Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Home Affairs,
3rd December, 1903.
AMENDMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION NO. 22.
IS Excellency the Governor-General in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, by and with the advice of the Executive Council thereof, has been pleased to approve of the amendment of Public Service Regulation No. 22—Officers under suspension—by the addition of the following clause:
“In cases where it is found impracticable, owing to the remoteness of the locality where the alleged offence is stated to have been committed, or for other cogent reasons to deal with the charge promptly, an officer, on the report of the Chief Officer and the recommendation of the Commissioner, may, after a period of one month from the date of suspension, be granted half pay until the formal investigation is held, provided the suspended officer has not wilfully caused the delay.”
GEORGE TURNER,
for Minister of State for Home Affairs.
Overview
The Legislative Instrument, C2004L09698, was enacted by the Commonwealth of Australia’s Department of Home Affairs on the 3rd of December, 1903. This legislative amendment, titled "Amendment of Public Service Regulation No. 22 – Officers under Suspension", was introduced to address a significant gap in the procedural handling of public officers who are suspended due to alleged misconduct but face delays in formal investigation and adjudication due to remoteness or other compelling reasons. The objective of this amendment is to ensure that these officers receive fair treatment, particularly by providing them with half pay after a one-month suspension period, provided they have not contributed to the delay intentionally. This was approved by His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, with George Turner acting on behalf of the Minister of State for Home Affairs.
Scope and Application
The Amendment of Public Service Regulation No. 22 applies to officers within the Commonwealth public service who find themselves under suspension pending an investigation into alleged misconduct. This legislative instrument specifically addresses the circumstances under which an officer may be granted half pay during the suspension period, particularly when the investigation cannot be conducted promptly due to the remoteness of the location or other compelling reasons. The regulation allows for half pay to be granted one month after the suspension, provided the officer has not contributed to the delay. The geographic reach of this regulation is national, as it pertains to the Commonwealth public service. The exclusions from this regulation are minimal, focusing on situations where the officer has wilfully caused the delay in investigation. The regulation also extends its application through subordinate instruments that may further detail the conditions and procedures for granting half pay during suspension.
Key Provisions
The key operative section of this legislative instrument (section 1) adds a new clause to the Public Service Regulation No. 22. This new clause provides that in cases where it is impractical to promptly address a charge against an officer due to the remoteness of the location or other compelling reasons, an officer who has been suspended may be granted half pay after a one-month period, subject to certain conditions. Specifically, this provision applies if the Chief Officer reports on the matter and the Commissioner recommends it, and provided the officer has not intentionally caused the delay.
The amendment imposes several obligations on the parties involved. The Chief Officer must report on the case, and the Commissioner must make a recommendation, both of which are necessary before the officer can be granted half pay. Additionally, the suspended officer must not have intentionally caused the delay in dealing with the charge. These obligations ensure that there is a formal process in place for considering the officer's situation and that any potential misconduct is taken into account.
Breaches of the provisions in this legislative instrument may result in certain consequences. If an officer is found to have intentionally caused the delay in addressing the charge against them, they may not be eligible for the half pay provision. This could lead to financial hardship during the period of suspension. Moreover, any failure to adhere to the mandated reporting and recommendation process by the Chief Officer and the Commissioner could result in administrative repercussions, though specific penalties for such breaches are not outlined in this legislative instrument.
The legislative instrument does not explicitly state any criminal or civil penalties for breaches of its provisions. However, the financial impact on the officer due to non-compliance with the conditions for half pay could be considered a significant consequence. Furthermore, administrative actions could be taken against the Chief Officer or the Commissioner for failing to follow the mandated process, although these are not detailed within the text of this legislative instrument.