Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

This is a request for documents under the FOI Act. Documents can be provided to me by email.

According to the Australian Public Service Classification Guide (page 30):

An agency with new or revised broadbanding proposals are (sic) required under the bargaining framework for APS enterprise agreements to consult with the Australian Public Service Commission (the Commission) to ensure that the proposals:

i) meet the APS Values and Employment Principles - relating to merit, community access to employment opportunities and leadership
ii) meet the APS legislative requirements - such as the Classification Rules
iii) are consistent with the bargaining framework for APS enterprise agreements. This includes that salary advancement for individuals within classifications and broadbands is subject to at least satisfactory performance.

According to an article in the Australian published on 9 February 2022 (Federal Court boss warned on job rule sidestep), acting assistant commissioner Kate McMullan concluded that appointments to the National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court were proper because “the recruitment processes which resulted in the appointment of eight registrars because there had been ‘a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.’”

According to the same article, the acting deputy principal registrar of the Federal Court stated that he had some concerns regarding responses provided by the Court to Ms McMullan particularly because of the way those responses “[sat] against the Public Service Rules 2000, particularly Rules 6 to 10.”

According to a decision provided under the FOI Act by Bridie Dawson, Assistant Secretary in the Attorney-General’s Department (FOI22/028; CM22/2133 – https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/s...), in response to the following request:

documents that set out how it is that positions/roles in the AGD may be classified over more than one classification depending on the complexity of the group of duties to be performed, and where one of those classifications in an SES classification,

Ms Dawson responded:

Duties cannot be classified over more than one classification, as per Public Service Classification Rules 2000 which states the following:

… (4) If a group of duties to be performed in an Agency involves work value applying to more than one classification, the Agency Head may allocate more than one classification (called a broadband) to the group of duties.

(5) However, subrule (4) does not apply to a group of duties to be performed by an SES employee.

Both Ms McMullan and Ms Dawson cannot be correct. One of them is wrong and the text of the Public Service Classification Rules 2000 and Mr Tredwell’s concerns lead me to believe that Ms McMullan was wrong to conclude that appointments to the National Judicial Registrar positions in the Federal Court were proper because “the recruitment processes which resulted in the appointment of eight registrars because there had been ‘a role review process that had resulted in certain positions being found suitable for either a Legal 2 or (SES1) position, depending on the relative complexity and workload.’”

If Ms McMullan is right, then one would expect that the Australian Public Service Commission would regularly receive new or revised broadbanding proposals to ensure that the proposals:

i) meet the APS Values and Employment Principles - relating to merit, community access to employment opportunities and leadership
ii) meet the APS legislative requirements - such as the Classification Rules
iii) are consistent with the bargaining framework for APS enterprise agreements. This includes that salary advancement for individuals within classifications and broadbands is subject to at least satisfactory performance.

Accordingly, under the FOI Act, please provide the last five broadbanding proposals the Australian Public Service Commission received (from any agency or Department) to ensure that the proposals conformed to the requirements set out at (i) – (iii) above where one of the classifications across which a proposed broadband was effected was an SES classification (e.g. a broadband over the Executive Level 2 and SES1 Band).

Yours faithfully,

Allan

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

5 Attachments

OFFICIAL

Dear Applicant

 

The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) is writing to acknowledge
receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act).

 

The timeframe for responding to your request is 30 days from the date of
receipt. This timeframe may be extended in certain circumstances. You will
be notified if these circumstances arise and the timeframe is extended.

 

FOI OFFICER

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, PARKES ACT 2600
GPO Box 3176 CANBERRA ACT 2601

 

t: 02 6202 3500  w: [1]www.apsc.gov.au        

[2]three hexagons[3]twitter icon [4]facebook
icon                          

 

 

 

 

This email and any attachments may contain confidential or legally
privileged information, and neither are waived or lost if the email has
been sent in error. If you have received this email in error, please
delete it (including any copies) and notify the sender. Please consult
with APSC Legal Services before using disclosing any part of this email or
attachments to a third party.

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Australian Public Service Commission

7 Attachments

OFFICIAL

Dear Applicant

 

A Decision Notice is attached.

 

Regards

 

FOI OFFICER

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, PARKES ACT 2600
GPO Box 3176 CANBERRA ACT 2601

 

t: 02 6202 3500  w: [1]www.apsc.gov.au        

[2]three hexagons[3]twitter icon [4]facebook
icon                          

 

 

 

 

This email and any attachments may contain confidential or legally
privileged information, and neither are waived or lost if the email has
been sent in error. If you have received this email in error, please
delete it (including any copies) and notify the sender. Please consult
with APSC Legal Services before using disclosing any part of this email or
attachments to a third party.

 

 

 

 

From: FOI <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 17 March 2022 7:51 AM
To: Allan <[FOI #8599 email]>
Cc: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: SHC22-4696 Acknowledgement [SEC=OFFICIAL]

 

OFFICIAL

Dear Applicant

 

The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) is writing to acknowledge
receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI
Act).

 

The timeframe for responding to your request is 30 days from the date of
receipt. This timeframe may be extended in certain circumstances. You will
be notified if these circumstances arise and the timeframe is extended.

 

FOI OFFICER

Legal Services

 

Australian Public Service Commission

Level 4, B Block, Treasury Building, Parkes Place West, PARKES ACT 2600
GPO Box 3176 CANBERRA ACT 2601

 

t: 02 6202 3500  w: [5]www.apsc.gov.au        

[6]three hexagons[7]twitter icon [8]facebook
icon                          

 

 

 

 

This email and any attachments may contain confidential or legally
privileged information, and neither are waived or lost if the email has
been sent in error. If you have received this email in error, please
delete it (including any copies) and notify the sender. Please consult
with APSC Legal Services before using disclosing any part of this email or
attachments to a third party.

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Allan