Data tables for statutory functions

Data tables for statutory functions

APPENDIX:

Data tables for statutory functions

This appendix provides information on the activity and performance of the Merit Protection Commissioner’s statutory functions. Information on the Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions can be found on her website: www.meritprotectioncommission.gov.au.

Review of employment actions

Under section 33 of the Public Service Act and Part 5 of the Regulations, the Merit Protection Commissioner conducts three main categories of reviews:

  • reviews of breaches of the APS Code of Conduct (called a primary review)
  • reviews of other employment actions (called a secondary review)
  • Reviews of promotion decisions.

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

Table 2 provides information on the number of applications for review (other than promotion review) received and completed in 2018–19.

Table 3 provides information on the timeliness of this function.

Both tables compare results for 2018–19 with those for 2017–18.

Table 2: Review of employment actions workload for 2018–19, by type of review, compared with total reviews in 2017–18

Cases

Primary reviews—Code of Conduct

Primary reviews—other

Secondary reviews

Complaints/reviews by former employees

Total

2018–19

2018–19

2017–18

On hand at start of year

18

3

18

1

40

23

Received during the period

75

13

77

6

171

166

Total cases

93

16

95

7

211

189

Reviewed

36

4

37

3

80

75

Not accepted

9

9

30

4

52

53

Lapsed or withdrawn

27

3

14

0

44

21

Total finalised during period

72

16

81

7

176

149

On hand at end of year

21

0

14

0

35

40

Note: Primary reviews are reviews conducted by the Merit Protection Commissioner without first being reviewed by the agency head. Secondary reviews are conducted by the Merit Protection Commissioner following a review conducted by the agency head or after the agency head decides the matter is not reviewable but the Merit Protection Commissioner considers it is.

Table 3: Timeliness in handling reviews, 2018–19 compared with 2017–18

Review type

2017–18

2018–19

Average time to complete reviews (weeks)

Completed within target timeframes (%)

Average time to complete reviews (weeks)

Completed within target timeframes (%)

Primary reviews—Code of Conduct

11.96

79

10.94

86.1

Primary reviews—other

14.57

50

14.11

75

Secondary reviews

11.27

78

9.83

81.1

Reg Part 7 casework

7.17

66.7

10.62

66.7

Total

11.48

77.3

10.6

82

Table 4 details the number of reviews by agency concerned.

Table 4: Reviews completed, by agency, 2018–19

Agency concerned

Primary reviews—Code of Conduct

Primary reviews—other

Secondary reviews

Reviews/

complaints by former employees

Total

Department of Defence

12

0

9

1

22

Department of Human Services

3

0

16

0

19

Australian Taxation Office

4

0

4

0

8

Department of Home Affairs

6

0

1

0

7

Department of Health

2

0

1

2

5

Department of Social Security

2

1

0

0

3

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

3

0

0

0

3

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission

1

0

1

0

2

National Disability Insurance Agency

0

0

2

0

2

Nine other agencies (one review each)

3

3

3

0

9

Total

36

4

37

3

80

Table 5 shows the main subject matter and the secondary subject matters for all secondary cases reviewed in 2018–19. The data in Table 5 is not directly comparable with the data in the previous tables because a review may involve more than one subject matter.

Table 5: Subject matter of reviews completed (other than Code of Conduct), 2018–19

Subject matter

Secondary subject matter

Number

Salary, allowances and other payments

Allowances/entitlements

2

 

Salary

3

 

Bonus/special payments

1

Subtotal

 

6

Flexible working arrangements

Return to work arrangements

1

 

Relocation or outposting

2

 

Fitness for duty assessment

1

 

Hours of work

3

Subtotal

 

7

Performance management

Unsatisfactory performance

3

 

Probation assessment/process

1

 

Performance pay

2

 

Performance appraisal

6

Subtotal

 

12

Workplace behaviour

Handling of bullying complaints

4

 

Counselling

1

 

Suspension

2

 

Workplace directions or warnings

3

Subtotal

 

10

Leave

Leave

7

Subtotal

 

7

Other

Management practices

2

 

Misconduct procedures

2

 

Separation entitlements

1

Subtotal

 

5

Total

 

47

Note: Excludes Code of Conduct cases.

Table 6 shows the subject matter for all Code of Conduct cases reviewed in 2018–19. The data in Table 6 is not directly comparable with the previous tables because a review may involve more than one main subject, and to avoid double counting of the same behaviour in a review of both the Code of Conduct breach and sanction.

Table 6: Subject matter of Code of Conduct reviews completed, 2018–19

Subject matter identified

Number

Conflict of interest

3

Bullying and discourtesy

12

Unauthorised access of agency databases

2

Inappropriate use of IT resources

4

Inappropriate use of social media/public comment or privacy breach

1

Misuse of Commonwealth property/assets

4

Failure to follow a direction or procedures

6

Other (including financial irregularities and providing false information)

4

Total number of matters identified

36

Review of promotion decisions

The Merit Protection Commissioner establishes Promotion Review Committees to conduct reviews of promotion decisions for jobs at the APS 1 to 6 classifications. The applications that trigger the establishment of a promotion review case are:

  • applications from unsuccessful candidates (that is, ongoing APS employees who have applied for a promotion and have been unsuccessful)

  • ‘Protective applications’ (that is, applications from individuals who been promoted but who apply for review of the promotion of another APS employee in the same selection exercise).

Table 7 shows the 30 June status of applications from unsuccessful candidates for 2018–19 compared with 2017–18.

Table 7: Status of promotion review cases at 30 June 2019, compared with 30 June 2018

Promotion review cases

2017–18                  2018–19

On hand at start of year

3

24

Established during the period

97

112

Total caseload

100

136

Reviewed (by Promotion Review Committee)

57

82

Invalid (e.g. applicant not an ongoing APS employee)

5

8

Lapsed (e.g. a protective application where no unsuccessful application received) or withdrawn

14

32

Total finalised during period

76

122

On hand at end of year

24

14

Target completion time (weeks)

8 or 12

8 or 12

Number completed within target time

57

78

Percentage completed within target time

100%

95%

 

Table 8 shows promotion review caseload by agency for 2018–19.

Table 8: Promotion review caseload, by agency, 2018–19

Agency

Number of parties to a promotion review process

Number of promotions subject to review

Number of Promotion Review Committees formed and finalised

Number of promotion decisions varied

Department of Home Affairs

294

233

22

0

Department of Human Services

173

110

40

1

Department of Veterans’ Affairs

23

17

5

0

Department of Defence

17

8

7

1

Other APS agencies

32

24

8

0

Total

539

392

82

2

 

Fee-related services

Section 50A of the Public Service Act enables the Merit Protection Commissioner to inquire into and determine whether an APS employee or former employee has breached the Code of Conduct. Table 9 sets out information on Code of Conduct inquiry activity for 2018–19 compared with 2017–18.

Table 9: Code of Conduct inquiries, 2018–19 compared with 2017–18

Status

2017–18

2018–19

On hand at start of year

1

0

Received during the period

4

3

Total caseload

5

3

Completed

4

0

Lapsed/withdrawn

1

2

Total finalised during the period

5

2

On hand at end of year

0

1

 

ISACs 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. Table 10 sets out information on Independent Selection Advisory Committee activity for 2018–19 compared with 2017–18.

Table 10: Independent Selection Advisory Committees, 2018–19 compared with 2017–18

Status

2017–18

2018–19

On hand at start of year

5

0

Received during the period

14

5

Total caseload

19

5

Completed

16

5

Lapsed/withdrawn

3

0

Total finalised during the period

19

5

On hand at end of year

0

0

Figures

Figure Number

Description

Figure 1

Structure of the office of the Merit Protection Commissioner

Figure 2

Trends in total number of review of action applications, 2015–16 to 2018–19

Figure 3

Trends in applications for a promotion review from unsuccessful candidates considered by Promotion Review Committees, 2007–08 to 2018–19

Figure 4

Promotion review parties, committees and decisions by agency, 2018–19

Figure 5

Trends in applications for reviews of other actions, 2007–08 to 2018–19

Figure 6

Review of action other (primary and secondary) by agency, 2018–19

Figure 7

Number of agency actions or decisions set aside/varied or upheld, 2007–08 to 2018–19

Figure 8

Cases reviewed by subject matter, 2018–19

Figure 9

Trends in proportion of Code of Conduct reviews, 2012–13 to 2018–19

Figure 10

Code of Conduct cases reviewed by subject, 2018–19

Tables

Table Number

Description

Table 1

Attendees at training sessions for Merit Protection Commissioner nominees on Promotion Review Committees

Table 2

Review of employment actions workload for 2018–19, by type of review, compared with total reviews in 2017–18

Table 3

Timeliness in handling reviews, 2018–19 compared with 2017–18

Table 4

Reviews completed, by agency, 2018–19

Table 5

Subject matter of reviews completed (other than Code of Conduct), 2018–19

Table 6

Subject matter of Code of Conduct reviews completed, 2018–19

Table 7

Status of promotion review cases at 30 June 2019 compared with 30 June 2018

Table 8

Promotion review caseload, by agency, 2018–19

Table 9

Code of Conduct inquiries, 2018–19 compared with 2017–18

Figure 10

Independent Selection Advisory Committees, 2018–19 compared with 2017–18