Data tables for statutory functions

Contents

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 the Merit Protection Commission website.

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
Cases	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Lapsed or withdrawn	27	3	14	0	44	21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
Review type	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

Back to top

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

Back to top

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

Back to top

Data tables for statutory functions

Review of employment actions

Review of promotion decisions

Fee-related services

Figures

Tables

About the APSC

What we do

Using our website

Connect with us

Help us improve