2 VPS employee screening

Employment screening is a critical part of personnel security because it helps to ensure that candidates are suitable for VPS roles.

In this Part, we examine all audited agencies’ employment screening policies and procedures, and how DHHS, DPC and DTF implement them.

We also examine if audited agencies are managing COI risks during recruitment.

1 Audit context

In 2018–19, the VPS employed 47 961 people. Personnel security—including employment screening—is a critical part of managing this workforce.

1.1 Why this audit is important

VPS employees hold positions of trust, with responsibility for administering Victoria’s finances and assets, and providing a wide range of services to the community, including vulnerable Victorians.

The public expects that VPS employees are competent and appropriately qualified, and that they act in the public interest.

Audit overview

The Victorian public service (VPS) relies on employees, contractors and consultants who are appropriately qualified, competent and act in the public interest.

To achieve this, VPS agencies and departments must have effective personnel security measures, including employment screening. If properly implemented, these measures help to control fraud and corruption risks during recruitment and maintain the integrity of the VPS.

Acronyms

Acronyms
ACIC Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
COI conflict of interest
DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
DET Department of Education and Training
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DJCS Department of Justice and Community Safety
DJPR

Transmittal letter

Independent assurance report to Parliament

Ordered to be published

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER May 2020

PP No 130, Session 2018–20

The Hon Shaun Leane MLC
President
Legislative Council
Parliament House
Melbourne
 
The Hon Colin Brooks MP
Speaker
Legislative Assembly
Parliament House
Melbourne
 

Dear Presiding Officers

Appendix A. Submissions and comments

We have consulted with DELWP, VPA, SRO, and Cardinia, Golden Plains, Melton and Whitehorse and we considered their views when reaching our audit conclusions. As required by the Audit Act 1994, we gave a draft copy of this report, or relevant extracts, to those agencies and asked for their submissions and comments.

Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.

Responses were received as follows: