Home page > About the Commission > Public Service Commissioner > Media archive > Speech: Peter Shergold

PSMPC merit seminar

Dr. Peter Shergold
Public Service Commissioner
30 May 1996

On behalf of the Public Service & Merit Protection Commission, and in particular Kerrie Tim and her Equity and Merit Team, I would like to welcome you today.

The Seminar is of major significance to myself and Ann Forward. We have, in our various ways, statutory responsibility for the application of the merit principle to the Commonwealth public sector.

There can be no doubt that the principle of merit is and must remain one of the foundations of employment within the Service. Indeed it remains as vital now as when it was elaborated in the first Annual Report of the Public Service Commissioner in 1904. Merit, said the Commissioner, is the "foundation of a just and equitable system, excluding all political and other patronage, throwing all appointments open to rich and poor alike."

Yet it has become increasingly apparent that while the principle continues to have widespread approval, views on how it should be defined and applied vary widely. It is important that we discuss openly our understanding of the merit principle and its relevance to public sector employment as we approach the Centenary of Federation.

In my few months as Public Service Commissioner I have found myself having to address four related concerns.

First, whether the processes involved in recruitment, selection, appointment and appeal actually assure us that merit is an outcome. Too often commitment to merit is seen by selection panels as a clarion call to reproduce their own perceived talents. It is as if merit is to be transmitted by the process of cloning. In spite of standardised processes, generic selection criteria and a system of external review all which are designed to ensure objective appraisal - merit too often remains in the eye of the beholder.

Second, whether we concentrate too much on process (with all its attendant financial and managerial costs) rather than focusing on results. Assessment of EEO performance indicators suggest that there remain significant barriers and ceilings which prevent merit processes translating into equity outcomes.

Third, whether protection of merit within the public sector concentrates too much on individual rights rather than addressing systemic barriers. The focus on positions and jobs is too narrow. We cannot rely on the erratic discipline of individual grievance procedures to preserve merit. We need to examine the rigidities in workplace structures, systems and culture if we are to ensure that Australians of all backgrounds can participate fully on the basis of merit.

Fourth, whether our increasing recognition of the need to build effective management teams has had sufficient impact on the way in which we interpret merit. Merit remains individualistic. An emphasis on the need of the team to have a diversity of skills, experience and perspectives would help to contextualise the interpretation of merit. It would also lead us to assess the principles of merit and open competition in terms of career development, investment in training and formal mentoring structures - not just at the moment of appointment or promotion.

Peter Wilenski was, as so often, right - merit is a dynamic concept which changes in response to social mores and community attitudes. Unfortunately, perhaps, too little of that dynamism and commitment to change has been evident in the manner in which we have interpreted and enforced merit within the public sector.

There is now a great opportunity to re-interpret merit and to 're-engineer' its application ... but to do so in a manner which preserves, indeed strengthens, its essential values. A new Government is reconsidering the values set out in the ethos of public service and how the Public Service Act might be re-written to reflect its core principles. I hope that this seminar will help to contribute to that process.