Some of our information has moved to NT.GOV.AU
Information for delegates
In most cases the responsibility for the final decision in selection processes rests with the Chief Executive Officer or the CEO’s Delegate, not the selection panel. The panel will make a recommendation on who should be selected, but it is the CEO or their delegate who must sign off and hire the person.
If you are a delegate responsible for approving selection panel recommendations you should be aware of the NTPS recruitment and section policy .
Role and responsibility of a delegate
The delegate carries a high level of responsibility in this process and must ensure that:
- the NTPS recruitment and selection policy has been followed
- there were no conflicts of interest which might have impaired the panel’s independence or impartiality
- the recommendation of the selection panel is consistent with the merit principle and supported by evidence and examples including verification from well-placed referees
- the written explanation of the decision is clear, understandable, and well explained in terms of the merit of the selected applicant with specific reference to work history, experience, previous levels, qualifications, skill
- the summary of selected applicant’s merit which will be provided to all applicants provides sufficient detail about the selected applicant to allow non-selected applicants to be able to do a ‘self-comparison’, and does not contain any adverse information about the selected applicant.
Approving selection panel recommendations
A Delegate should ensure that they can be satisfied based on the information in the report that the person selected has an appropriate level of experience and skill for the vacancy in question, and that the decision is backed up by sufficient evidence, including reports from relevant referees.
A Delegate should take note of any dissenting views by a panel member and may wish to explore this further before supporting the recommendation for selection.
Disagreement over recommendation
The role of the delegate is not to be a one-person selection panel nor is it appropriate to replace the selection panel’s recommendation with their own selection.
If a delegate has concerns or does not agree with the selection panel’s recommendation, the selection report should be returned to the selection panel explaining the reservations. The selection panel is then required to better explain its reasons for their decision.
The delegate may instruct the selection panel to seek further and additional evidence to support the appointment of an applicant if required.
Selection approval next steps
When the delegate approves the recommendation they should also review the document summarising the merit of the selected applicant, which will be attached by DCIS recruitment in the notification letters to all applicants.
The report must not contain adverse information about the selected applicant and the delegate should act as a further safeguard in this sense, that is, to ensure that the report does not include any negative information.
Applicants are advised that information about their selection merit will be made available to other applicants in the following ways:
- in the JD itself
- on the NT Jobs website
- on the ‘Information for applicants’ web link
If an applicant is selected and accepts the job, information about their merit will be provided to non-selected applicants to help them understand the reason for the selection.
All applicants will receive the same report, which is a short summary of the selected applicant’s merit which is includes:
- work history
- level of positions held
- relevant experience
- education qualifications
- other information that led to the panel’s decision
This will allow them to see why that person was chosen on merit as most suitable and then, by extension, for them to better understand why they were not the most suitable in comparison.
Legal advice and an opinion from the Information Commissioner confirm that information about a selected applicant’s merit is not confidential and releasing it to other applicants is not a breach of privacy principles.
Last updated: 28 November 2016