Review of performance

Outputs and contribution to outcomes 2006–07

The Commission is included in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Portfolio Budget Statements. The 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 output structure.

Performance information, as described in the 2006–07 Portfolio Budget Statement that relates to the Merit Protection Commissioner’s functions, can be aggregated, where relevant, from Tables M1 and M2 of this report. Table M1 comprises casework arising from APS agencies and Table M2 includes casework arising from both APS and non-APS agencies. Table M1.1 compares the timeliness in handling reviews between 2005–06 and 2006–07.

Table M1: Review of actions—workload, work completed and timeliness, 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2007
Cases	Promotion Review Committees	Primary reviews–Code of Conduct	Primary reviews–other	Secondary reviews	Complaints by former employees
On hand at start of year	7	12	4	13	2
Received during the period	77	35	22	68	7
Reviewed	45	28	5	36	7
Not accepted	6	4	17	17	2
Lapsed or withdrawn	20	1	0	9	0
Total finalised during period	71	33	22	62	9
On hand at end	13	14	4	19	0
Target completion time (weeks)	8	14	14	14	14
Average completion time for reviewed cases (weeks)	7.72	19	9.75	15.5	19.59
Completed within target time (number)	31	12	4	16	4
Completed within target time (percentage)	69	43	80	44	57

Table M1.1: Comparison of timeliness in handling reviews in 2005–06 and 2006–07
Review type	2005–06 Average time to complete reviews and percent completed within target times Weeks (%)	2006–07 Average time to complete reviews and percent completed within target times Weeks (%)
Promotion Review Committees	8.1 (35.23)	7.72 (69)
Primary reviews - Code of Conduct	20.74 (23.33)	19 (43)
Primary reviews - other	11.6 (25)	9.75 (80)
Secondary reviews	17.01 (18.9)	15.5 (44)
Former employees	31.57 (0)	19.59 (57)

Note: Given the new target times and governance processes for this financial year, it is difficult to benchmark performance against previous years. However, this table shows that there was an improvement in the time taken to finalise reviews during 2006–07 compared with 2005–06.

Table M2: Fee-for-service functions—workload and work completed, 1 July 2006–30 June 2007
Workload	Independent Selection Advisory Committees	Other fee-for-service functions
On hand at start of year	30	58
Received during the period	101	317
Completed	84	271
Lapsed/withdrawn	11	31
Total finalised during the period	95	302
On hand at end	36	73