❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice investigates potential breaches of public sector standards within the Ministry of Justice, focusing on recruitment, grievance resolution, and compliance with the Public Sector Management Act. The response reveals multiple breaches and varying levels of action taken.
AnsweredQoN 63Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
63. Mr BROWN to the Minister for Public Sector Management:
(1) How many enquiries has the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards -
(a) commenced; or
(b) conducted; or
(c) concluded,
into matter concerning the Ministry of Justice since 1 July 1998?
(2) Did any of the enquiries reveal any breaches of the standards under the Public Sector Management Act 1994?
(3) If so, what did each breach relate to?
(4) What -
(a) was the precise nature of each breach; and
(b) the actions taken to rectify each breach?
(5) Where a breach is found by the Commissioner or one of his investigators, does the Ministry ensure people involved in committing the breach and those affected by the breach are advised -
(a) a breach has been found; and
(b) the remedy that has been recommended or implemented?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Are those who are found to have breached the standards -
(a) afforded the opportunity to comment on any findings; and
(b) advised of the remedy to be taken?
(8) Are those who have been affected by one of more others breaching the standards -
(a) given an opportunity to comment on any findings; and
(b) advised of any remedy taken?
(9) With respect to and above, if not, why not?
(10) Are there any reports or findings from the Commissioner or any of his officers that have not been dealt with and/or acted upon?
(11) If so -
(a) what breaches have not been acted on; and
(b) when will they be acted on?
(12) Has the Ministry decided against or failed to take any action on proven breaches on the standards?
(13) Is it true that the Ministry has declined to take action on breaches of the standards to protect those involved in making poor decisions and/or to avoid the Ministry's reputation being tarnished or indeed any embarrassment over the Ministry's failure?
(14) Is it also true that some individuals involved or affected by such breaches have been pressured by the Ministry to remain silent and/or take no action on one or more breaches?
(1) How many enquiries has the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards -
(a) commenced; or
(b) conducted; or
(c) concluded,
into matter concerning the Ministry of Justice since 1 July 1998?
(2) Did any of the enquiries reveal any breaches of the standards under the Public Sector Management Act 1994?
(3) If so, what did each breach relate to?
(4) What -
(a) was the precise nature of each breach; and
(b) the actions taken to rectify each breach?
(5) Where a breach is found by the Commissioner or one of his investigators, does the Ministry ensure people involved in committing the breach and those affected by the breach are advised -
(a) a breach has been found; and
(b) the remedy that has been recommended or implemented?
(6) If not, why not?
(7) Are those who are found to have breached the standards -
(a) afforded the opportunity to comment on any findings; and
(b) advised of the remedy to be taken?
(8) Are those who have been affected by one of more others breaching the standards -
(a) given an opportunity to comment on any findings; and
(b) advised of any remedy taken?
(9) With respect to and above, if not, why not?
(10) Are there any reports or findings from the Commissioner or any of his officers that have not been dealt with and/or acted upon?
(11) If so -
(a) what breaches have not been acted on; and
(b) when will they be acted on?
(12) Has the Ministry decided against or failed to take any action on proven breaches on the standards?
(13) Is it true that the Ministry has declined to take action on breaches of the standards to protect those involved in making poor decisions and/or to avoid the Ministry's reputation being tarnished or indeed any embarrassment over the Ministry's failure?
(14) Is it also true that some individuals involved or affected by such breaches have been pressured by the Ministry to remain silent and/or take no action on one or more breaches?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
22 November 2000
Response time
105 days
The Minister Replied:
The Commissioner for Public Sector Standards advises as follows:
(1) (a) 96
(b) 88
(c) 85
(2) Yes
(3) Compliance Area Number
Recruitment, Selection and Appointment Standard 15
Grievance Resolution Standard 1
Section 8(1)(c) Public Sector Management Act 1994 1
Section 9(c) Public Sector Management Act 1994 1
(4) (a)
Recruitment, Selection and Appointment Standard
1.1 Bias-free documentation describes the job to be performed and specifies the relevant selection criteria 3
1.3 The applicant's skills, knowledge and abilities relevant to the job, are fairly assessed 9
1.4 Selection methods and their application are free from bias, patronage and nepotism 4
1.6 Policies are documented, equitable, applied consistently and accessible to all employees in the organisation 8
1.7 Decisions and processes embody the principles of natural justice 1
1.8 Decisions are capable of review 3
1.9 Appropriate confidentiality is observed 1
Grievance Resolution Standard
9.4 Decisions are documented, equitable, applied consistently and accessible to all employees in the organisation 1
Section 8(1)(c) and 9(c) Public Sector Management Act 1994
An officer of the Ministry informed the Office about his treatment by the Ministry when it directed he be transferred to another public sector body.
The directed transfer occurred on the basis that there were allegations of sub-standard performance about the officer, and that during the transfer period action would be taken to monitor and assess this officer's performance.
Following its decision to transfer the officer for a period of twelve months, the Ministry took no action either to pursue the allegations of sub-standard performance, or to ensure the officer was to be subjected to a performance management process.
When the term of the transfer expired, the Ministry did not take action to ensure the officer's return to work. Initially the officer found short-term employment in the private sector, and then remained at home on full-pay. Twenty-two months after he was transferred, the officer eventually returned to the Ministry.
The Commissioner found that the Ministry of Justice's treatment of this officer did not comply with s.8(1)(c) and s.9(c) of the Act. The Commissioner provided a report to the Minister for Justice. 1
The Minister for Justice advises as follows :
(4) (b) In all but one breach, action was taken in accordance with the
recommendations made by the Public Sector Standards Commission's reviewers. In one instance, where a breach was identified, the Ministry determined to confirm the recommended applicant in the position even though the reviewer recommended that the selection process be revisited.
(5) (a) Yes
(b) Yes
(6) Not applicable
(7) (a) No. The views of staff involved in selection (particularly the
chairperson) are sought by the reviewer prior to the findings being made.
(b) Yes. The chairperson is advised.
(8) (a) No. The views of those affected are sought by the reviewer prior to the findings being made.
(b) Yes. If they are the recommended applicant or submitted a breach of standard application.
(9) No purpose is served by allowing comment on any findings. The appropriate time to comment upon the breach of standards application is prior to the findings being made.
(10) Of the breaches established, the Ministry of Justice has complied with sub-regulation 19(1)(b) of the Public Sector (Review Procedures) Regulations 1995 on five occasions. In the other cases, the Ministry of Justice either delayed informing the claimant (15 cases) or has not informed the claimant (four cases).
(11) As at 20 October 2000 the Ministry has acted upon all breaches of standard.
(12) Yes, on one occasion
(13) No
(14) No
The Commissioner for Public Sector Standards advises as follows:
(1) (a) 96
(b) 88
(c) 85
(2) Yes
(3) Compliance Area Number
Recruitment, Selection and Appointment Standard 15
Grievance Resolution Standard 1
Section 8(1)(c) Public Sector Management Act 1994 1
Section 9(c) Public Sector Management Act 1994 1
(4) (a)
Recruitment, Selection and Appointment Standard
1.1 Bias-free documentation describes the job to be performed and specifies the relevant selection criteria 3
1.3 The applicant's skills, knowledge and abilities relevant to the job, are fairly assessed 9
1.4 Selection methods and their application are free from bias, patronage and nepotism 4
1.6 Policies are documented, equitable, applied consistently and accessible to all employees in the organisation 8
1.7 Decisions and processes embody the principles of natural justice 1
1.8 Decisions are capable of review 3
1.9 Appropriate confidentiality is observed 1
Grievance Resolution Standard
9.4 Decisions are documented, equitable, applied consistently and accessible to all employees in the organisation 1
Section 8(1)(c) and 9(c) Public Sector Management Act 1994
An officer of the Ministry informed the Office about his treatment by the Ministry when it directed he be transferred to another public sector body.
The directed transfer occurred on the basis that there were allegations of sub-standard performance about the officer, and that during the transfer period action would be taken to monitor and assess this officer's performance.
Following its decision to transfer the officer for a period of twelve months, the Ministry took no action either to pursue the allegations of sub-standard performance, or to ensure the officer was to be subjected to a performance management process.
When the term of the transfer expired, the Ministry did not take action to ensure the officer's return to work. Initially the officer found short-term employment in the private sector, and then remained at home on full-pay. Twenty-two months after he was transferred, the officer eventually returned to the Ministry.
The Commissioner found that the Ministry of Justice's treatment of this officer did not comply with s.8(1)(c) and s.9(c) of the Act. The Commissioner provided a report to the Minister for Justice. 1
The Minister for Justice advises as follows :
(4) (b) In all but one breach, action was taken in accordance with the
recommendations made by the Public Sector Standards Commission's reviewers. In one instance, where a breach was identified, the Ministry determined to confirm the recommended applicant in the position even though the reviewer recommended that the selection process be revisited.
(5) (a) Yes
(b) Yes
(6) Not applicable
(7) (a) No. The views of staff involved in selection (particularly the
chairperson) are sought by the reviewer prior to the findings being made.
(b) Yes. The chairperson is advised.
(8) (a) No. The views of those affected are sought by the reviewer prior to the findings being made.
(b) Yes. If they are the recommended applicant or submitted a breach of standard application.
(9) No purpose is served by allowing comment on any findings. The appropriate time to comment upon the breach of standards application is prior to the findings being made.
(10) Of the breaches established, the Ministry of Justice has complied with sub-regulation 19(1)(b) of the Public Sector (Review Procedures) Regulations 1995 on five occasions. In the other cases, the Ministry of Justice either delayed informing the claimant (15 cases) or has not informed the claimant (four cases).
(11) As at 20 October 2000 the Ministry has acted upon all breaches of standard.
(12) Yes, on one occasion
(13) No
(14) No
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.