Heads of Corporate Forum
10 December 2013
1
APS Strategic Workforce Analysis
Tony Cotton
Human Capital Research and Evaluation Group
Background
• Aim is to improve the human capital information we
provide to agencies.
• Agencies identified critical skills gaps.
– HR, ICT, Accounting and Finance
– Develop methodology
– Identify outcomes
Purpose
• To identify key issues facing the HR occupational
group in the APS
• To develop an understanding of external labour
supply issues and risks
• To provide the evidence base to inform the HR
strategies required to address these skills shortages
and related risks
This paper will ……
Draw on the following data
streams:
•
•
•
•
•
SOSR Employee Census Data
SOSR Agency survey data
ABS Census data
External Labour Market
Internal Labour market
Integrate these data streams to
understand:
• Potential current and future
supply of employees
– Externally
– Internally
• Nature of employee
engagement
Through this lens we will be able to understand…
• Our internal HR labour market
– HR employee attitudes and opinions
– Where employees are located
– Agency skill shortages
• External HR labour market
• Skill shortages in domestic labour market
• Location of HR talent pools
…and provide to agencies
• Potential future critical skills gaps
• Potential strategies to address these
• Information to assist strategic workforce planning.
So what do we know?
The National HR workforce
HR Professionals
1936
1157
603
HR Managers
376
581
155
140
779
9710
3350
2958
NSW
Vic
Qld
WA
6225
Vic
Qld
1076
WA
SA
ACT
ACT
SA
Tas
NT
NT
Tas
1704
7253
NSW
2365
How are HR professionals and
their managers distributed
across industries?
How is the HR workforce distributed?
80.00%
70.00%
Lots of processing staff in admin services.
Higher proportion of “managers” in
professional and scientific and public
administration.
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
HR Managers
30.00%
HR Professionals
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Admin
Svcs
ICT
Prof & Sci
Public
Admin
HR Managers
33.15%
7.70%
29.61%
29.54%
HR Professionals
69.72%
2.00%
11.74%
16.54%
The APS HR workforce.
HR Staff
HR staff
7.00%
4.68
4.07
6.00%
6.12
5.00%
Lge Ops
4.00%
Policy
16.24
Specialist
3.00%
Sml Ops
Regulatory
68.89
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
HR staff
Specialist
Reg
Policy
Sml Ops
Lge Ops
4.90%
5.89%
4.75%
5.25%
5.67%
50
45
Respondent Profile
40
4,741 HR staff.
• 71% female (higher than the APS
figure of 57%)
• Tend to be more centralised (44%
ACT-based compared to 39% in the
APS).
• Similar pattern of service length to the
APS.
• Less likely to have tertiary qualification
(44% compared with 51%)
• Substantially different classification
profile from the APS.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
APS 1-4
APS 5-6
EL1
EL2
Non-HR
34.99
36.16
19.89
8.97
HR
25.14
44.93
22.04
7.89
Workforce capability and capacity
Career intentions
Employee Engagement
60
10.00
9.00
50
8.00
Engagement Score
Per cent
40
30
20
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
10
1.00
0
ASAP
Leave 1 yr
Stay 2 yrs
Stay 3+yrs
non-HR
7.81
13.73
25.92
52.55
HR
7.63
16.21
26.19
49.98
0.00
Job
Team
Supervisor
Agency
non-HR
6.45
6.43
6.71
5.63
HR
6.72
6.59
6.97
5.70
What is it like to work in HR in the APS?
What is it like to work in HR in the APS?
0.4
Control
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.4
Demand
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
HR Leaders Forum
• Asked two questions:
– Are HR specialist skills required?
– What do lack of tertiary qualifications mean?
HR Leaders Forum
• Are HR specialist skills required?
– Depends on size of agency
– Value in training managers in HR roles
– Mobility is valuable for both HR and generalists
– HR specialists are most effective when they understand
the business they serve.
HR Leaders Forum
• What do lack of tertiary qualifications mean?
– Depends on level and role (specialist or generalist)
– Important for growth (and maintenance) of HR in the
APS.
– While a good manager can be a good specialist there
are times when you need a specialist.
There is more….
Information Communication and Technology
Accounting and finance
What we want from you…
• Next Heads of Corporate forum:
– Presentation of the data to date.
– Seek your input on key questions for ICT and
Accounting and Finance.
• Seek volunteers to participate in in-depth interviews
about expectations for these job families.
Heads of Corporate Forum -
Privacy and Transparency - How to have your
cake and eat it !
Karin Fisher
Group Manager
Ethics Group
10 December 2013
20
Privacy and Transparency
1. The extent to which people who have made allegations of misconduct by an
APS employee should be informed about the outcome of their complainant and
whether the outcome should also be disclosed to others
2. The publication of staffing decisions, in particular terminations decisions and
the reasons for the termination, in the APS Gazette
21
Why are we doing this work?
• For some years the Commission has provided guidance to agencies and
employees about the information that is appropriate to disclose to a
person who has reported misconduct by another employee

Circular 2008/3 providing information on Code of Conduct investigations outcomes
to complainants

Circular 2007/2 the Privacy Act and information concerning Code of Conduct
matters
• Recent cases, as well as enquiries to the Ethics Advisory Service, have
indicated a cautious approach by agencies – a tendency to err on the
side of non-disclosure; understandable but could lead to public criticism
22
Case example 1– Mr Brown
• Mr Brown wrote to the PSCer complaining about the actions of an
agency employee
• That employee had sent a tweet using a twitter handle (which did
not give his name) commenting in a highly derogatory way about
Mr Brown
• Mr Brown reported that the tweet had been re-tweeted by others
and had a hash tag that made it easily accessible
• Mr Brown also reported that the employee had owned the tweet,
had identified himself as an APS employee in other blogs/articles
but said that his comments did not represent the views of his
agency
• Mr Brown asked whether the employee had breached the Code
of Conduct
23
Case example 1 –Mr Brown cont.
•
The PSCer referred the complaint to the agency and informed Mr Brown
•
About 3 months later Mr Brown wrote again saying he had heard nothing further
•
The agency advised the Commission that it had addressed the complaint and
gave contact details to be passed to Mr Brown
•
There was a delay in passing those details on and Mr Brown contacted the
Commission again about 4 months later. Contact details were passed to Mr
Brown and the agency wrote to Mr Brown two week later.
•
Unfortunately, the agency referred Mr Brown back to the Commission and cited
privacy as the reason for not being able to disclose any information about the
outcome.
•
Senior staff from the Commission took the matter up with senior staff in the
agency.
•
The agency briefed the Commission that Mr Brown had subsequently been
advised that the matter had been taken seriously, and was acted on in
accordance with agency procedures, but that on legal advice it could not release
any further information about the details of the outcome.
24
Case example 1 –Mr Brown cont
Shortly after an article appeared in the public domain outlining the incident on Twitter and the
response by the Commission and the agency. The article stated, among other things:
What warrants immediate attention within the bureaucracy is the tardy effort from the
APS in dealing with the complaint, and the lack of information about what occurred in
response to it.
…Still, the information passed on was hardly satisfactory. Apparently the matter had
been resolved in [date] but the agency and APSC had "forgotten" to inform [the
complainant]. And now, regardless, they refused to provide details of the outcome…
25
Case example 1– Mr Brown cont
On the same day Mr Brown posted a piece on a website,
For eight months I was shunted, fobbed off, given the flick and ignored by the Australian
Public Service Commission and [name of agency] regarding a complaint about a public
servant who tweeted … It had started to feel like they were running some kind of
protection racket.
Mr Brown also said the dismissive tone of the email from the agency
notifying the outcome offended him:
It made me feel like I was doing something wrong for even asking to know the outcome.
Why the secrecy?
26
Case example 2
• Federal Court case dealing substantively with a different issue
• The applicant had previously made a complaint against another
employee in the agency, whose conduct was investigated as a result
• The applicant was advised that ‘appropriate action’ had been taken
by the department in relation to the complaint, but the Privacy Act
prevented disclosure of any relevant details
• Neville J said
The letter is (a) less than informative (or otherwise illuminating), and (b) classic ‘Yes
Minister’ speak
27
Case example 3: Ms J and FOI request
• An employee complained about her supervisor
• The agency investigated whether the supervisor had breached the
Code of Conduct and determined that she had done so.
• The agency informed the employee that a breach had been found, and
that [a]ppropriate action has now been taken.
• The employee then sought access under FOI to the investigation report
and details of any sanction
• The agency refused access citing, among other things, personal
privacy exemption
28
Case example 3: Ms J and FOI request cont
On review the FOI Commissioner released documents that disclosed the
outcome of the investigation noting:
I do not consider it unreasonable to disclose this information to the applicant in these
circumstances. Indeed, that disclosure may assure the applicant that the Department
(in the words of the APSC circular) has taken her allegation seriously, does not
tolerate behaviour that is inconsistent with the APS Code of Conduct, has imposed an
appropriate sanction where a breach has been found, and has taken appropriate
steps to ensure the problem will not recur.
If the Department had provided the applicant with more information about the
outcome of the investigation (not necessarily in written form), the result of her FOI
request might have been different. The disclosure of the supervisor’s personal
information to the applicant might not have been reasonable if the Department had
already provided the applicant with more detail about the outcome of the
investigation, so some of the documents the subject of this IC review might have
been exempt
29
Privacy and protection of information
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Article 17:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
• Privacy Act 1988—regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of
personal information, such that any limitations imposed on individuals’
right to privacy are reasonable and lawful.
• Both the ICCPR and the Privacy Act recognise that the right to privacy
and protection of reputation is not unfettered.
30
Privacy and protection of information cont.
Article 17 of the ICCPR is concerned with arbitrary or unlawful intrusions
into a person’s activities. As explained in guidance from AGD:
Article 17 of the ICCPR does not set out the reasons for which the guarantees in it
may be limited. However, limitations contained in other articles, for example, those
which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of…. public order, ….or
the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, might be legitimate objectives in
appropriate circumstances in respect of the prohibition on interference with privacy
and attacks on reputation.
In any event, limitations on privacy must be authorised by law and must not be
arbitrary. The term unlawful means that no interference can take place except as
authorised under domestic law.
31
Privacy and protection of information cont.
• Tension between private interests and the public interest:
– Private—an employee whose conduct has been called into question has the right
to privacy and to the protection of their reputation
– Public—providing information about the outcome of a complaint gives confidence
to complainants and the public that suspected misconduct is taken seriously and
addressed appropriately by agencies.
• Agency employees also :
– need to know that expected standards of behaviour are being enforced and that
action in taken when behaviour falls below those standards
– have a right to expect a safe, harmonious working environment; and that their
agency will address and resolve their complaints
32
Questions?
• Is an employee’s right to protection of their reputation
limited by their own poor behaviour? How far is it
reasonable to protect an employee from the
consequences of their own misconduct?
• What if the behaviour is not serious?
• Who should have access to information about the
outcome of a complaint of misconduct?
• The complainant in all circumstances, or only where they
have been adversely affected by the alleged misconduct?
• All employees in the agency, provided the identity of the
employee who breached the Code is not disclosed? How
practical is this?
33
Questions? cont.
 What information should be disclosed?
• Whether a code investigation was conducted as an outcome of the complaint
and, if not, why not?
• Whether the matter was dealt with in another way and how?
• Whether a breach was found and if not why not? Any recommendations made
in the absence of a finding of a breach? The sanction if imposed?
 Where information is disclosed to the complainant, should there be an
attempt to limit any further disclosure so as to protect the privacy of the
employee?
 How likely is it that providing information will jeopardise the willingness of
individuals to provide information to subsequent Code of Conduct
investigations?
 What would be helpful to agencies in Commission guidance? What
information do complainants need to know about how privacy and
complainants of misconduct are handled generally in the APS?
34
Why are we doing this work? cont.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in
reviewing the Australian Public Service Commissioner's
Directions 2013 commented:
..why is it necessary to publicise employment decisions
in the Public Service Gazette, in particular publication of
decisions to terminate employment and the grounds for
termination, and how is this compatible with the right to
privacy and the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with a Disabilities [i.e. where termination is due to a
physical or mental incapacity]…?
35
Gazettal of employment decisions
• The gazettal of certain employment decisions has
been a feature of public service legislation for many
years
o The 1922 PS Act – ‘notice of every appointment, promotion,
retirement or dismissal of officers’ as well as certain transfers
‘shall be published in the Gazette’
o Under the 1999 arrangements, the requirements were moved
to the PS Regulations in substantially the same form
• Reg 3.12 amended in Dec 2000 to include a specific
requirement that the gazettal of termination decisions
include the grounds for termination
36
Gazettal of employment decisions cont
• 2013 changes did not address broad issue of gazettal
but inserted a provision allowing the PSCer to agree to
an agency withholding the name of an employee from
the gazette notice in certain work-related or personal
circumstances
• The arrangements for gazettal in recent years have
moved broadly in the opposite direction to agency
practice
37
Gazettal of employment decisions cont
• The majority of employer-initiated employment
decisions are required to be gazetted
‒ although employee-initiated decisions such as resignation
and retirements are not.
• Publishing APS employment decisions reinforces the
openness, transparency and accountability of the APS.
• Notifying engagement and promotion decisions in the
Gazette:
‒ allows the community to hold the public service to account
that such decisions are based on merit
‒ provides a public record of when engagement and promotion
decisions take effect.
‒ for promotions, the gazettal also facilitates applications for
review of certain promotion decisions.
38
Gazettal of employment decisions cont
• Rationale for publishing termination decisions,
including those relating to SES employees,
which contain the name of the employee and
the grounds for termination, is not as strong.
• Openness and transparency are important
– but needs to be balanced against the concerns expressed by
the Committee about the impact on the privacy of employees
(noting that the right to privacy is not an absolute right)
39
Next Steps
• Release of a public discussion paper in the next few weeks
• Grateful for your views ASAP on any matter that should be highlighted
in forthcoming discussion paper
• Please look out for the paper and provide comment in light of your
experiences
• Happy to have private discussion as well
• Contacts:
– Karin Fisher, Group Manager, Ethics 02 6202 3846 karin.fisher@apsc.gov.au
– Helena Sverdlin, A/g Director, Ethics Advisory Service 02 6202 3842
helena.sverdlin@apsc.gov.au
– Ethics Advisory Service 02 6202 3737 ethics@apsc.gov.au
40