recruitment of Indigenous employees, people from non-English-speaking backgrounds and people with disability. For example, the Commission applies the RecruitAbility scheme to all vacancies and has nominated an SES Band 2 as the Indigenous Champion and an SES Band 3 as the Disability Champion. The Commission’s commitment to recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce is manifested in its higher levels of diversity groups compared to the broader APS.

Reconciliation Action PlanOn 10 December 2014, the former Commissioner launched the Commission’s third Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP), Share our stories. At the launch, the Commission’s efforts in building relationships with Aboriginal communities and organisations in Canberra were noted. Two examples are the Commission’s assistance to Bimberi Youth Justice Centre and APS participation in the Jawun Indigenous secondment program.

RAP activities during 2015 included:

• a cultural discussion with Aunty Matilda House, Ngambri-Ngunnuwal Elder

• an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art workshop during National Reconciliation Week

• donations to the Yothu Yindi foundation, which promotes Yolngu cultural development.

Workplace giving programThe Commission’s workplace giving program enables staff to support their preferred charity or non-profit group through donations via the payroll system. It complements the efforts of the social club, which supports and organises one-off fundraising activities for various local charities and community organisations.

Remuneration frameworkThe Commission’s remuneration framework and terms and conditions of employment consist of an enterprise agreement for non-SES staff and section 24(1) determinations under the Public Service Act 1999 for SES staff.

The enterprise agreement nominally expired on 30 June 2014. The Commission was negotiating a new enterprise agreement for non-SES employees at 30 June 2015.

42


The salary ranges for the Commission’s classification levels are set out in Table 11. No performance pay provisions were in place for employees.

Table 11: Salary ranges by classification, 2012–13 to 2014–15Classification 2012–13 ($’000) 2013–14 ($’000) 2014–15 ($’000)

APS 1–2 40–51 41–53 41–53

APS 3–4 53–63 55–65 55–65

APS 5 66–72 68−74 68−74

APS 6 75−81 77−84 77−84

EL 1 91–105 94–108 94–108

EL 2 114–139 118–132 118–132

SES 1 164–200 169–200 169–200

SES 2 212–227 218–227 218–227

SES 3 276–314 285–324 285-324

Performance managementThe Commission’s annual performance appraisal scheme provides a structured way for an employee and their manager to review past performance and develop a future work program. The focus of the scheme is on development and support and, where necessary, management of poor performance.

Health and wellbeingInformation about the Commission’s health and wellbeing program is contained in the report on work health and safety in Appendix B.

Australia Day awardsThe annual Australia Day awards acknowledge and reward exceptional contributions to the work of the Commission. They celebrate the achievements of the teams or individuals who provide high-quality service, leadership or a contribution of significant ideas, processes or knowledge. At the 2015 Australia Day awards ceremony, Shelley Markey, Marie Rowles and the panel services team received awards for their outstanding contributions to the Commission over the past year.

43

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGYThe Commission receives ICT infrastructure services through the Shared Services Centre.

In 2014−15, the Commission completed the migration of its human resource and financial processing systems to the Shared Services Centre. The consolidation of the two systems has simplified user account management and opened up new functionality such as the use of the Shared Services Centre e-forms system. It also enabled the in-house financial processing system to be retired.

Another significant project involved the development of a new mobile-friendly website, www.indigenouscareers.gov.au. The site brings together information on Indigenous employment in the APS.

Website enhancementsThe Commission’s website was enhanced with several new features that provide users with a more flexible interface. In line with usability and accessibility best practice, the modified design dynamically changes how the website is displayed for different devices such as desktop computers, tablets and smartphones. A more robust search engine delivers targeted results based on page content, keywords and document status. Redevelopment of the website will continue in 2015–16 to ensure that, as technology changes, it continues to meet the expectations of its diverse group of users.

Document and records management systemThe Commission’s electronic document and records management system was consolidated during the reporting period. Staff are trained in using the system as part of the induction process and, as requested, on an individual basis. This training supplements existing resources such as e-learning videos and help cards.

In May 2015, the Commission commenced a project to upgrade the system’s web interface (Diem Portal) and the underlying records management system (TRIM) to the latest versions. Scheduled for implementation by August 2015, these upgrades will improve the functionality and usability of the system.

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCEThis section provides a summary of the Commission’s financial performance during 2014−15. Further information is available in Part 4, which includes the independent auditor’s report and the Commission’s audited financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015.

Departmental activitiesThe Commission’s departmental activities involve the use of assets, liabilities, income and expenses controlled or incurred by the Commission in its own right.

44


2014−15 incomeThe Commission’s total income for 2014−15 was $44.4 million. Appropriation from government accounted for 48.7%, and sales of goods and services accounted for 51.2%. Table 12 details the Commission’s income since 2012−13. Table 13 details the Commission’s income sources by percentage since 2012−13.

Table 12: Income, 2012−13 to 2014−15Source 2012−13 ($ million) 2013−14 ($ million) 2014−15 ($ million)

Appropriation 23.2 22.0 21.6

Non-appropriation 29.0 26.0 22.8

Total 52.2 48.0 44.4

Table 13: Percentage of income by source, 2012−13 to 2014−15Source 2012−13 (%) 2013−14 (%) 2014−15 (%)

Appropriation from government 44.4 45.8 48.7

Sales of goods and services 55.5 54.1 51.2

Other income (gains from sale of assets and resources received free of charge) 0.1 0.1 0.1

Appropriation fundingAppropriation funding decreased from $22.0 million in 2013−14 to $21.6 million in 2014−15, mainly due to the ongoing efficiency dividends and government-wide saving measures.

Non-appropriation incomeTable 14 shows the non-appropriation income, by source, that the Commission received from sales of goods and rendering of services in 2013−14 and 2014−15. Table 15 details the percentage of non-appropriation income, by source, that the Commission received from sales of goods and services in 2013−14 and 2014−15.

45

Table 14: Non-appropriation income received, by source, 2013−14 and 2014−15

Source2013−14 actual

($ million)2014−15 estimate

($ million)2014−15 actual

($ million)

Development programs 15.5 13.4 14.1

Employment services 2.6 2.3 2.0

International assistance 2.5 2.5 2.8

Workplace relations 1.1 1.2 1.3

Capability reviews 2.7 1.4 1.2

Better practice and evaluation 1.3 1.3 1.0

Other services 0.3 0.1 0.3

Total 26.0 22.2 22.7

Table 15: Percentage of non-appropriation income received, by source, 2013−14 and 2014−15Source 2013−14 (%) 2014−15 (%)

Development programs 60 62

Employment services 10 9

International assistance 10 12

Workplace relations 4 6

Capability reviews 10 5

Better practice and evaluation 5 5

Other services 1 1

Income from development programs amounted to $14.1 million in 2014–15 and made up 32% of the Commission’s total income from all sources. This compares to $15.5 million in 2013−14. The decrease is due to a reduction in customer demand for training and development activities. The relative share of total income remains constant as income from other sources also reduced.

The majority of this income is earned in a competitive market, where entities can choose service providers and determine the level of service required. As demand may fluctuate, the Commission has management strategies in place to ensure resources devoted in this area are in line with the revenue earned.

In 2014–15, the fourth year of the five-year funding agreements, the Commission received payments from 52 government entities to support the APS reform activities conducted by the Commission,

46


compared to 56 government entities in 2013−14. The funding totalled $4.6 million or 33% of development program income. This compares to $4.7 million or 30% of development program income in 2013−14.

Operating resultThe Commission’s operating result for 2014–15 was a small surplus of $0.05 million. This compares to a deficit of $0.4 million in 2013–14. The surplus includes the effects of the government’s net cash funding arrangement where depreciation and amortisation expenses are no longer funded by an appropriation. Excluding this factor, the Commission delivered an operating surplus of $1.1 million.

The Commission achieved this better-than-budgeted result through continuous prudent management of its financial resources. The Commission has also established a long-term financial outlook to accommodate any budgetary requirements in future years.

Administered activitiesThe Commission’s administered activities involve the management or oversight by the Commission, on behalf of the government, of items controlled or incurred by the government.

The Commission’s only administered program is facilitating the payment of parliamentarians’ and judicial office holders’ remuneration, allowances and entitlements.

The Commission receives special appropriations for the program, and the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Attorney-General’s Department make all payments.

Payments for the year amounted to $61.3 million, compared to $60.7 million in 2013−14. Payments made are reported in note 16d of the Commission’s financial statements in Part 4.

ASSET MANAGEMENTThe Commission manages non-financial assets with a gross value of $7.3 million. Assets were valued at $6.9 million in 2013−14. The increase is due to investment in new ICT software and equipment during the year.

The Commission conducts annual reviews of its capital budget and plan. A four-year capital investment plan is developed from which the Commission manages its future asset purchases and disposals. All assets owned by the Commission, including any information technology assets, are subject to an annual stocktake to verify the accuracy of asset records. Assets are depreciated at rates applicable for each asset class.

47

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTThe Commission aims to minimise the use of non-renewable resources. Ongoing initiatives include using recycled paper products for most work activities, maximising the benefits from energy-saving devices, and undertaking purchasing with energy efficiency in mind. Appendix D provides more detail on the Commission’s environmental performance.

PURCHASINGThe Commission’s purchasing is undertaken in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. Further guidance is provided to staff through the Commission’s purchasing guide and accountable authority instructions.

The Commission also has a framework for managing the risks inherent in procurement activities and operational guidelines to support staff in assessing the risks associated with their projects.

The Commission published its annual procurement plan on the AusTender website to facilitate early procurement planning for 2014−15.

ConsultantsThe Commission engages consultancy services in circumstances when particular expertise is not available internally or when independent advice is required.

Table 16 details expenditure on consultancy contracts between 2012−13 and 2014−15. During 2014−15, the Commission entered into 38 new consultancy contracts, compared to 34 in 2013−14. The contracts involved total actual expenditure of $0.5 million for both years. Ten ongoing consultancy contracts were active during 2014−15, involving total actual expenditure of $0.5 million, compared to 17 involving expenditure of $0.4 million in 2013−14.

Information on the value of contracts and consultancies for 2014−15 is available through the AusTender website,www.tenders.gov.au.

The Commission’s standard-form contracts for services and consultancies provide for access by the Auditor-General.

48


Table 16: Expenditure on consultancy contracts, 2012−13 to 2014−15

Year

Number of new

consultancies let

Number of ongoing

consultancy contracts that

were active

Total actual expenditure on

new consultancy

contracts ($’000)


ongoing consultancy

contracts that were active

($’000)


consultancy contracts

($’000)

2012–13 42 10 870 491 1,361

2013–14 34 17 521 389 910

2014–15 38 10 460 524 984

Small business procurementThe Commission supports small business participation in the Commonwealth Government procurement market. Small and medium enterprise and small enterprise participation statistics are available on the Department of Finance’s website: www.finance.gov.au/procurement/statistics-on-commonwealth-purchasing-contracts.

The Commission also recognises the importance of ensuring that small businesses are paid on time and ensures its obligations in this regard are met. The results of the Survey of Australian Government Payments to Small Business are available on the Treasury’s website, www.treasury.gov.au.

The Commission has adopted the following practices to support procurement from small and medium enterprises:

• the use of the Commonwealth Contracting Suite for low-risk procurements valued under $200,000

• the use of payment cards for purchases of up to $10,000 to facilitate on-time payment.

Exempt contractsThe Commissioner may direct that contract details are not to be reported on the AusTender website if they would be subject to an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 1982, and the Commissioner considers that the information is genuinely sensitive and harm is likely to be caused by its disclosure. The Commission did not issue any exemptions during 2014−15.

GRANT PROGRAMSThe Commission did not administer any grant programs in 2014−15.

49

http://www.treasury.gov.au/

OUTLOOK FOR 2015−16The Commission will introduce new strategic priorities in 2015−16. While building on the current set of priorities, they will acknowledge emerging themes affecting the APS in the context of a rapidly changing external environment.

To assist in aligning its business with the new priorities, the Commission will undergo a restructure which will come into effect on 1 July 2015.

Budget outlookThe Commission’s departmental appropriation revenue will decrease from $21.6 million in 2014−15 to $20.6 million in 2015−16. This is mainly due to a lapsing budget measure for Indigenous employment activities as well as the efficiency dividend and various government-wide saving measures.

Departmental fee-for-service revenue is projected to be $2.1 million or 9% lower in 2015−16 than in 2014−15. The reduction is in anticipation of lower demand for the Commission’s fee-for-service activities from government entities. Predicting the demand for fee-for-service activities is an ongoing challenge. Fluctuations occur due to factors beyond the Commission’s control.

The Commission is managing these funding challenges to ensure it delivers a balanced financial result and is financially sustainable for future years.

Administered payments for the parliamentarians’ and judicial office holders’ remuneration and entitlements program are expected to increase by $1.2 million to $63.1 million for 2015−16, as a result of the regular annual review of remuneration.

50


Part 4: Financial statements

51

The Financial Statements are available separately

52

Appendices

Appendices

53

APPENDIX A: ENTITY RESOURCE AND OUTCOME RESOURCE STATEMENTSTable A1: Entity resource statement, 2014–15

Actual available appropriation for 2014–15 $’000(a)

Payments made 2014–15 $’000(b)

Balance remaining 2014–15 $’000 (a)–(b)

Ordinary annual services*

Departmental appropriation† 70,204 43,407 26,797

Total ordinary annual services 70,204 43,407 26,797

Total available annual appropriations and payments

70,204 43,407 26,797

Special appropriations

Special appropriations limited by criteria/ entitlement

Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 61,338

Total special appropriations 61,338

Total net resourcing and payments for the Australian Public Service Commission

70,204 104,745

* Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2014–15 and Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2014–15. This may also include prior-year departmental appropriations and section 74 retained revenue receipts.† Includes an amount of $0.4 million in 2014–15 for the departmental capital budget. For accounting purposes, this amount has been designated as ‘contributions by owners’.

54

Appendices

Table A2: Expenses and resources for Outcome 1, 2014–15

Outcome 1: Increased awareness and adoption of best practice public administration by the public service through leadership, promotion, advice and professional development, drawing on research and evaluation

Budget* 2014–15

$’000 (a)

Actual expenses

2014–15 $’000

(b)

Variation

$’000 (a)–(b)

Program 1.1: Australian Public Service Commission

Departmental appropriation† 43,544 43,239 305

Expenses not requiring appropriation in the budget year 1,163 1,130 33

Total for program 1.1 44,707 44,369 338

Program 1.2: Parliamentarians’ and judicial office holders’ remuneration and entitlements

Special appropriations 61,963 61,338 625

Total for program 1.2 61,963 61,338 625

Total expenses for Outcome 1 106,670 105,707 963

2013–14 2014–15

Average staffing level (number) 241 217

* Full-year budget, including any subsequent adjustment made to the 2014–15 Budget at Additional Estimates.† Departmental appropriation combines ordinary annual services (Appropriation Act No. 1) and section 74 retained revenue receipts.

55

APPENDIX B: WORK HEALTH AND SAFETYExecutive commitmentThe Commission is committed to safeguarding the health and safety of its employees, workers and visitors by providing and maintaining a safe working environment. The Commission aims to eliminate all preventable work-related injuries and illness through systematic management. The Commission is also committed to supporting and promoting the wellbeing of its employees.

Rehabilitation management systemThe Commission monitors and reviews its rehabilitation management system as part of its commitment to continuous improvement.

Health and wellbeingThe Australian Public Service Commission Enterprise Agreement 2011−14 provides a commitment to promote health awareness among employees through funding annual programs focusing on employee health. Initiatives under the health and wellbeing program are developed in consultation with employees and the Workplace Relations/Health and Safety Committee.

Initiatives during 2014−15 included influenza vaccinations.

The Commission continues to reimburse employees who require assistance to quit smoking or who require glasses for visually demanding tasks.

First aid officers are located throughout the Commission to ensure that immediate assistance is available when required.

The Commission has a no-tolerance approach to bullying and harassment and has developed the Respectful Relationships at Work policy, which sets out the Commission’s expectations about behaviour in the workplace. The Commission also has a number of contacts available if an employee or manager requires advice on an instance of bullying or harassment, including workplace contact officers, the employee assistance program and the Ethics Advisory Service.

The Commission has implemented an injury prevention and early intervention policy, which is designed to work in conjunction with the reasonable adjustment and rehabilitation policies. Employees are provided with comprehensive assistance to return to work following an injury or illness.

Notifiable incidents, notices and investigationsIn 2014−15, no notifiable incidents occurred at the Commission under Part 3 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. No notices were issued to the Commission under Parts 5 or 10 of the Act.

56

Appendices

APPENDIX C: STAFFING PROFILE AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYTable A3 gives a breakdown of all staff in the Commission at 30 June for the past two years by employment type and gender. All staff, except for the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner, are employed under the Public Service Act 1999.

Table A4 shows Senior Executive Service staff at 30 June for the past two years by gender.

Tables A5 and A6 show staff by classification, gender and location for the past two years.

Table A7 shows the representation of equal employment opportunity groups as a percentage of staff, by classification, at 30 June 2015.

Table A8 shows the number of staff who identified as Indigenous for the past two years.

Table A3: Ongoing and non-ongoing staff, by gender, 2013–14 and 2014−152013–14 2014–15

Female Male Total Female Male Total

Ongoing full-time 135 59 194 126 53 179

Ongoing part-time 26 1 27 26 3 29

Non-ongoing full-time 6 8 14 5 6 11

Non-ongoing part-time 3 2 5 1 1 2

Total 170 70 240 158 63 221

Note: Figures do not include irregular/intermittent employees. Figures include staff on long-term leave or temporary transfer to another agency, and the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner, who are statutory office holders and are counted as ongoing full-time.

57

Table A4: Senior Executive Service, by gender, 2013–14 and 2014–152013–14 2014–15

Female Male Total Female Male Total

Band 1 4 4 8 4 3 7

Band 2 – 1 1 - 1 1

Band 3 1 – 1 1 - 1

Total 5 5 10 5 4 9

Note: Figures do not include the Australian Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner, who are statutory office holders.

Table A5: Staff by classification, location and gender, 30 June 2014ACT NSW QLD VIC WA

TotalF M F M F M F M F M

Cadet APS 1 1

Graduate APS 2 2

APS 1 1 1 2

APS 2 5 6

APS 4 30 9 1 2 42

APS 5 10 2 2 1 15

APS 6 36 10 2 1 1 50

EL 1 44 21 4 1 1 1 72

EL 2 22 12 1 1 1 1 38

SES 1 4 4 8

SES 2 1 1

SES 3 1 1

Statutory office holders 1 1 2

Total 152 66 9 2 5 1 3 1 1 – 240


58

Appendices

Table A6: Staff by classification, location and gender, 30 June 2015ACT NSW QLD VIC WA Total

F M F M F M F M F M

APS 1 1 1 2

APS 2 3 3

APS 3 2 2

APS 4 19 5 1 1 26

APS 5 14 4 2 1 21

APS 6 32 10 2 1 2 47

EL 1 44 18 3 1 1 1 68

EL 2 24 13 1 1 1 1 41

SES 1 4 3 7

SES 2 1 1

SES 3 1 1

Statutory office holders 1 1 2

Total 142 59 7 2 5 1 3 1 1 − 221


Table A7: Representation of equal employment opportunity groups as a percentage of staff, by classification, 30 June 2015

Total no. of

staff

Women Indigenous

Non-English-speaking

backgroundPeople with

disability

No. % No. % No. % No. %

APS 1–2 5 1 20 1 4 1 20

APS 3–4 28 23 82 1 4 1 4

APS 5–6 68 53 78 4 6 1 1 7 10

EL 1 68 49 72 1 1 5 7

EL 2 41 26 63 2 5 4 10

SES and statutory office holders

11 6 55

Total 221 158 72 9 4 2 1 17 8

59

Table A8: Number of staff who identified as Indigenous as at 30 June, 2013−14 and 2014−15

2013−14 2014−15

Ongoing 16 9

Non-ongoing − −

Total 16 9

60

Appendices

APPENDIX D: ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCESection 516A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requires Australian Government organisations to include in their annual reports a report on the organisation’s contribution to ecologically sustainable development.

The Commission’s environmental policy statement aims to minimise the use of non-renewable resources, and its environmental activities are directed towards improving energy management and environmental practices. This includes maximising the benefits from energy-saving devices and undertaking purchasing with energy efficiency in mind.

The Commission does not administer any legislation or have any appropriation directly related to sustainable development and environmental performance.

The Commission’s environmental management system includes a number of environmental objectives and targets. Table A9 indicates that the Commission maintained its performance against the established targets in 2014–15.

Table A9: Environmental performance, 2013–14 and 2014–15 Objective Target 2013–14 2014–15

Reduce the amount of virgin paper purchased

By December 2009: 90% of paper purchased has 60% or better recycled content

Maintained Maintained

Purchase environmentally sound stationery products

By December 2009: reduction of 5% in the purchase of non-recycled paper. By December 2010: further reduction of 5% in the purchase of non-recycled paper


Improve recycling practices to minimise the amount of general waste going to landfill

Upgrade and standardise recycling practices.Increased awareness through publicity, training of staff and championing of energy management


The Commission’s printing facilities, among other things, use ‘follow-me’ printing, which minimises wasted or uncollected print-outs. The Commission also made energy savings through improved technology and continued to:

• use recycled paper and co-mingle recycling and paper waste recycling

• purchase whitegoods and office equipment that has water- and energy-efficient features, including sleep modes.

61

APPENDIX E: ADVERTISING AND MARKET RESEARCHA total of $24,000 was paid for advertising in 2014–15, representing a 42% decrease on the previous year’s total of $42,000.

Through the Australian Government’s central advertising system, $11,000 was paid to Mitchell and Partners Pty Ltd for non-campaign advertising, and $13,000 was paid as campaign advertising for the APS Indigenous Pathways Program. Advertising was generally used to promote development programs, advertise tenders and recruit Indigenous employees for the APS as a whole.

To support preparation of the State of the Service Report, the Commission undertook a range of processes to assess the attitudes of APS employees.

No market research activities assessing the attitudes of the public were undertaken and the Commission did not employ the services of polling or direct mail organisations.

62

Appendices

APPENDIX F: DISABILITY REPORTING MECHANISMSSince 1994, Commonwealth departments and agencies have reported on their performance as policy adviser, purchaser, employer, regulator and provider under the Commonwealth Disability Strategy. In 2007–08, reporting on the employer role was transferred to the Commission’s State of the Service Report and the APS Statistical Bulletin. These reports are available on the Commission’s website, www.apsc.gov.au. From 2010–11, departments and agencies were no longer required to report on these functions.

The Commonwealth Disability Strategy has been overtaken by the National Disability Strategy 2010–2020, which sets out a 10-year national policy framework to improve the lives of people with disability, promote participation and create a more inclusive society. A high-level two-yearly report will track progress against the six outcome areas of the strategy and present a picture of how people with disability are faring. The first of these reports was released in late 2014 and is available at www.dss.gov.au.

63

APPENDIX G: 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. Each agency must display on its website a plan showing what information it publishes in accordance with the requirements. The Commission’s plan is available at www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/Freedom-of-information/ips.

64

http://www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/Freedom-of-information/ips

Appendices

APPENDIX H: LIST OF REQUIREMENTS

Description Requirement Page

Letter of transmittal Mandatory 2

Table of contents Mandatory 3

Index Mandatory na (electronically)

Glossary [abbreviations and acronyms] Mandatory 107–8

Contact officer Mandatory

Internet home page address and internet address for report Mandatory 4

Review by Commissioner

Summary of significant issues and developments Suggested 6–7

Overview of Commission’s performance and financial results Suggested 6–7, 12, 14–6

Outlook for following year Suggested 7

Significant issues and developments—portfolio Portfolio departments—suggested

na―the Commission is not a portfolio department

Commission overview

Role and functions Mandatory 9

Organisational structure Mandatory 11

Outcome and program structure Mandatory 9–10

Where outcome and program structures differ from the Portfolio Budget Statements, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements or other portfolio statements accompanying any other additional appropriation bills (other portfolio statements), details of variation and reasons for change

Mandatory na

Portfolio structure Portfolio departments—mandatory

na

Report on performance

Review of performance during the year in relation to programs and contribution to outcomes

Mandatory 14–35

Actual performance in relation to deliverables and key performance indicators set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements or other portfolio statements

Mandatory 14–6, 17, 26, 32, 35

Where performance targets differ from the Portfolio Budget Statements or Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements, details of both former and new targets, and reasons for the change

Mandatory na

65


Narrative discussion and analysis of performance Mandatory 14–35

Trend information Mandatory 12, 15, 22–3

Significant changes in nature of principal functions/services Suggested na

Performance of purchaser–provider arrangements If applicable, suggested

na

Factors, events or trends influencing Commission’s performance Suggested 6–7

Contribution of risk management in achieving objectives Suggested 39

Performance against service charter customer service standards, complaints data, and the agency’s response to complaints

If applicable, mandatory

na―the Commission does not provide services directly to the public

Discussion and analysis of the agency’s financial performance Mandatory 12, 44–7

Discussion of any significant changes in financial results from the prior year, from budget or anticipated to have a significant impact on future operations

Mandatory na

Agency resource statement and summary resource tables by outcomes

Mandatory 54–5

Management and accountability

Corporate governance

Agency heads are required to certify their agency’s actions in dealing with fraud

Mandatory 2

Statement of the main corporate governance practices in place Mandatory 38–40

Names of the senior executive and their responsibilities Suggested 11

Senior management committees and their roles Suggested 38–9

Corporate and operational plans and associated performance reporting and review

Suggested 39–40

Internal audit arrangements including approach adopted to identifying areas of significant financial or operational risk and arrangements to manage those risks

Suggested 40–1

Policy and practices on the establishment and maintenance of appropriate ethical standards

Suggested 40

How nature and amount of remuneration for SES employees is determined

Suggested 42

External scrutiny

66

Appendices


Significant developments in external scrutiny Mandatory 41

Judicial decisions and decisions of administrative tribunals and by the Australian Information Commissioner

Mandatory 41

Reports by the Auditor-General, a parliamentary committee, the Commonwealth Ombudsman or an agency capability review

Mandatory 41

Management of human resources

Assessment of effectiveness in managing and developing human resources to achieve agency objectives

Mandatory 41–3

Workforce planning, staff turnover and retention Suggested 39–40, 41

Impact and features of enterprise or collective agreements, individual flexibility arrangements, determinations, common law contracts and Australian workplace agreements

Suggested 42–3

Training and development undertaken and its impact Suggested 39–40

Work health and safety performance Suggested 56

Productivity gains Suggested 39–40, 41

Statistics on staffing Mandatory 41, 57-60

Statistics on employees who identify as Indigenous Mandatory 60

Enterprise or collective agreements, individual flexibility arrangements, determinations, common law contracts and Australian workplace agreements

Mandatory 42–3

Performance pay Mandatory 43

Assessment of effectiveness of assets management If applicable, mandatory

47

Purchasing

Assessment of purchasing against core policies and principles Mandatory 48

A summary statement detailing the number of new consultancy services contracts let during the year, the total actual expenditure on all new consultancy contracts let during the year (inclusive of GST), the number of ongoing consultancy contracts that were active in the reporting year, the total actual expenditure in the reporting year on the ongoing consultancy contracts (inclusive of GST); and a statement noting that information on contracts and consultancies is available through the AusTender website

Mandatory 48

Absence of provisions in contracts allowing access by the Auditor-General

Mandatory 48

Contracts exempted from publication in AusTender Mandatory 49

Procurement initiatives to support small business Mandatory 49

67


Financial statements Mandatory Available separately

Other mandatory information

Work health and safety (Schedule 2, Part 4 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011)

Mandatory 56

Advertising and market research (section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918) and statement on advertising campaigns

Mandatory 62

Ecologically sustainable development and environmental performance (section 516A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999)

Mandatory 61

Compliance with the agency’s obligations under the Carer Recognition Act 2010

If applicable,mandatory

na

Grant programs Mandatory 49

Disability reporting—explicit and transparent reference to agency-level information available through other reporting mechanisms

Mandatory 63

Information Publication Scheme statement Mandatory 64

Correction of material errors in previous annual report If applicable, mandatory

na

Agency resource statements and resources for outcomes Mandatory 54–5

List of requirements Mandatory 65–8

68

Annual report of the M

erit Protection Com

missioner

Merit Protection CommissionerAnnual report 2014-15

69

MERIT PROTECTION COMMISSIONERANNWYN GODWIN

1 October 2015

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MPPrime MinisterParliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600

Dear Prime Minister

I am pleased to present the Merit Protection Commissioner’s report for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015. This is part of the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s annual report required by section 51 of the Public Service Act 1999.

This report is prepared in accordance with the guidelines approved on behalf of the parliament by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit as required by section 51(2) of the Public Service Act 1999.

In presenting you with the report on the activities of the Merit Protection Commissioner, I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the staff of the Australian Public Service Commission. Their assistance has been critical to another productive year.

Yours sincerely

Annwyn GodwinMerit Protection Commissioner

70


erit Protection Com

missioner

CONTENTSLetter of transmittal

Overview

Structure

Focus on the year

Review functions

Ethics and integrity

Working with stakeholders

Overseas involvement

Outcomes for the year

Review of action performance

Promotion review performance

Independent Selection Advisory Committees and fee-for-service activity

Investigation of complaints by former employees

Inquiries into breaches of the Code of Conduct

Outlook for the coming year

Governance, management and accountability

Contribution to outcomes 2014–15

Role and function

Organisational structure

Interaction of Merit Protection Commissioner and Public Service Commissioner roles

Corporate governance

Information Publication Scheme

Appendix: Review of performance by function

71

Figures, tables and boxes

Figures

M1 Trends in review caseload, 2007–08 to 2014–15M2 Reasons for delays in reviews, 2014–15M3 Cases reviewed by subject, 2014–15M4 Trends in promotion review caseload, 2007–08 to 2014–15

Tables

M1 Review of employment actions workload for 2014–15 by type of review, compared with total reviews in 2013–14M2 Timeliness in handling reviews, 2014–15 compared to 2013–14M3 Reviews completed, by agency, 2014–15M4 Subject matter of reviews completed, 2014–15M5 Promotion review caseload, 2014–15 compared to 2013–14M6 Review of promotion decisions, by agency, 2014–15M7 Independent Selection Advisory Committees, 2014–15 compared to 2013–14

Boxes

M1 Feedback from review applicantsM2 Review case—reduction in classification for underperformanceM3 Review case—whether bullying should have been investigated as misconduct.M4 Feedback from senior managementM5 Review case—denial of salary advancementM6 Code of Conduct case—procedural fairness flawsM7 Code of Conduct cases—employees as clientsM8 Sanction decision—the limit on finesM9 Review case—application for extension of a transfer on compassionate grounds

72


erit Protection Com

missioner

OVERVIEW As the Merit Protection Commissioner I am responsible for the delivery of review and fee-for-service functions set out in the Public Service Act 1999 (the PS Act) and the Public Service Regulations (the Regulations).

Stated briefly, these functions are independent reviews of employment actions, including promotion decisions, and fee-for-service activities, including Independent Selection Advisory Committees.

This is my second term in this role. I have observed many changes in the public service and significant improvements in the performance of my office.

Today a dedicated review team applies streamlined processes and technology to manage and report on our work. We have developed templates and support materials that enable our review advisers to focus on key issues and eradicate unnecessary process steps. This has ensured that we are complying with the statutory aim of the review scheme—providing an impartial review process that delivers outcomes fairly and quickly—and add value to our stakeholders.

I am proud to note that my review team has been twice awarded Australia Day Medals for its work.

I continue to work with stakeholders to improve people management in the Australian Public Service (APS). My continuing message to agencies is that it is more cost-effective to address matters at line manager level and to take a strategic approach to dispute management. Feedback through the review function helps agencies to identify issues and hotspots for intervention. Sharing trends in the review casework helps agencies to make better decisions. I am also working towards more targeted interventions using innovative communication approaches.

These practical insights are fed back into the development of policies for the APS. In particular, feedback has informed the development of the APS values and employment framework—work led by the Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission).

73

The Merit Protection Commissioner, Annwyn Godwin.

Over the past two years my office has exceeded its performance targets. In 2007–08 just 41% of cases were finalised within the target time. By 2013–14 this figure increased to 96%, and in the year covered by this report, was over 80%. Over the last four years, between 95% and 100% of promotion reviews have been completed within target timeframes.

These are more than just statistics. Unresolved disputes affect agency productivity and the working lives of employees. Quick and effective review processes have the potential to save agencies time and money by preventing matters from escalating to costly court or tribunal processes and by improving employee engagement.

StructureMy report is divided into four parts: a focus on the year’s activities, the outcomes for the year, the outlook for 2015–16 and the governance arrangements applying to the role of the Merit Protection Commissioner. Supporting information and performance statistics are provided in the appendix.

The report also includes a sample of case studies highlighting issues raised in review cases finalised in 2014–15.

FOCUS ON THE YEARI have continued to use my statutory functions to assist agencies to embed the APS Values and Employment Principles, and ensure that employees behave in a way consistent with the Code of Conduct. The Merit Protection Commissioner, as an independent statutory officer, continues to provide an authoritative voice of reason in an often fractured employment relationship and assists in returning the workplace to productive equilibrium.

74


erit Protection Com

missioner

My focus for 2014–15 has been to consolidate gains in productivity, quality and timeliness of the review function. At the same time my office worked with agencies to improve decision-making and the handling of employment disputes.

Throughout the year I continued to support the Australian Public Service Commissioner with his statutory responsibility of promoting the APS Values, the Employment Principles and the Code of Conduct.

I have also contributed to the corporate governance of the Commission as a member of the Executive, including as independent chair of the Commission’s Audit and Risk Management Committee.

Review functionsIndependent review by the Merit Protection Commissioner supports accountability in the APS employment framework and promotes fair and impartial employment decision-making. It is a cost-effective way of resolving employment disputes without the need for recourse to courts or tribunals. While it is difficult to make direct comparisons, high-level research on the direct ‘costs of conflict’ in the APS provides support for this assessment.

Feedback received from clients highlights the benefits of merits review. A sample is included in Box M1.

75

Box M1: Feedback from review applicants‘Notwithstanding the finalisation of my requests for review, I believe that this process has prompted the following clarification from the Department and I wanted to convey my gratitude to you and the APSC for their participation in this facilitation.’

‘I’d be most grateful if you could pass on my sincere thanks to [MPC delegate] and other MPC staff members involved in the review of my request for their efforts and assistance. As mentioned in my submission to the MPC (and the Department of [name]), my interactions with peers and team members have been done in a respectful and courteous manner at all times, even when faced with the challenging situations. No doubt I have learned from the challenging experiences in [date range], and I am grateful that the overall outcome of the MPC review process has resulted in a fair outcome.’

‘As a result of your involvement, Department of [name] has advised its intention to re-examine this matter … I would like to extend my appreciation to you and your team for taking time to consider and address the issues I raised.

‘I mentioned previously that this situation has proven to be one of the most difficult I have faced. I cannot emphasise to you enough how integral your support has been in validating my concerns and allowing me to move on with my life.’

The review casework is demand-driven. This year saw a significant reduction in the number of applications for review. The reasons for this are unclear but it is not unprecedented. Over the last eight years, review applications have fluctuated between 150 and 240 per year.

Recruitment-related activity reduced this year, reflecting a general downturn in recruitment across the APS. This resulted in a reduced number of promotions and promotion reviews.

I have continued to work with my staff to streamline case management and improve the time taken to complete reviews while maintaining the quality of outcomes. In 2014–15, this led to a revision of my policy to decline to review matters that are lacking in substance or where the outcomes being sought by the review applicant are not achievable. The revised policy was published on the website.

An informative and easily navigated website is important for informing APS employees and human resource practitioners about the review process, managing expectations and improving relationships with our clients. Significant work was undertaken in 2014–15 to restructure the Merit Protection Commissioner’s webpages to meet the needs of our client groups. We added tools such as information sheets and checklists and updated existing content. Initiatives such as these improve the timeliness of reviews as they encourage agencies and review applicants to provide the necessary information in a timely way. We continue to review and improve our information and processes.

A feedback questionnaire for review applicants was introduced in 2014–15. Over a three-month period the response rate was 40%. My staff are evaluating the information with a view to improving the questionnaire. Encouragingly, given the commitment of resources to improving our web content, preliminary analysis indicates that clients find the Merit Protection Commissioner’s pages on the Commission website a useful resource. Notwithstanding work to improve the timeliness of reviews and the quality of reports, 29% were seeking clearer reasons for decisions.

The client feedback on review reports provided an impetus to introduce ‘issues-based’ report writing, a methodology increasingly adopted by administrative decision-makers and tribunals. This approach provides clearer, simpler and more streamlined reasons for decisions. My staff attended a training course in May 2015 for this purpose.

Other initiatives included the development of a communications strategy with an aim to incorporate audio-visual communication and social media tools to communicate more effectively with our clients. Weekly discussions with my delegates and the Group Manager Ethics identified agency-specific and systemic issues which were fed back to agencies. Where appropriate, these were also reported to the Commission Executive to inform APS employment policy development.

A key resource for agencies is my publication Not just about process, which discusses better practice in employee dispute resolution, including advice on how best to manage particular types of disputes, and the role of reviews of actions. Work commenced on revising this publication; the revised version will be available on my website in early 2015–16.

76


erit Protection Com

missioner

The outcomes for my statutory functions are discussed in detail below under ‘Outcomes for the year’.

77

Box M2: Review case—reduction in classification for underperformanceAn Executive Level 2 employee was reduced in classification to an Executive Level 1 as a result of unsatisfactory performance.

The Merit Protection Commissioner found that the agency’s management of the employee’s unsatisfactory performance was fair and complied with the framework in the agency’s enterprise agreement. The agency took more than five months to put in place a performance assessment plan, from the time the employee was advised of the intention to manage him for under-performance. The Merit Protection Commissioner considered it would have been preferable to expedite this process, but noted that considerable effort went into developing the assessment plan and reaching a consensus with the employee on the criteria by which his performance would be assessed. The Merit Protection Commissioner considered the timeframe was reasonable given the serious consequences for the employee and was not unfair.

The employee was assessed for two months against the performance assessment plan, with fortnightly review meetings. Although not a mandatory requirement under the enterprise agreement, the agency asked a colleague to be an independent assessor. The employee’s manager and the independent assessor separately assessed the employee’s performance. At the end of the process the manager found that the employee had failed to achieve an acceptable standard of performance and recommended that the employee’s employment be terminated. A delegate of the agency head later reduced the employee in classification in accordance with section 23(4) of the Public Service Act 1999.

The concerns about the employee’s performance were behavioural. The employee had good technical skills but was unable to lead projects, align his work to the strategic directions of the agency and engage collaboratively with stakeholders and colleagues to obtain their buy-in. The employee disputed the assessment of his performance and considered that the assessor and manager had reached different conclusions. The independent assessor made no recommendation but recorded his observations of the way the employee approached tasks and engaged with stakeholders. The Merit Protection Commissioner considered that there was considerable common ground between the manager and the independent assessor about the employee’s capacity to engage strategically and work collaboratively with stakeholders.

The employee also argued that he had demonstrated through over 20 years’ experience as an Executive Level 2 in other agencies that he was able to achieve outcomes consistent with the capabilities of an Executive Level 2. The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that an employee’s performance can change over time and that performance is assessed in the context of the particular role the employee is performing.

The Merit Protection Commissioner recommended that the decision to reduce the employee in classification for unsatisfactory performance be confirmed.

Ethics and integrityA values-based culture is important to maintaining a high-performing and trustworthy APS. Key components are the APS Values and Employment Principles, the Code of Conduct and the performance management system. Code of Conduct decisions demonstrate an agency’s commitment to integrity and accountability. Effective performance management systems assist managers and staff to define and achieve high-quality outcomes and the behaviours necessary to support them.

Key contributions by me and my office to the ethics and integrity framework during the year included:

• chairing the Ethics Advisory Group of agencies, which provided feedback on guidance material, including Handling misconduct: A human resources practitioner’s guide to the reporting and handling of suspected and determined breaches of the APS Code of Conduct and APS Values and Code of Conduct in practice: A guide for official conduct for APS employees and agency heads. The group discussed the trends arising from the review casework and also agency initiatives for embedding the APS Values

• chairing two meetings of the Ethics Contact Officer Network, which shares information and resources on ethics in the APS. The October 2014 meeting was addressed by speakers from the Australian National Audit Office and Austrade. They spoke about identifying and managing conflicts of interest. The Australian Public Service Commissioner launched the revised Handling misconduct publication at the June 2015 meeting

• participating in the People and Values Committee of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, including providing expert advice on the development of new procedures for handling misconduct. This was required because of the amalgamation of the department with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.

78

Box M3: Review case—whether bullying should have been investigated as misconductAn employee made serious allegations of bullying against his manager which were referred to the agency’s misconduct investigation unit. A preliminary investigation was conducted. After considering the investigation report, the decision-maker decided not to investigate the manager for suspected misconduct and recommended other strategies to address the behaviour.

The employee sought review by the agency in the first instance, which concluded that the process was consistent with agency guidelines. The review did not look at the substantive issues. For that reason, the employee sought review by the Merit Protection Commissioner.


erit Protection Com

missioner

I am also a member of, and provide secretariat services to, the Integrity Agencies Group, which met twice in 2014–15. The group enables information-sharing and collaboration between statutory office holders and agencies with responsibility for integrity issues. The meetings support a whole-of-APS approach to maintaining a strong and ethical public service. I also meet regularly with representatives from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Working with stakeholdersThe statutory independence of my office does not preclude me from working with stakeholders ranging from the Minister, to senior managers in agencies, other statutory office holders and individual employees.

I meet regularly with the Minister to discuss matters of interest in public administration and review. Where appropriate, I also provide advice on my functions to government and parliamentary inquiries. In March 2015, I made a submission to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into the workplace relations framework. The submission identified significant benefits from the review function, including:

• assisting agencies to identify ‘hot spots’ in their people management frameworks

• assisting agencies to recognise integrity and business risks in functional areas

• helping to ensure consistent standards of employment decision-making across the APS

• helping agencies to manage relationships in danger and assisting the workplace to return to productive equilibrium without the need for legal intervention.

79

The Merit Protection Commissioner does not always review complaints about an agency’s failure to investigate an employee for suspected misconduct. The review scheme in the Public Service Act 1999 provides that an APS employee is entitled to review of an action ‘that relates to his or her APS employment’. The person most affected by a decision to commence a misconduct investigation is the subject of the allegations. However, other employees’ rights and interests may also be affected. An employee may report suspected fraud because it is their duty to do so, not because the fraud has affected the employee personally. An employee may report bullying behaviour because it is their duty, but also because the bullying behaviour has affected them personally.

The Merit Protection Commissioner considers that an employee who is alleging they were bullied has sufficient personal interest to establish an entitlement to a review of the decision on how the allegations were dealt with.

The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that the decision-maker gave no reasons for their decision not to investigate. This was concerning given the evidence and seriousness of the allegations. The Merit Protection Commissioner recommended the decision be set aside and the preliminary investigation report referred to a new decision-maker. The agency accepted the recommendation.

In 2014–15, my office held regular discussions with agency representatives to explain review decisions and provide feedback. These included the largest agencies—the Australian Taxation Office and the departments of Defence and Human Services—and took the form of briefings of senior executives and people management practitioners. The feedback from reviews supports continuous improvement in agency practice and decision-making.

Presentations given by my office to stakeholders in 2014–15 included:

• addresses to employees on the role of the Merit Protection Commissioner, fostering respectful relationships, building the capacity for change, encouraging workforce agility in an environment of constraint, and leading with integrity

• a session on employee screening to the Security in Government Conference

• an address to the Commonwealth Regional Heads Northern Territory Annual Forum on building capacity to change

• a joint presentation with the Commonwealth Ombudsman on how good leadership delivers better governance at the Contemporary Challenges and Solutions in Governance Conference

• sessions on ‘Leading with integrity—APS values and ethics’ to the Senior Executive Service orientation program.

I also work with smaller forums of employees, managers and human resource practitioners. These forums share the lessons learned from reviews, the role of leadership and the importance of ethical behaviour.

As in previous years, I participated in selection panels and was involved in selections for the Department of the Treasury and the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal. I continued to be a committee member for the ACT Public Service Awards for Excellence.

I have worked collaboratively with other statutory office holders, and in 2014–15 I continued my support for the work of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in promoting the Male Champions of Change program. In this capacity, I participated in the NSW Public Service Commission’s women in senior positions research survey, the G20 international dialogue of women in leadership and the Monash University study of fathers, work and care.

80

Box M4 Feedback from senior management‘I have always appreciated the “trusted adviser” partnership I have had with the Merit Protection Commissioner and her staff. In particular, I have valued the advice she has offered in terms of areas where my agency can improve in the management of complex matters, and to help address trends in our performance over time. She has been able to do this without compromising on her independence. The initiative the Commissioner has taken to address Service-wide issues is commendable.’


erit Protection Com

missioner

Overseas involvementIn 2014–15 I had the opportunity to meet with officials from the Pacific Institute and Centre for Public Administration when they visited Canberra.

At the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I spoke on integrity and merit and the role of the Merit Protection Commissioner to Indonesian post-graduate students currently studying in Australia.

I also made a videoconference presentation to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development titled ‘How good leadership delivers better governance’.

This work is valuable as it provides opportunities to share different experiences and ideas and reinforces Australia’s role in the increasingly interconnected global community.

81

Box M5: Review case—denial of a salary incrementAn employee sought review of an agency decision not to pay her an increment because she did not have a performance agreement for the relevant performance cycle.

The employee was one of a group of trainees undergoing competency-based training. After the successful completion of training, the trainees were placed in ongoing positions in regional offices on probation. Under the terms of the agency enterprise agreement, it was at this stage that employees were meant to establish performance agreements with their managers.

The performance management cycle ended in July after the employee had successfully completed her competency-based training and was placed in an ongoing position. The employee became aware a year later that other employees in her intake of trainees were being paid a higher salary than she was. Upon making inquiries she was advised that she was not eligible for an increment because she did not have a performance agreement.

The employee did not have an agreement because she had been advised by her manager that she did not need to establish one until the next performance cycle. She successfully completed her training in November and the next performance cycle commenced in the following July. During the intervening seven months the employee had four different supervisors and none of them alerted her to the need to have a performance agreement. The employee received all staff email reminders about the need to establish a performance agreement but did not believe they applied to her because of the advice she had received from her manager.

The Merit Protection Commissioner noted evidence of other omissions with respect to this employee. The region in which the employee was working monitored staff compliance with the performance management arrangements via a central spreadsheet. For some reason the employee’s name was not on this spreadsheet.

OUTCOMES FOR THE YEARThis year there was an almost 30% reduction in applications for review over the previous year. The reduction was proportional across all categories of review.

The reduction experienced in 2014–15 was consistent with the pattern of normal variability in annual application rates experienced over the last eight years. Figure M1 shows the trends in review casework over the last eight years. The reduction in applications for review has resulted in a 36.5% decrease in the number of cases carried over into 2015–16.

Figure M1: Trends in review caseload, 2007–08 to 2014–15

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–11

2011–12

2012–13

2013–14

2014–15

0

50

100

150

200

250

Received during yearNot acceptedWithdrawnReviewed

Num

ber o

f app

licati

ons

82

The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that other provisions in the enterprise agreement relating to salary advancement were complied with in the employee’s case. In particular, there was evidence that the employee’s performance for the performance cycle was at the fully effective level as evidenced by her periodic probation assessments.

The Merit Protection Commissioner took into account the APS Employment Principles, including the principle that the APS ‘makes fair employment decisions’. The Merit Protection Commissioner considered that extenuating circumstances existed in this case that warranted the payment of an increment, including incorrect advice from the employee’s manager and the employee’s inexperience with the APS employment framework.

The Merit Protection Commissioner recommended that the decision to deny the increment be set aside. The agency accepted the recommendation.


erit Protection Com

missioner

There was also a significant fall in the number of promotion reviews, although this was reversed in the last two months of the financial year.

There was also a decrease in demand for the Merit Protection Commissioner’s fee-for-service functions.

The review function again exceeded its performance target for timeliness with 82% of cases reviewed within 14 weeks (the target is 70%). All promotion reviews were completed within target timeframes.

Review of action performanceMy office conducts a ‘primary’ review of matters that have not been reviewed first by the agency. The majority of these are reviews of decisions that an APS employee has breached the Code of Conduct, and/or sanctions imposed as a result of a breach of the Code. For most other employment matters the agency head conducts the primary review. Where a matter has been reviewed first by the agency head, my office conducts a ‘secondary’ review if the employee is not satisfied with the review conducted by the agency head or has been told that the matter is not reviewable.

Table M1 in the appendix provides information on the number of applications for review (other than promotion review) received, and reviews completed, in 2014–15. The table compares results for 2014–15 with 2013–14.

In 2014–15, the Merit Protection Commissioner received 161 applications for review and carried over 52 cases from the previous year. This represents a 29.5% decrease in applications, and a 23.6% decrease in the total number of cases handled, compared with 2013–14. Applications for reviews of Code of Conduct decisions decreased by 25% and for secondary reviews by 29%. Other categories of review decreased by 44% (10 compared to 18 in 2013–14).

While the number of applications was down, the number of cases reviewed was consistent with previous years. A total of 180 cases were finalised in 2014–15, of which 89 were reviewed on the merits. The remainder of the finalised cases were ruled ineligible for review as a result of a decision made under the Regulations. Of the 52 cases carried over from 2013–14, all were finalised in 2014–15.

Table M2 in the appendix provides information on the timeliness with which the review function was performed. The table compare results for 2014–15 with 2013–14.

In 2014–15, the review function exceeded its performance target of completing 70% of reviews within 14 weeks. As indicated above, the percentage of cases completed within target times was 82%. While this is lower than the 95% achieved in 2013–14, it is still a significant achievement.

The average time taken to finalise a case was 15 weeks compared to just less than 13 weeks in 2013–14. The average time taken to finalise Code of Conduct cases increased by 2.2 weeks (17%) and by 1.7 weeks (13%) for secondary reviews. Five reviews (two Code and three secondary reviews) which took

83

over 28 weeks to finalise have influenced average case completion times—if these five cases are excluded the average time was just over 13 weeks.

At 1 July 2015, 85% of the 33 cases carried over to 2015–16 were still within the target date for completion.

A case is usually put ‘on hold’ when the review is not able to progress because my office is waiting for information or because of the unavailability of parties to the review. Most of these events are outside the control of my office, an exception being the scheduled office closure over Christmas. Time ‘on hold’ is not counted towards timeliness statistics.

In 2014–15, on average 35% of the time between the date an application was received and the date the review was finalised was spent ‘on hold’—i.e. the review was not being actively worked on. The average time ‘on hold’ for a finalised review was eight weeks. These delays may contribute to a ‘lack of timeliness’ perception in the applicant feedback questionnaire. Of the respondents to the survey, 86% were dissatisfied with the time taken to review their matter.

The majority of time ‘on hold’ arises from the agency’s actions or inactions. This is an area where small improvements by agencies could contribute to faster resolution of cases, particularly with regard to secondary reviews. Work done by the review team to improve checklists for human resource practitioners should assist agencies to provide relevant information in a timely way. Figure M2 shows the reasons for delays.

During the year, 19 reviews lapsed or were withdrawn, compared to 45 in 2014–15. The main reason for reviews lapsing is the applicant leaving APS employment. The average amount of time a withdrawn or lapsed review was under consideration was 5.6 weeks in 2014–15.

Figure M2: Reasons for delays in reviews, 2014–15

Agency

delay in

provid

ing files

Agency

delay in

provid

ing pap

ers

Applicant d

elay i

n providing p

apers

Applicant u

navaila

ble

Office sta

ff unavaila

ble

Office dela

y (inclu

ding Chris

tmas

closu

re)0

10

20

30

40

Perc

enta

ge o

f all

dela

ys

84


erit Protection Com

missioner

Applications not accepted for reviewIn 2014–15, 34% of applications received, or carried over from 2013–14, were not accepted for review, compared to 35% in 2013–14. These cases took an average of nearly nine weeks of staff time before being closed.

The main reasons for not accepting 13 reviews of Code of Conduct decisions in 2014–15 were that they were out of time or review was not justified as the applicant provided insufficient reasons to justify a review. For non-Code reviews, the main reasons for not accepting an application were:

• the applicant needed to first lodge an application with their agency

• the application was out of time

review was not justified in all the circumstances such as that the agency had already addressed the employee’s concerns and nothing could be achieved by reviewing the matter further

the application was about a matter that fell into one of the categories of non-reviewable actions set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations or the employee had resigned

the grounds in the Regulations for the Merit Protection Commissioner to conduct a primary review were not met.

85

Box M6: Code of Conduct case—procedural fairness flawsAn Executive Level 2 employee was found to have failed to treat members of her team with respect and courtesy and therefore to have breached the Code of Conduct. The agency engaged a consultant to conduct the investigation and to be the decision maker.

The Merit Protection Commissioner found on review that the decision-making process had substantial procedural defects. These related to a failure to provide the employee with a fair hearing and the failure to make a decision based on evidence that logically proved the case against the employee.

The allegations related to behaviours alleged to have occurred over a two-year period and included bullying and harassment. The allegations were first presented to the employee in detail in an interview with the consultant. The employee then received a copy of the consultant’s draft report which included his preliminary view that she had breached the Code of Conduct. The report was 61 pages in length and contained 22 attachments including records of interviews with witnesses. The employee was given eight days to respond to this material.

The Merit Protection Commissioner was concerned that the way the allegations were presented to the employee unfairly affected her capacity to respond, in breach of the hearing rule of procedural fairness. There were two significant concerns.

Number of reviews by agencyTable M3 in the appendix details the number of reviews by agency.

The agencies with the highest number of applications for review were the larger employers, namely the Department of Human Services (DHS), the Department of Defence and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). These accounted for almost two-thirds of the completed reviews (64%), a similar result to the previous three years. However, while the number of DHS cases increased by 37.5%, the number of review applications made by Defence employees fell by 50% compared to 2013–14. In particular, Code of Conduct reviews from the Department of Defence showed a significant decrease. At the same time, the number of applications for review from ATO employees increased by 71%; all of this growth was in Code of Conduct reviews.

86

The Merit Protection Commissioner was concerned that the way the allegations were presented to the employee unfairly affected her capacity to respond, in breach of the hearing rule of procedural fairness. There were two significant concerns.

The first concern was the failure to present a coherent set of allegations containing sufficient details of the dates, times and places that alleged incidents had occurred. The allegations against the employee consisted of a detailed and unstructured list of alleged facts, assertions and the opinions of complainants and witnesses. The consultant made little attempt to group the allegations in a way that could be meaningfully responded to and failed to establish basic factual issues such as the dates and times that incidents allegedly occurred. As a consequence, when responding to the allegations, the employee had to try to piece together what it was that she was alleged to have done.

The second issue was the piecemeal and confusing way in which the employee was provided with witness statements and evidence.

The Merit Protection Commissioner also found that the investigation and decision-making process was inconsistent with the evidence rule of procedural fairness. The consultant asked broad questions when interviewing witnesses that elicited their opinions but failed to establish factual details. In recording his decision, the consultant made no reference to evidence the employee had provided in her defence and it appeared to have been disregarded. On this basis, the Merit Protection Commissioner considered the report to be one-sided.

For these reasons, the Merit Protection Commissioner recommended the decision be set aside as a result of a substantial procedural defect. The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that many of the allegations concerned the employee’s ‘management style’ and were not allegations of misconduct. The agency accepted the recommendation and advised that it would address the issues about the employee’s management style through less formal management interventions.


erit Protection Com

missioner

Review outcomesThe Merit Protection Commissioner may recommend to an agency head that a decision be set aside, varied or upheld.

In 2014–15, 82% of the finalised reviews (89) resulted in a recommendation to the agency head to uphold the original agency decision, compared to 80% in 2013–14. However, a higher proportion of secondary reviews were upheld (90%) compared with reviews of Code of Conduct decisions (74.5% upheld). This is because the primary review conducted by agencies assists to correct errors in decisions.

Sixty-eight percent of breach decisions reviewed were upheld, compared to 81% of sanction decisions reviewed.1

If I am not satisfied with an agency’s response to my delegate’s recommendations, section 33(6) of the PS Act provides that, after consulting the Public Service Minister, I may provide a report to the relevant agency minister and to either or both of the Prime Minister or the Presiding Officers. Agencies accepted review outcomes, or I was satisfied with the agency response, in all but three cases in 2014–15. In these three cases, agencies had not responded by the end of the reporting period to recommendations made for cases finalised in June 2015.

Recommendations to vary or set aside an agency decision are not made lightly and indicate significant problems with the quality and/or fairness of the original decision. My expectation is that agencies will accept the recommendations of my delegates and that there would need to be exceptional circumstances to explain why a recommendation based on an independent and expert assessment is not accepted.

1 Under regulation 5.24(2) an APS employee may seek review of an agency determination of a breach of the Code of Conduct, a sanction imposed as a result of a determination of a breach of the Code or a review of both the determination of a breach and the sanction imposed.

87

Subject matterThe types of employment matters for which review is sought are shown in Figure M3.

In 2014–15, the number of Code of Conduct cases as a proportion of the number of cases reviewed increased to 46% from 41% in the last two years.2 Conditions of employment accounted for 43% of all non-Code review cases. Other significant changes were a decrease of 7% in the number of reviews concerning performance management outcomes and an absence of any cases in which bullying or harassment was the main subject of the review (in contrast with 7% of cases in 2013–14).

Table M4 in the appendix shows the nature of complaints within the broad categories for the non-Code review cases.3 The main complaint areas were allowances/other payments, performance appraisal,

2 There were 12 instances in which a review applicant made a separate application for a review of a Code breach and sanction. These are counted as one application.3 The percentages for conditions of employment and performance management in Figure M3 and Table M4 are not directly comparable as each had a case with two or more secondary subjects.

88

Box M7: Code of Conduct cases—employees as clientsThe Merit Protection Commissioner has reviewed cases where employees were found to have breached section 13(3) of the Code of Conduct for their private behaviour as clients of the agency. The misconduct involved behaving in a rude and aggressive way to client service colleagues, either on the telephone or in person.

APS employees are required by section 13(3) of the Code of Conduct to treat everyone with respect and courtesy when acting ‘in connection with employment’. The term ‘in connection with employment’ does not require an employee to be undertaking their duties. Nor does it require the employee to be in the workplace.

Agencies have established a connection between employees’ behaviour as clients and their employment as public servants through policies on employees as clients. The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that employees’ behaviour as clients can have an impact on the workplace. For this reason, an agency has a legitimate interest in the behaviour of employees in their private capacity as clients of the agency.

Client aggression is a workplace health and safety issue for agencies that provide direct services to the public through call centres and shopfronts. Rude and aggressive behaviour to client service staff contributes to this problem. Aggressive behaviour by an APS employee as a client towards client service staff is behaviour in connection with employment for the purposes of the Code of Conduct.

Financial sanctions, including reductions in salary, have been imposed on employees who were found to have breached the Code of Conduct for these reasons. In the cases under review, the Merit Protection Commissioner recommended that the sanctions be confirmed including on the basis that the misconduct was not trivial. In one case, the Merit Protection Commissioner noted that a more severe sanction may have been appropriate but for mitigating circumstances.


erit Protection Com

missioner

attendance/leave, other entitlements, hours of work and misconduct procedures, which made up over half of cases reviewed.

Figure M3: Cases reviewed by subject, 2014–15

Code of Conduct (breach only)4%

Code of Conduct (breach and

sanction)24%

Code of Conduct (sanction only)

16%Duties

6%Miscellaneous

6%

Performance management

11%

Separation1%

Workplace envi-ronment and arrangements

6%

Conditions of employment

24%

Breaches of the code of conductAPS employees who are found to have breached the Code of Conduct can apply to the Merit Protection Commissioner for a review of the determination that there has been a breach, and any sanction imposed for that breach. There were 59 applications for review of a decision that an employee had breached the Code of Conduct and/or the sanction, and 28 cases on hand at the start of the year. Forty-seven cases were reviewed during the year involving 35 employees.

There were 19 requests for review of both the breach and the sanction. Three employees sought review of the breach decision only. In one case an application for review of the sanction was out of time; in the other two cases the agencies chose to await the outcome of the review before imposing a sanction.

Thirteen employees sought review of the sanction only, four because they failed to make applications for review of a breach determination in time.

89

Based on data in Commission’s annual State of the Service Report over the last two years, it is estimated that between 7% and 10% of agency Code of Conduct decisions are reviewed.4 Review by my office provides an assurance check on this important area of employment decision-making.

Allegations of discourteous and disrespectful behaviour continued to be the most significant factor in the Code of Conduct review caseload in 2014–15. There were 20 cases (57% of finalised cases) where this was a significant reason for the agency investigating the employee for suspected misconduct.

There were six cases where Executive Level 2 staff were found to have engaged in misconduct because of their behaviour towards team members and colleagues. The review of one of these cases was not finalised because the employee accepted a redundancy. In two cases the behaviours were sufficiently serious for the employee to be reduced in classification. In both these cases, the findings and sanction were upheld on review. However, there were two cases where the behaviours did not warrant a misconduct investigation. In these cases, my delegates recommended that the decisions be set aside, one because of significant procedural defects and one because of an absence of evidence of misconduct. In both these cases, it would have been preferable to manage concerns about the employees’ behaviour through less formal interventions or through the performance management framework.

There were two cases of junior employees failing to show respect and courtesy to managers trying to manage their behaviour and performance. In both these cases, the findings of breach and the sanction decision were upheld.

There were two cases of employees, who were also clients of their agency, failing to show courtesy and respect to client service staff. These cases are discussed in Box M7. Two other cases involved sending inappropriate emails or messages and two more involved inappropriate use of social media.

Four cases of unauthorised access to client records in agency databases were reviewed, including access to the records of the review applicant’s family members. Three of these decisions were upheld, but my delegate recommended that the finding of breach be set aside in one case where the evidence indicated that the employee had not browsed a client record.

Three cases involving a conflict of interest were reviewed—one involving outside employment, one regarding not disclosing a personal relationship in the workplace and one where an employee was also a client of the agency.

There were five cases involving failure to follow a direction, including two employees who received directions about their attendance and one employee directed to attend a medical examination. False

4 Table A6.2 of the State of the Service Report 2013–14 reported 480 employees were found to have breached the Code of Conduct in 2013–14. In 2013–14, the Merit Protection Commissioner reviewed 35 applications from employees relating to breaches of the Code of Conduct. While the two sets of data do not include the same employees, a comparison provides an estimate that over 7% of agency decisions were reviewed. It was nearly 9% in 2012–13.

90


erit Protection Com

missioner

recording of attendance also featured in one case, as did inadvertent release of personal information that breached privacy.

Promotion review performanceFigure M4 shows how the promotion review casework has fluctuated over the last eight years. Despite an increase in 2009–10 and 2010–11, the overall trend has been a decline in applications and the number of promotion review committees (PRCs) convened.

91

Box M8: Sanction decision—the limit on finesAn employee was found to have breached the Code of Conduct for speaking inappropriately to and about his supervisor, including swearing. The employee was found to have breached four elements of the Code of Conduct for this behaviour. The agency imposed a fine of 1% for each element of the Code that was breached.

The Merit Protection Commissioner recommended that the sanction decision be set aside as it did not comply with the limitations on the power of a delegate to impose sanctions, as set out in regulation 2.3 of the Public Service Regulations.

Regulation 2.3 provides that, where a sanction of a fine is imposed under section 15(1)(e) of the Public Service Act 1999, the deduction must be no more than 2% of the employee’s annual salary. In this case, the fine totalled 4%.

A finding of breach consists of two things—the facts relating to the behaviour of the employee (what the employee did during particular incidents of inappropriate behaviour) and the elements of the Code that are breached by behaving in this way. The clear intent of the framework is that a sanction is directed at the particular behaviour found to have breached the Code. Accordingly, the effect of regulation 2.3 is that an employee cannot be fined more than 2% for a particular behaviour found to be in breach of the Code, even where that behaviour involves a breach of several elements of the Code.

Had the employee been found to have breached the Code of Conduct for separate behaviours—for example attendance fraud and discourtesy—or for separate incidents of behaviour, separate fines for each breach would have complied with regulation 2.3.

Figure M4: Trends in promotion review caseload, 2007–08 to 2014–15

2007–08

2008–09

2009–10

2010–11

2011–12

2012–13

2013–14

2014–15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Received during yearNot reviewedReviewed

Num

ber o

f app

licati

ons

In 2014–15, the promotion review function continued to be affected by the interim recruitment arrangements introduced in November 2013. These arrangements controlled recruitment and focused on the redeployment of existing staff.

The interim recruitment arrangements, together with agency actions to reduce or stabilise their workforce, significantly affected the number of applications for promotion review over the year. There were only four PRC constituted and finalised in July–December and 10 finalised in January–June.

In the last six weeks of the year 30 applications were received. Twenty-nine of these resulted from a large recruitment campaign by DHS. At the end of June there were 23 promotion reviews underway. Table M5 in the appendix sets out the promotion review caseload for 2014–15.

Work undertaken over previous years to streamline processes has ensured that promotion reviews are conducted quickly so as not to significantly delay agency staff selection processes. Over the last four years the promotion review function has exceeded its performance targets for timeliness. All promotion reviews in 2014–15 were conducted within the target timeframe of either eight or 12 weeks. All reviews carried forward into 2015–16 were within the target timeframe for completion.

The number of promotion review cases received (47) was similar to the last two years (43 and 44, respectively). However, the number of cases reviewed was significantly lower as the bulk of cases were received late in the year and are still to be finalised.

Applications for review were received in relation to promotion decisions made in eight agencies. The two agencies with three or more applications for review are identified in Table M6 in the appendix. Six other agencies with one application for review are not separately identified.

92


erit Protection Com

missioner

PRCs varied only one of the 41 promotions reviewed—a rate of 2.4%. The rate of variation in recent years has ranged between 0.6% and 5%. While the number of decisions varied is low, promotion reviews provide an assurance mechanism that merit is being applied to promotion decisions, as required by the APS Employment Principles. This is a cost-effective way to audit recruitment activity and protect against patronage and favouritism. Merit-based recruitment is essential to good quality outcomes, productivity and employee engagement. The agency representative on the committee also gains feedback on the quality of agency selection processes.

In 2014–15, the number of applications for promotion review considered by individual PRCs was lower than in previous years, reflecting smaller selection processes. The maximum number of promotions considered by a PRC in 2014–15 was nine, compared with 88 in 2013–14.

Independent Selection Advisory Committees and fee-for-service activityThe major fee-for-service activity is the establishment of Independent Selection Advisory Committees (ISACs). Agencies may choose to use ISACs for a variety of reasons. The most common ones are to provide assurance about the fairness and integrity of their recruitment decisions and to avoid delays in placing staff resulting from review of promotion decisions.

Agency demand for ISACs decreased in 2014–15. This reflected the downward pressure on agency budgets and the overall downturn in APS recruitment.

Table M7 in the appendix provides information on ISAC activity for 2014–15 compared with 2013–14. The two requests on hand were received at the end of the year.

Other fee-for-service workOther fee-for-service conducted by my office can include staff selection services and investigating grievances for non-APS agencies. In recent years, this work has consisted of providing members of selection panels for the Australian Federal Police. In 2014–15 these services were provided through the memorandum of understanding with the Australian Public Service Commissioner.

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.

In 2014–15, one investigation was undertaken and the agency decision upheld. Two requests were not accepted as the matters related to issues that arose during the review applicant’s employment.

93

Inquiries into breaches of the Code of ConductSection 50A of the PS Act provides that the Merit Protection Commissioner may inquire into and determine whether an APS employee or former employee has breached the Code of Conduct. The request is made by the agency head and must have the written agreement of the APS employee or former employee. This work is done on a fee-for-service basis. No requests were received during the reporting period.

OUTCOME FOR THE COMING YEARThere have been three distinct phases to the development of the Merit Protection Commissioner role during my tenure. These are: centralising the review function and improving business processes, including reducing red tape; establishing the function in Sydney following the relocation in 2010; and now developing as a centre of expertise. It is this latter work that will provide the challenges for my office in 2015–16.

On 1 July 2015 a revised structure of the Commission will come into operation reflecting changes to the Commission’s business priorities. Although the statutory functions of the Merit Protection Commissioner will not change, there will be changes to the way my office works.

Under a revised memorandum of understanding with the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Commission staff undertaking Merit Protection Commissioner functions will form an independent work unit under my direct management. This will be the first time since I took office that staff have worked directly to me without reporting to a Commission manager. I will also have a dedicated budget to manage. The implementation and embedding of the new structure will require my focus in the first quarter of 2015–16.

While the changes will reinforce the independent role of the Merit Protection Commissioner, it will require focus to ensure links with relevant policy areas within the Commission are maintained. It is important that the insights from review inform policy development on the APS employment framework.

If the rate of applications for review does not increase, I will have an opportunity to focus on capability development and to develop my fee-for-service functions. My focus for 2015–16 is to develop as a centre of APS merit review expertise, including through the fee-for-service functions, and to continue to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of my office. This includes the implementation of a targeted communication strategy.

The changes to the PS Act and the Regulations in July 2013 enable the Merit Protection Commissioner to inquire into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct on a fee-for-service basis. The greater focus on fee-for-service work will be in addition to the delivery of efficient and timely review services.

94


erit Protection Com

missioner

Over the next year I will be working towards establishing a panel of skilled persons to investigate Code breaches. I expect such a service to prove beneficial to the APS, assisting smaller agencies with insufficient casework experience to develop expertise. In addition, it will also assist agencies with complex and contested cases that would benefit from an independent and credible investigation. The opportunities for agencies to work with the Merit Protection Commissioner will enable the transfer of skills and expertise and promote better decision-making.

Reinforcing impartial, evidence-based decisions is also important in recruitment activities. There are significant benefits to agencies in using ISACs for staff selection in the current recruitment environment. During 2015–16, I will be marketing ISACs to agencies as a cost-effective way of selecting staff. The initial costs of establishing an ISAC are outweighed by savings in time and productivity through eliminating the need for promotion review and greater confidence in the fairness and integrity of the outcome.

I will continue to conduct trend analysis from the review casework supported by further improvements to reporting functionality. This analysis enables agencies to identify workplaces that are not functioning optimally, tensions between their people management framework and workplace practice, and cultural issues. Through this assurance role, the review function provides a strategic value-add to agency people management practice.

Finalising and implementing a communications strategy is essential to informing the APS community about the productive resolution of workplace disputes and improved employment decision-making. The restructure of the Commission’s website to better support key client groups will assist my work—in particular, by providing a repository of advice for managers and human resource practitioners. I will be exploring more interactive and innovative ways of accessing online services and presenting information targeted at the different audiences.

I must be responsive also to the needs of the government. To this end, I will be ensuring that my functions are as efficient and cost-effective as possible and add value to the APS.

95

Box M9: Review case—application for extension of a transfer on compassionate groundsAn employee working in a small regional office on a term transfer sought an extension of his term transfer for compassionate reasons. These reasons were that his aged mother had a range of health issues and needed his support and that other members of his immediate family also had health and educational needs that would be disrupted by moving.

The employee had worked in the regional centre for nine out of the past 11 years, a period much longer than was contemplated by the maximum three years in the agency term transfer policy. The employee was seeking a further extension of his term transfer arguing that his circumstances were exceptional. The agency was intending to move the employee to a position in the capital city in the same state, a distance of 1,700 kilometres from his term transfer location.

GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITYContribution to outcomes 2014−15The Commission is included in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Portfolio Budget Statements. The Australian Public Service Commissioner, as head of the Commission, is responsible for the Commission’s financial and human resources and for assessing the level of the Commission’s achievement against its outcome.

The performance indicators and targets relevant to the Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions are provided under programme 1.1 in Part 2 of the Australian Public Service Commissioner’s annual report.

Role 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.

96

The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that the agency policy on term transfers was quite clear—that the agency’s business requirements drove the decision to offer term transfers. These business requirements included externally driven demand for the agency’s services, workforce planning requirements at a regional level and the requirement to continually refresh the workforce in small regional operations to avoid employees becoming entrenched and increasing the opportunities for fraud and corruption.

The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that the medical evidence suggested that the employee’s mother had a range of health problems common to old age and that she lived independently in her own home. The employee was her only son, but she had other relatives and friends and access to both health and community services in a large regional centre. The Merit Protection Commissioner also noted that while the needs of elderly parents invite sympathy, the circumstances of the employee and his mother were not exceptional as many Australian families have elderly parents living in different cities from their adult children.

The Merit Protection Commissioner noted that the needs of other members of the employee’s immediate family had arisen because the family were now permanently settled in the regional centre as a result of the employee continually extending his term transfer.

The Merit Protection Commissioner concluded that the employee’s circumstances were not exceptional and it was fair and reasonable that the agency gave greater weight to its business interests than the employee’s personal circumstances in declining a further extension of the term transfer.


erit Protection Com

missioner

During 2014–15, Ms Karin Fisher acted as Merit Protection Commissioner between 8 August 2014 and 17 October 2014 and Ms Amanda MacDonald from 19 June 2015.

The Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions are set out in sections 50 and 50A of the PS Act and Parts 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the Regulations.

Organisational structureThe office of the Merit Protection Commissioner is located within the Commission. The staff who support the Merit Protection Commissioner are employed in the Commission and are made available by the Australian Public Service Commissioner in accordance with section 49 of the PS Act.

The Commission’s Ethics Group in Canberra provided coordination and policy support for the Merit Protection Commissioner while the Merit Protection Commissioner’s review and fee-for-service activities were performed in the Commission’s Sydney office by employees in the Ethics and Employment Policy and Participation groups. The principal adviser was based in the Ethics Group in Canberra and was the full-time delegate of the Merit Protection Commissioner for review decision-making. During 2014–15, the Merit Protection Commissioner was supported by a full-time delegate and two part-time delegates.

Interaction of Merit Protection Commissioner and Public Service Commissioner rolesThe respective responsibilities of the Merit Protection Commissioner and the Australian Public Service Commissioner are established in the PS Act. The two roles are complementary, particularly in relation to maintaining confidence in public administration.

The Australian Public Service Commissioner is responsible for upholding high standards of integrity and conduct in the APS. The Merit Protection Commissioner assists by ensuring consistent standards of decision-making and people management practices across the APS and also provides an important assurance role for the APS. This assurance is provided by reviewing individual actions or decisions for consistency with the APS Values and other administrative law requirements, and through reviews of determinations of breaches of the Code of Conduct and/or sanctions.

This report and further information about the Merit Protection Commissioner’s role and services are available on the Commission’s website at www.apsc.gov.au/merit.

Corporate governanceThe Australian Public Service Commissioner, as the head of the Commission, is responsible for its corporate governance. In 2014–15 the Merit Protection Commissioner was a member of the Commission’s Executive—a senior management group chaired by the Australian Public Service Commissioner.

97

The Merit Protection Commissioner had a wider governance role within the Commission, including being the independent chair of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and overseeing the work of the Ethics and Corporate groups. As chair of the Commission’s Audit and Risk Management, the Merit Protection Commissioner assisted the Australian National Audit Office to revise its better practice guide on the operation of audit committees of public sector agencies operating under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Ms Godwin’s significant contribution to the guide released in March 2015 was acknowledged by the Auditor-General.

The Merit Protection Commissioner and the Australian Public Service Commissioner have a memorandum of understanding for the provision of staff to assist the Merit Protection Commissioner. The memorandum of understanding was renegotiated in June 2015.

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. Information about the Merit Protection Commissioner is included in the Commission’s plan, which is available at www.apsc.gov.au/about-the-apsc/Freedom -of-information/ips.

98


erit Protection Com

missioner

APPENDIX: REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE BY FUNCTIONThe information on activity and performance provided in Tables M1 to M7 refers to the Merit Protection Commissioner’s statutory functions.

Review of employment actionsSection 33 of the PS Act and Part 5 of the Regulations provide a scheme for the review of a broad range of employment actions affecting individual APS employees and, in limited circumstances, former employees. Certain employment decisions, most notably termination of employment, are excluded from the review framework by the legislation.

The three main categories of reviews conducted by the Merit Protection Commissioner are:

• reviews of breaches of the APS Code of Conduct

• reviews of other employment actions

• reviews of promotion decisions.

Table M1 provides information on the number of applications for review (other than promotion review) received and reviews completed in 2014–15. Table M2 provides information on the timeliness with which this function was performed. Both tables compare results for 2014–15 with 2013–14.

Table M1: Review of employment actions workload for 2014–15 by type of review, compared with total reviews in 2013–14

Cases

Primary reviews—Code of Conduct

Primary reviews—

otherSecondary

reviews

Complaints by former

employees Total

2014–152014-1

5 2013-14

On hand at start of year 28 1 22 1 52 52

Received during the period 59 6 94 2 161 227

Total cases 87 7 116 3 213 279

Reviewed 47 1 40 1 89 85

Not accepted 14 6 50 2 72 97

Lapsed or withdrawn 12 0 7 0 19 45

Total finalised during period 73 7 97 3 180 227

99

Cases

Primary reviews—Code of Conduct

Primary reviews—

otherSecondary

reviews

Complaints by former

employees Total

2014–152014-1

5 2013-14

On hand at end of year 14 0 19 0 33 52

The tables refer to primary and secondary reviews. Primary reviews are reviews conducted by the Merit Protection Commissioner without first being reviewed by the agency head. The majority of primary reviews involve reviews of decisions that an APS employee has breached the Code of Conduct, and/or sanctions imposed as a result of a breach of the Code.

Secondary reviews are conducted by the Merit Protection Commissioner in circumstances where:

• the employee is not satisfied with the review conducted by the agency head

• the agency head has told the employee that the matter is not reviewable, but the Merit Protection Commissioner considers that it is.

The target timeframe for completion of primary and secondary reviews is 14 weeks from receipt of application.

Table M2: Timeliness in handling reviews, 2014–15 compared to 2013–14

Review type

2013–14 2014–15

Average time to complete reviews

(weeks)

Completed within target time frames

(%)

Average time to complete reviews

(weeks)

Completed within target time frames

(%)

Primary reviews—Code of Conduct 12.94 94.3 15.16 82.98

Primary reviews—other 5.71 100 12.71 100

Secondary reviews 13.29 95.7 14.97 80

Regulation 7.2 NA NA 11.57 100

Total 12.88 95.3 15.01 82.02

100


erit Protection Com

missioner

Table M3 details the number of reviews by agency.

Table M3: Reviews completed, by agency, 2014–15

Agency Primary reviews—Code of Conduct

Primary reviews—other

Secondary reviews

Complaints by former employees

Total

Department of Human Services 16 0 17 0 33

Australian Taxation Office 9 0 2 1 12

Department of Defence 1 0 11 0 12

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service 6 0 2 0 8

Bureau of Meteorology 0 0 3 0 3

Department of Agriculture 3 0 0 0 3

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 3 0 0 0 3

Three other agencies (two reviews each) 4 1 1 0 6

Nine other agencies (one review each) 5 0 4 0 9

Total 47 1 40 1 89

Table M4 shows the main subject matter and the secondary subject matters for all the cases reviewed in 2014–15.

The data in Table M4 is not directly comparable with the data in Tables M1–M3. While there were 35 applications reviewed, seven employees lodged separate applications for review of the breach determination and the sanction decision involving the same subject matter. Table M4 records the Code of Conduct reviews of the 28 employees. For the other reviews, there may be more than one secondary subject matter so the number of subjects in Table M4 is greater than the number of reviews.

Table M4: Subject matter of reviews completed, 2014–15Subject matter Secondary subject matter Number

Code of Conduct Code of Conduct breach only 3

Code of Conduct breach and sanction 19

Code of Conduct sanction only 13

Subtotal 35

101

Subject matter Secondary subject matter Number

Conditions of employment Allowances/other payments 6

Attendance/leave 4

Hours of work 3

Other entitlements 4

Salary 2

Subtotal 19

Duties Fitness for duty assessments 1

Relocation 2

Reclassification 2

Subtotal 5

Miscellaneous Misconduct procedures 3

Access to information 2

Subtotal 5

Performance management Salary advancement 2

Performance appraisal 5

Performance pay 1

Underperformance 1

Subtotal 9

Separation Separation entitlements 1

Workplace environment and arrangements Workplace direction 2

Management practices 2

Outside employment 1

Subtotal 5

Total 79

102


erit Protection Com

missioner

Note: An APS employee may make an application for review that involves more than one matter—for example, a review of a performance management application may involve performance appraisal and unsatisfactory performance.

Review of promotion decisionsThe Merit Protection Commissioner establishes PRCs to conduct reviews of promotion decisions for jobs at the APS 1 to 6 classifications. A PRC comprises a convenor, a nominee from the relevant agency and a third member nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner.

The only ground for a review of a promotion decision is merit. The PRC has the power to confirm the promotion decision made by the agency or substitute a different decision.

Details of the promotion review caseload for 2014–15 are in Table M5. In this table, ‘case’ means an application by one or more APS employees for review of a promotion decision or decisions arising from a discrete agency selection exercise.

Table M5: Promotion review caseload, 2014–15 compared to 2013–14Promotion review cases 2013–14 2014–15

On hand at start of year 1 1

Received during the period 43 47

Total caseload 44 48

Reviewed 34 14

Not accepted 4 3

Lapsed or withdrawn 5 8

Total finalised during period 43 25

On hand at end of year 1 23

Target completion time (weeks) 8 or 12 8 or 12

Completed within target time (number) 33 14

Completed within target time (percentage) 97 100

Agency

Promotion reviews

finalised

Total applications

received

‘Active’ applications

received

‘Protective’ applications

received

Promotion decisions

considered

Promotion decisions

varied

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service 5 25 8 17 22 0

Department of 3 3 3 0 3 1

103

Agency

Promotion reviews

finalised

Total applications

received

‘Active’ applications

received

‘Protective’ applications

received

Promotion decisions

considered

Promotion decisions

varied

Human Services

Six other agencies (with one review each) 6

9 7 2 16 0

Total 14 37 18 19 41 1

Note: An APS employee may make an application for review of one or more promotion decisions. Not all applications are considered by a promotion review committee. Some applications are withdrawn, are held to be invalid or, in the case of ‘protective’ applications, do not proceed to review.

Independent Selection Advisory CommitteesISACs are established by the Merit Protection Commissioner at an agency head’s request on a fee-for-service basis under Part 4 of the Regulations. ISACs are independent, three-member committees that undertake a staff selection exercise on behalf of an agency and make recommendations to the agency head about the relative suitability of candidates for jobs at the APS 1–6 classifications.

An ISAC consists of a convenor nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner and two members, one nominated by the Merit Protection Commissioner and one nominated by the agency head. ISACs work within agency recruitment policies and have the flexibility to accommodate a range of selection assessment techniques.

An ISAC’s recommendation is not binding on an agency; however, if it is accepted, any resulting promotion decisions are not subject to promotion review.

Table M7 sets out information on ISAC activity for 2014–15 compared to 2013–14.

Table M7: Independent Selection Advisory Committees, 2014–15 compared to 2013–14 2013–14 2014–15

On hand at start of year 4 0

Received during the period 3 2

Total workload 7 2

Completed 4 0

Lapsed/withdrawn 3 0

Total finalised during the period 7 0

On hand at end of year 0 2

104

Abbreviations and acronymsSection 5(1)(c) of Attachment A of the Requirements for annual reports for departments, executive agencies and other non-corporate Commonwealth entities (June 2015) 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

AGLN Australian Government Leadership Network

ANZSOG Australia and New Zealand School of Government

APS Australian Public Service

APSED APS Employment Database

APSEDii APSED internet interface

ATO Australian Taxation Office

Commission Australian Public Service Commission

Commissioner Australian Public Service Commissioner

DHS Department of Human Services

DFRT Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal

EL Executive Level

ICT information and communications technology

ISAC Independent Selection Advisory Committee

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PID Act Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

PMN People Management Network

PNG Papua New Guinea

PRC promotion review committee

PS Act Public Service Act 1999

RAP Reconciliation Action Plan

105

Regulations Public Service Regulations 1999

SES Senior Executive Service

106

annual report 2014-15 - apsc.gov.au web viewannual report of the merit protection commissioner. ......

Documents