• Home• Index and downloads• Glossary ☎ Contact us

Print this page Find Download

 

Merit and access to APS employment

The principle of merit-based selection is one of the foundations of employment within the APS. Indeed, it remains as vital today as when it was elaborated in the first Annual Report of the Public Service Commissioner in 1904. In that report, Commissioner Duncan McLachlan stated, ‘Merit is the foundation of a just and equitable system, excluding all political and other patronage, throwing all appointments open to rich and poor alike’.

The Value requiring that employment decisions be based on merit is complemented by the Value requiring that all eligible members of the Australian community have a reasonable opportunity to apply for APS employment.¹

The practical application of merit in selection for engagement or promotion requires agencies to have in place processes designed to ensure that eligible applicants can apply and that the selection process, determined in advance, is both transparent and fair. The selection decision must be made following an assessment of the relative suitability of candidates for the duties following a competitive selection process. The Act and the Commissioner’s Directions specify that the assessment must be based on the relationship between the candidates’ work-related qualities and the work-related qualities required for the duties, and must focus on the relative capacity of the candidates to achieve outcomes related to the duties.

Employment decisions that do not involve engagement or promotion must still be based on merit but need not involve a competitive selection process. A selection process, for example, to assign new duties to an employee within an agency at the same classification (i.e. internal transfer), as a minimum, must include an assessment of an employee’s work-related qualities against the work-related qualities required for efficient and effective organisational performance. The decision as to whether or not to open such opportunities to competition, rests with the agency and will be determined by its staffing policies and the nature of the opportunity.

SES engagements

Different processes² are adopted for selection processes for promotions or engagements to the SES than are adopted for non-SES selections. This distinction reflects the need to ensure the application of a transparent process to the assessment of applicants for the senior leadership group of the APS, with assessment focusing on the core leadership capabilities required at this level. These processes do not preclude considerable scope for agencies to draw on a range of processes that best suit the needs of their organisation, including executive search, assessment centres and recruitment agencies.

An important aspect of the Commissioner’s oversighting responsibilities under the Commissioner’s Directions is the endorsement of a promotion or engagement process. Each selection panel must include a Commissioner’s representative, whose certification of the selection process must be endorsed by the Commissioner before an engagement or promotion can be effected. The Commissioner has recently advised agency heads that the Commissioner’s representative must hold a higher classification than the classification of the employment opportunity being filled. All SES employment opportunities must be notified in the Public Service Gazette (the Gazette) and in the press, and applicants are assessed against the five core SES selection criteria that were adopted in 1999.

In December 2004, the Commission relaxed the requirements relating to agencies adding additional job and/or agency-specific selection criteria to the five core SES selection criteria.³ The change, allowing agencies to add one extra criterion without requiring the Commissioner’s agreement, recognised that agencies have added additional criteria appropriately. Agencies are still required to seek the Commissioner’s agreement where two or more additional criteria are proposed.

In relation to the Commissioner’s role in scrutinising SES selection processes, all processes put forward to the Commissioner in 2004–05 were endorsed following the usual full examination of the relevant selection documentation. Leadership issues are discussed in Chapter 10.

Employees’ perceptions of merit

The employee survey questions about perceptions of merit distinguished between employment decisions resulting from a competitive selection process and those employment decisions not resulting from, or not requiring, a competitive selection process. This section examines the results of these questions.

The employee survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement as to whether, in their experience, their agency routinely applies merit (as defined in the Act) in a number of types of employment decisions. Table 5.1 indicates that employees are most confident that merit is routinely applied in engagement and promotion decisions involving a competitive selection process. A majority of employees (53%) agreed, while 21% disagreed. Employees are less likely to have agreed that their agency routinely applies merit to other employment decisions resulting from competitive selection processes (i.e. transfers from within (38%) and from outside (37%) the agency and temporary assignment of higher duties (37%)). Employees were even less likely to have agreed that merit is routinely applied in these types of employment decisions if a competitive selection process was not involved (30% (transfers within), 23% (transfers outside) and 34% (higher duties), respectively) while higher proportions reported not knowing if merit is routinely applied in these types of decisions. It is interesting to note, however, that the proportion of employees who disagreed that merit is routinely applied to these three types of employment decisions did not vary greatly according to whether or not there had been a competitive selection process.

Consistent with last year’s results, employees in large agencies were less likely to agree that merit is routinely applied (across all decision types involving a competitive selection exercise) than were employees in medium and small agencies. An examination of large agency responses suggests that this decline in confidence was fairly evenly spread across all large agencies and without a bias towards one or two large agencies.

Table 5.1: Employees’ perceptions of merit about various types of employment decisions, 2003–04 and 2004–05

	My agency routinely applies merit (as defined in the Act) in the following types of employment decisions
	Agree (%)		Neither agree nor disagree (%)		Disagree (%)		Don’t know (%)
	2003–04	2004–05	2003–04	2004–05	2003–04	2004–05	2003–04	2004–05
Engagement and promotion resulting
from a CSP*	59	53	18	19	18	21	4	7
Movement at level from another agency
from a CSP	42	37	27	27	12	13	19	23
without a CSP	26	23	33	29	15	16	27	32
Movement at level within my agency
from a CSP	44	38	26	28	21	23	10	12
without a CSP	33	30	30	28	21	24	15	18
Temporary assignment of ‘higher duties’
from a CSP	42	37	23	24	27	28	8	11
without a CSP	35	34	28	26	25	24	12	16

Source: Employee survey

Note: * CSP—competitive selection process to assess the relative suitability of applicants for the duties of a job.

The only employment decision where more than 50% of employees were confident that merit is routinely applied was that of ‘engagement and promotion’—the sole decision category requiring a competitive selection process.

Table 5.1 also shows that employee perceptions of whether merit was applied in employment decisions have declined (at statistically significant rates) across all decision types compared to last year—although the overall pattern of responses remains similar. The only exception to this decline in perception of merit was the temporary assignment of higher duties when a competitive selection process is not used—this was not significantly different.

The most significant fall in perception that merit was applied (six percentage points) was in the category of engagement and promotion decisions. The fall in confidence in other decision types ranged from one to five percentage points. While there have been some increases in the percentage of employees disagreeing that merit is applied, the survey showed an increasing proportion of employees (between two and five percentage points for the different employment decisions) who ‘don’t know’ whether merit is routinely applied in their agency.

In 2004, the Commission conducted a small study of participants in Commission training courses dealing with the concept of merit to test whether there was any evidence that the varying perceptions of merit across both the competitive and non-competitive processes reflected a lack of awareness of the legislative provisions around the application of merit. Questions were asked both prior to training and after the course.

Almost all of the 164 respondents (98%) were aware that a competitive selection process assessing the relative suitability of candidates was mandatory for promotion and engagement decisions. However, knowledge of the actual merit selection process was much lower, with only 66% of respondents being aware that an interview was optional and only 64% knowing that a referee or delegate can be included on a selection panel.

Although these results are not representative of APS employees, they provide some insight as to why only around half of APS employees agree that merit is applied in their agency for promotion and engagement decisions. In the small study, the percentage of respondents who correctly answered the questions relating to movement at level (i.e. transfers between and within agencies), and temporary assignment of duties at a higher classification (‘higher duties’), was 55% and 53% respectively. This outcome mirrors the result of the State of the Service employee survey showing reduced confidence in employment decisions involving movement and temporary assignment.

The results of this study, discussed further below, suggest that knowledge of what the merit Value requires in relation to particular types of decisions (other than basic awareness of the need for a competitive process for engagement and promotion to assess relative suitability) was relatively low amongst those who completed the questionnaire. This study also suggests that training in the concept of merit can improve knowledge of the merit Value, and it should assist employees in determining whether merit is appropriately applied in their agency.

The data examined in the remainder of this section was collected in the employee survey and relates to employees’ perceptions of merit regarding engagements and promotions resulting from a competitive selection process. Analysis shows that a number of variables strongly associated with these results are consistent with those noted last year, although they also reflect the overall decrease in employees’ perceptions that merit is routinely applied.

Perceptions of merit continue to vary amongst employees in the 21 large agencies— with 31% to 71% of employees having agreed that merit is routinely applied in their agency. Seven large agencies had agreement rates that were statistically significantly higher than the APS average of 53%: BoM, CRS, DEST, DEWR, Finance, DFAT and DEH. Only three agencies were statistically significantly lower than the APS average—the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), ATO and Centrelink.

Employees in large agencies were considerably less likely to agree that merit was applied (51%) than employees in small or medium agencies (both 65%), as were those employees working outside the ACT (49%) compared to those working in the ACT (61%). An employee’s classification was also significant, with APS 1–6 employees least likely to agree that merit was applied (48%) compared to EL (69%) and SES (79%) employees.

Again, perceptions of merit were strongly related to employees’ job satisfaction levels and their views on the integrity of their immediate supervisor. Employees with the highest level of job satisfaction were more likely to report higher confidence in the application of merit (69%) than were those with the lowest level of job satisfaction (21%).4 Employees who agree that their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values are more likely to agree that merit is applied (56%) than those who disagreed that their immediate manager acts in accordance with the Values (34%). The confidence that merit is applied is also higher (60%) if employees agree that the most senior managers in the agency act in accordance with the Values in their everyday work.

This year’s data is also consistent with the finding in 2003–04 that employees who have applied for, and been successful in obtaining, a new position in the last 12 months, are more likely to agree that merit has been applied (68%) compared to employees who have applied and were unsuccessful (45%). Not surprisingly, unsuccessful applicants were over twice as likely to consider that merit was not applied as were successful applicants (30% compared to 13%). There is little difference in the level of agreement that merit is applied between employees who have applied for positions (53%) and those who have not (52%), but those who have applied for a position are more likely to disagree (25%) than those who did not (19%). In 2004–05, 45% of employees had applied for a position, a seven percentage point increase over 2003–04.

On the basis of the most recent employee survey data, the APS does not compare favourably with state jurisdictions on the measure of whether employees consider employment decisions to be fair. The 2005 employee survey indicated only 35% of APS employees agreed that promotion and engagement decisions were fair compared to 53% of WA public sector health and education employees surveyed.5 The Victorian Office of Public Employment’s People Matter Survey Report 2004, noted that 62% of employees agreed with the statement ‘selection decisions in this organisation are fair’. Care should be taken when comparing the Victorian result with the APS and WA results as there was a difference in the response options available.⁶

It is not evident from the employee survey data why there has been an overall decrease in employees’ perceptions that merit is routinely applied. The small merit study results indicate that this may be in part a reflection of employees’ knowledge of the practical application of the merit Value. However, the variability of employees’ perceptions apparent within the larger agencies, and the strong relationships between perceptions of the immediate managers and more senior managers behaving in accordance with the Values, indicates that agency-specific issues may be influencing these findings. As these agency-specific issues are very difficult to capture in an APS-wide survey, agencies—particularly those with poorer results—need to investigate why employees are less confident in the application of merit in order to address this issue as part of meeting their responsibilities to uphold and promote the Values.

Selection processes used by agencies

In 2004–05, all 82 agencies recruited APS 1–6 and EL employees, although only 53 agencies recruited at least one SES employee.

Subject to the APS recruitment framework, including the Values of merit and reasonable community access, agencies are able to use varying selection processes for employment decisions depending on their individual needs and circumstances.

Sixty-three percent of all agencies reported that they routinely require the use of competitive selection processes for non-SES movements at level from another agency (down from around 75% in 2003–04), although this is not required under the statutory framework. This rate fell to 51% of agencies in relation to processes for movements at level within the agency, a slight fall from 55% in 2003–04. Small agencies were more likely to have such requirements for both external and internal transfers⁷ (77% and 57%, respectively), while large agencies had the lowest rates of such requirements for external transfers (52%) and medium agencies for internal transfers (46%).

Just over three-quarters of agencies reported having a routine requirement for competitive selection processes for the assignment of long-term temporary higher duties despite this not being a requirement under the statutory framework. This level is similar to that reported in 2003–04. Again, small agencies were more likely to have such a requirement (83%).

This year’s survey asked agencies to indicate whether they had used particular recruitment selection measures from a list of 16 possible measures. Where an agency identified that they had used a particular measure, they were then asked the proportion of selections for which that measure was used (<25%, 25%–50%, 51%–75%, >75%). Agencies were also given the option of indicating that they were unsure because the function was devolved. Not surprisingly, of the relevant agencies, large agencies reported higher rates of uncertainty across the different measures ranging from 5%–33% for APS 1–6 selections and from 5%–33% for EL selections. Where agencies were able to identify the proportion of usage, there was no clear pattern by classification or agency size.

Agencies reported using a variety of selection processes for the engagement, promotion, and movement of employees for the APS 1–6, EL and SES groups. These variations fall mostly into one of two categories—the form of the selection process and the selection techniques used to assess applicants. The remaining processes involve the extent to which agencies outsource aspects of the selection process. Results from the agency survey show some variation by agency size and classification.

Examining the form of the selection process, almost 90% of agencies report using internal assignment of duties at level and existing orders of merit to fill a vacancy— the two most common selection processes. While all large agencies report using these processes for the APS 1–6 and EL groups, small and medium agencies are more likely to use these processes for APS 1–6 selection than for EL selection. With SES selection, large agencies were more likely to use internal assignment of duties at level (81%) and existing orders of merit (62%) than small agencies (3% and 11%, respectively).

The other methods used by more than half of agencies to select ongoing employees were movements from another agency without a competitive selection process (57%) and use of bulk rounds⁸ at agency or group level (56%). While only 21% of agencies nominated use of Independent Selection Advisory Committees (ISACs), their use was more commonly reported in large agencies, and for APS 1–6 selection exercises.

The most common selection technique remains face-to-face interviews (100% of agencies). In addition, 99% of agencies included on the selection panel at least one member from outside the general work area. These results are consistent with last year’s. All medium and large agencies reported using the above processes for APS 1–6 and EL selections and for SES selections (if undertaken) in 2004–05. The pattern varied among smaller agencies depending on classification—two agencies did not use face-to-face interviews for EL selections and one for SES, while four small agencies did not report ‘including a panel member from outside the area’ for APS 1–6 selections and three did not report doing so for EL selections.

Further examination of the selection techniques used to assess applicants shows that since 2003–04 the use of three types of selection techniques has fallen across all agencies—assessment centres (by eight percentage points to 18%), psychometric testing (by five percentage points to 27%) and other direct testing exercises to assess required workplace skills (by three percentage points to 50%). Conversely, the use of initial telephone screening of applications is now used in nearly one-third of agencies (an increase of 17 percentage points).

The proportion of agencies using assessment centres, psychometric testing and direct testing exercises decreases substantially as the classification of the duties increases (they are used by 8% or fewer agencies for SES selection exercises);⁹ these processes are generally used more by large agencies. Just over three-quarters of large agencies used direct testing to assess required workplace skills in some APS 1–6 selection exercises compared to 37% of small and 46% of medium agencies. The pattern for initial telephone screening is similar, with around half of large agencies and 14% of small agencies reporting use at the APS 1–6 levels.

Examining the remaining processes—the extent to which agencies outsource aspects of the recruitment process—shows that while agencies continue to outsource aspects of the selection process to recruitment agencies, there has been some variation in the degree across agencies. There has been a small reduction in the percentage of agencies using recruitment agencies for assistance with routine administration such as scribing— from 89% to 84%. At the same time, 56% of agencies report using recruitment agencies for more than routine administration but for less than the entire process (a rise of 16 percentage points). Nearly one in four agencies now use recruitment agencies for the entire process including the recommendation to the delegate (up from 20%).

Agencies of all sizes were more likely to report using recruitment agencies for routine assistance, but small agencies made far less use of more than routine assistance (APS 1–6 (17%) and EL and SES (both 11%), respectively) than medium or large agencies.

The use of recruitment agencies for the entire selection process has remained constant at 11% of all agencies for EL selections and has risen slightly for APS 1–6 selection processes (from around 14% to 17% of agencies). This year small agencies have only used recruitment agencies for SES selections. Their use peaks in large agencies, nearly half of which report using recruitment agencies for the whole process in some APS 1–6 selections and in around a quarter in EL selections.

This year’s agency survey asked new questions concerning selection processes that relied only on written applications and those relying on written applications combined with referee reports.

Total reliance on written applications was the lowest reported selection method and was used in only 14 agencies (17%). Total reliance on written applications increased by agency size, with only two small agencies (6%) reporting its use compared to almost half of large agencies (48%). Eight of the 14 agencies used it for both APS 1–6 and EL selections, with a further four using it for APS 1–6 selections only and two for EL selections only—no agency totally relied on written reports for SES selection. For both the APS 1–6 and EL groups, it was most commonly used for movements at level within the agency, followed by promotion. It was least used for movements at level from another agency.

Agencies reporting reliance on written applications combined with referee reports only, for selection, were similar to 2003–04, with 44 agencies (54%) reporting usage in 2004–05. There are differences in patterns of use by agency size, with 37% of small agencies reporting its use compared to 86% of large agencies (medium 50%). Of those 44 agencies, 26 used it for both APS 1–6 and EL selections with a further 16 using it for APS 1–6 only and two for EL selections only. One agency reported its use for SES selection for movement within the agency (internal transfer). Like the use of written applications alone, for both the APS 1–6 and EL groups, written applications combined with referee reports were most commonly used for movements at level within the agency, followed by promotion of employees. They were least used for movements at level from another agency.

Over the last few years, there have been reports in the media indicating that a number of job applicants may be providing false or misleading information during recruitment processes. In the Commission publication, Ongoing Employment—Recruitment and Selection, agencies are encouraged to seek relevant information and to undertake appropriate pre-employment checking.

This year agencies were asked whether they had a policy of verifying claims made by applicants as part of the selection process prior to employment. Almost all agencies noted that they had some policies for new recruits, the only exception being two small agencies. The two most common policies or processes in relevant agencies were character checks such as police checks (93%) and reference checks (88%). Just over half of agencies check qualifications (55%) and claims of prior work experience (60%), with less than one in five checking for prior APS misconduct proceedings. Other processes undertaken by agencies include security clearances, medical or health assessments and citizenship checks.

It is important for agencies to collect and verify relevant information where practical prior to engaging prospective employees. While the Code requires honesty and integrity in the course of employment and specifically prohibits an APS employee from providing false or misleading information in connection with employment, the Code does not apply to prospective employees. The Commission has suggested that APS agencies:

• advise prospective employees that the Criminal Code Act 1995 creates offences relating to providing false or misleading information or documents
• require new employees to sign a declaration that the statements they made in the course of completing their recruitment and clearance processes (both before and after engagement) were true¹⁰
• impose a condition of engagement stating that employment was subject to a condition that the employee did not provide false or misleading information.¹¹

Agencies with policies for graduate programme recruits (50%) also have policies for verifying claims made by applicants regarding character checks (83%), references (76%), prior work experience (56%) and checking for prior APS misconduct (20%). Not surprisingly, a greater emphasis was placed on verifying claims regarding qualifications in agencies with a graduate programme (80% of agencies). Some agencies also noted policies covering pre-employment checks for other specialist groups (including IP Australia examiners, legal officers, public affairs officers, engineers), for positions needing qualifications, for non-ongoing employees and for the SES. These groups are usually also subject to the other checks undertaken by the employing agency, outlined previously.

As merit is one of the key Values, agencies are encouraged to use the flexibilities available under the legislative framework to ensure selection processes identify the right person for the particular employment opportunity in the most efficient way. While the traditional selection techniques such as face-to-face interviews are still effective tools, agencies need to ensure they are assessing the effectiveness of other potential techniques while at the same time considering the most appropriate methods of selection.

The increasing use of some selection techniques or methods may, in part, be contributing to the fall in employee confidence that merit is routinely applied in their agency. The use of initial telephone screening of applicants, for example, can be an effective technique as part of a competitive process. However, if the process is not transparent and prospective employees are either unaware of the criteria against which they are being assessed or are unaware that the telephone call is part of the selection process, then applicants may well consider that merit has not been applied.

Community access to APS employment opportunities

Under the Values, agencies are required to provide a reasonable opportunity for community access to employment opportunities.¹² Since 1998, the Commission has undertaken a small annual survey of the selection outcomes of non-SES ongoing employment opportunities notified in a February Gazette aimed at providing a snapshot of access trends. This study was undertaken again in 2005, using the employment opportunities notified in the Gazette of 17 February 2005.

The percentage of ongoing employment opportunities notified in the Gazette of 17 February 2005 as being open to the public was again over the 99% mark recorded in surveys prior to the 2004 survey (when it fell to 98%). As shown in Figure 5.1 below, this year also saw a reversal in the previous decline in the total number of ongoing employment opportunities notified in the February Gazette. The 608 notified opportunities represent a substantial increase over the 2004 figure of 393.

Figure 5.1: Number of employment opportunities notified in the February Gazette, 2001 to 2005

Source: Commission access survey

Possible reasons behind the variability of the number of opportunities from year to year include recruitment freezes in large agencies, bulk recruitment practices such as the use of ISACs and use of existing orders of merit to fill opportunities. Agencies are able to draw on an order of merit arising out of a notification in the Gazette to promote or engage people to similar employment opportunities for a period of 12 months from the date of the original Gazette notification.

Information was provided by agencies on subsequent selection action in relation to the 608 ongoing employment opportunities that arose from the 280 Gazette notices.¹³

As shown in Figure 5.2 below, 68 (11%) of selection exercises had not resulted in a selection by early August 2005. Just under half of these incomplete selection exercises had ceased for a variety of reasons, including the selected applicant declining the offer, a reorganisation within an agency, no suitable applicant being identified, or the implementation of a machinery of government change. This represents a slight increase in the number of non-finalised exercises over the previous year.

Figure 5.2: Proportion of employment opportunities notified in the February Gazette that did not result in a selection, 2001 to 2005

Source: Commission access survey

Of the finalised positions that were open to eligible members of the community, just over 40% were filled on an ongoing basis by applicants who were external to the APS, down from the high of 51% in 2003. However, this is higher than the average of 34% for the eight years of the survey.

Given that the study draws on only one Gazette a year, it is difficult to be definitive on overall trends. However, as it did last year, the data obtained supports the general observation that agencies:

• are providing reasonable community access to APS employment opportunities
• have measures in place to allow external applicants to compete on merit.

The proportion of lateral engagements, (employment opportunities filled from outside the APS) is also an indicator of community access to APS employment opportunities.

The proportion of lateral engagements has increased substantially over the past decade suggesting an opening up of the APS labour market. This issue is discussed further in Chapter 2, ‘Statistical Snapshot’ and Chapter 8 ‘Managing, Sustaining and Engaging the APS workforce’.

The recent MAC report, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce states that, if agencies are to derive maximum benefit from APS-wide efforts to attract more quality potential recruits, they need to ensure their recruitment processes do not discourage outsiders from applying. In reviewing these processes, agencies should remove impenetrable public service jargon, ensure selection criteria are used consistently and sparingly, clearly specify all required written information in applications, and make effective use of e-recruitment and interactive online processes.¹⁴ The MAC report’s recommendations on APS capability recruitment are discussed in Chapter 8 of this report.

Use of clause 4.2A of the Commissioner’s Directions— engagement in exceptional circumstances

Clause 4.2A of the Commissioner’s Directions permits the Commissioner to authorise an agency head to engage a non-ongoing employee as an ongoing employee without the need for further advertising or merit competition in exceptional cases. In the explanatory statement to the amending Commissioner’s Direction, the Commissioner undertook to report annually on the use of this authority.

In 2004–05, the Commissioner exercised this power once, authorising the engagement of a non-ongoing employee as an ongoing employee in the National Oceans Office.

Following a competitive selection process for an ongoing opportunity, the successful applicant was engaged as a non-ongoing employee pending obtaining release from a non-APS agency. As it took more than 12 months for the employee to obtain such a release, the agency head was unable to use the original merit-based selection exercise to engage the employee as an ongoing employee, consistent with the undertakings given to the employee, and sought the assistance of the Commissioner.

In making his decision, the then Commissioner had regard to the following factors:

• the written request by the agency head outlining the suitability of the non-ongoing employee
• evidence of compliance with the Values of merit and reasonable access in the original engagement as a non-ongoing employee—the relevant employment opportunity was notified in the Gazette and followed by a competitive selection process
• the existence of exceptional circumstances that justified an ongoing engagement.

---

1 The Act and the Public Service Commissioner’s Directions 1999 (the Commissioner’s Directions), Chapters 2 and 4, contain further requirements in relation to engagement and promotion and other employment decisions.

2 The Commissioner’s Directions, Chapter 6.

3 The additional SES criteria change was announced through Commission Circular 2004/7 of 6 December 2004.

4 The highest levels of job satisfaction—scores of nine or higher in the job satisfaction index—are discussed in Chapter 8, ‘Managing, Sustaining and Engaging the APS Workforce’. The lowest levels are scores of two or less in the index.

5 The data for WA for 2004–05 represents two non-metropolitan Departments of Education and two non-metropolitan Departments of Health.

6 While the question was similar to that included in the APS employee survey, the possible responses varied. The Victorian survey used ‘don’t know’ rather than ‘neither agree nor disagree’ which may not elicit a similar pattern of responses.

7 An ‘external transfer’ is an assignment to duties associated with movement between agencies at, or below, level. An ‘internal transfer’ is an assignment of new duties within an agency.

8 A bulk round is a recruitment exercise that involves the filling of a number of employment opportunities from the one selection exercise.

9 While the Career Development Assessment Centre (CDAC) process is widely used by agencies to identify the developmental needs of EL2 employees, it is not a selection method.

10 Australian Public Service Commission, Ongoing Employment—Recruitment and Related Issues, 2005, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

11 Australian Public Service Commission, Conditions of Engagement, 2005, <http://www.apsc.gov.au>

12 The Commissioner’s Directions elaborate on the scope and application of this Value in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4.

13 A Gazette notification may be for a single employment opportunity or for multiple opportunities.

14 Management Advisory Committee 2005, Managing and Sustaining the APS Workforce, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

go to top of the page