N.Z. PUBLIC SERVICE RIGHT OF APPEAL

Grey River Argus, 14 August 1948, Page 4

N.Z. PUBLIC SERVICE RIGHT OF APPEAL

Modification Proposed By Commission P.A. WELLINGTON, August 13. “The present legislation regarding the rights of public servants to appeal against appointments is restrictive and the Commission is prepared to recommend changes,” states the annual report of the Public Service Commission, which was tabled in the House of Representatives to-day. The report says that at present public servants have the unrestricted right of appeal against all promotions, provided the appellant would gain promotion, if appointed to the disputed position, and if he had appealed for the position if advertised. In the Post and Telegraph Department this right of appeal applied only to appointments with a maximum salary of £1,025 or less and in the Railways Department to appointments up to £765. No such limitation was imposed under the legislation relating to the public service. The legislation on rights of appeal was not reviewed in 1946 when the control of the public service was changed to a commission of three, including one nominee of the Public Service Association. It was felt that various provisions of the Act now merited review, in particular the provisions relating to appeal. “Appointments to senior positions are not made hurriedly or without full inquiries on the merits of the officers under review,” continued the report. “The Commission acts with the fullest and best advice it can obtain. Usually it has the applications reviewed and at least a short list of possible appointees interviewed personally. “On occasions, the Commission feels, departments and the administration generally would benefit by appointments which the Commission hesitates to make, because it realises that it would be difficult to satisfy a board of appeal that the proposed appointee is, at the moment of appointment, the most suitable and efficient officer available for the appointment. “Long experience in the work of the department in which the vacancy arises may be given more weight than general administrative ability. In other words, the scales are heavily, and perhaps unduly, weighed in favour of an officer already in the department. The Commission frequently desires to take a longer view for the ultimate benefit of a department and the service, and the legislation as at present gives undue bias towards ‘efficiency and suitability’ at the time the appointment is made. “Again, the Commission Is answerable by law for the efficiency of the public service generally and it is difficult for this responsibility to be met if the right of final appointment to, at any rate, senior positions is not vested in it. Under the existing legislation it would be possible for members of the Commission to be unanimous in their selection of an officer for advancement, for one member of the Public Service Appeal Board to agree with the Commission and yet for the decision to be upset by the remaining two members of the board. “The Commission feels that its powers are considerably fettered and that the administration suffers by this restriction. In a later section, under the heading ‘'’recommended legislation,” the report states tnat for better adminisration “we have recommended for consideration” certain changes in the present Act. It suggests that in making senior appointments' (sav over '£Boo annually) a hew system be adopted. The present appeal rights are tmd to be embarrassing to senior appointees displaced after an appointment has been announced and perhaps after they have taken up a new position. The commission recommends: — (1) That vacancies be advertised as now and that a’ selection commit-' tee normally be set up to advise on the suitability cf the applicants and of other available persons. (2) That where the position to be filled is that of a permanent head or closely related position ,the commission have regard to the views of Ministers on the suitability of vise proposed appointee. (3) The commission, before announcing the appointment advise the appplcants of the intended appointee and the applicants have the right to make any further reresentations to >the commission. ln the light of such representations and any other facts, the commission to make the final appointment. No appeal to lie against the appointments to senior posit'on? filled in accordance with this procedure, but otherwise the appeal rights to remain as at present. Regarding appointments from outside the public seryice, th e commistion suggests that the Act should read: “The. Commission shall appoint the most efficient and suitable person available, provided that where two or more such persons are equally efficient and suitable preference amongst such persons will be given t’o the senior applicant already in the public service.” The commission recommends the repeal of the section of the 1946 Public Service Amendment Act which says that the principal Act. shall not apply f o the Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of External Affairs, the permanent head of the Prime Minister’s Department f he Commissioner of Works and th° Director of Broadcasting. It is also recommended that the persons who are now holding these positions shall be deemed to be officers of the public service.