Showing posts with label public service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public service. Show all posts

Wednesday 6 April 2011

A matter of emphasis or ignoring all but the dog whistle?


The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) has released the Fraud against the Commonwealth 2008–09 Annual report to Government and the mainstream media is busy reporting on its contents.

The Daily Telegraph by virtue of its claim on 4 April 2011 that it had gained exclusive access to the institute's landmark report (despite the fact that the AIC had published the same on its official website) stands out in reporting this matter.

This newspaper makes much of fraud by welfare recipients and really only briefly addresses fraud by crooked public servants. News Limited journalists appearing more interested in theft of office products such as printer toner and photocopying paper, rather than other forms of public service fraud which are more dangerous to Australian citizens. Indeed this newspaper goes so far as to lump the $600 million total in fraud against the Commonwealth into the welfare and other government payments category, almost inviting readers to erroneously suppose social security fraud actually reached this amount in the reporting period. When it comes to financial fraud, the fact that in excess of $2,970,000 was recovered from public service employees perpetrating entitlement and financial fraud is virtually ignored, along with the fact that losses totalled over and above recovered amounts totalled $2.8 million and that many of those employees found defrauding the Commonwealth were not sacked.

What is made apparent in this AIC report (and not rated as worth a mention by journalists) is that internal fraud by public service employees:

a) is under-reported because the department/agency involved frequently decides to redefine fraudulent activity as procedural incidents which are not included in information supplied to the Commonwealth and there is little in the way of internal incident compilations which would assist in identifying fraud over time or the financial cost of this fraud;
b) much of the identified fraud involves improperly accessing personal information about others;
c) at least 3,171 public service employees were suspected of fraud in 2008-09; and
d) of these suspects 1,842 were classified as improperly accessing information and 203 were involved in corruption (including abuse of power, accepting bribes/kickbacks and collusion/conspiracy).

Given these facts, one might have hoped for a more comprehensive media analysis on the subject of fraud against the Commonwealth.

Excerpts from the AIC report:

# Overall in 2008–09, internal fraud was found to be a more significant risk to Australian Government agencies, with 48 agencies (32%) experiencing internal fraud and 45 agencies (30%) experiencing external fraud. In terms of the number of fraud incidents, however, considerably more incidents related to external fraud (n=797,327) than internal fraud (n=3,371). Yet while external fraud affected more agencies generally, the fraud types that resulted in the most incidents tended to be specific to only a small number of agencies. Of the two external fraud types that produced the largest number of incidents—‘fraud relating to social security’ and ‘fraud relating to visas and citizenship’—these were reported by only two agencies each. While total incident numbers were substantially lower, this pattern was also true for internal fraud, where the most frequent incident type—‘obtaining or using personal information without authorisation’—affected just seven agencies.

# fraud involving obtaining or using personal information without authorisation accounted for 44 percent of all internal fraud reports (n=1,481 out of 3,371 reported incidents).

# Internal fraud involving ‘accessing information via a computer without authorisation’ was reported by 17 agencies.

Click on image to enlarge

# In the 2008–09 financial year, Centrelink conducted nearly 3.9 million entitlement reviews that resulted in 641,504 payments being cancelled or reduced and generating customer debts totalling $536.2m (Centrelink 2009).

Wednesday 29 September 2010

Friday 27 August 2010

In the middle of the federal election campaign all pollies got a pay rise


At the same time Oz pollies were inflicting an atrocious election campaign on a helpless national electorate they were quietly anticipating a backdated pay rise:
Remuneration Tribunal Statement - 2010 Review of Remuneration for Holders of Public Office (72kb) RTF (528kb)
Remuneration Tribunal Statement - 2010 Travelling Allowance Rates for Public Office Holders and Parliamentarians (32kb) RTF (376kb)
Members of Parliament - Travelling Allowance (96kb) RTF (976kb)

According to The Herald-Sun this means that the prime ministerial position is currently worth $14,000 more starting from 1 August.
No wonder Abbott is hot for the job - with his level of personal debt being prime minister would be a god send.

The public service is of course included in this pay rise and moola reports for the grand poobahs are found here:
Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Full-Time Public Office (120kb) RTF (1.15mb)
Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office (144kb) RTF (2.18kb)

Monday 16 August 2010

A question of governance


The issues I raise concern Cameron Park and its adjoining Centenary Car Park, I make no allegation of misconduct on anyone's part, rather I consider the matters to reflect adversely upon the supervision of staff by Mayor and General Manager, a failing which can only serve to raise concerns as to due process in Council. All information quoted is from Council's own website.

Recently I browsed that website for content relevant to Cameron Park, Car Park, and super market. The history of this matter of course goes way back but we need only go as far as Council meeting of 19 November 2008, when item 09.207/08 features "Proposed sale of part of Council Car Park (and Cameron Park Maclean)" was tabled. A senior Council staff member within Civil & Corporate declared a non pecuniary interest in that he "Leases shop from tenderer in proximity to site". There were three tenderers, the Newcastle based Buildev Development, Woolworths, and the local entity – Holder Baker Enterprises. That staff member is placed in an awkward situation since Item 1. of his specific delegations affirms his appointment as an "appropriate person" for the purposes of opening and dealing with tenders under the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1993. Here tenders were certainly involved.

I consulted other records on the subject, the Council meeting of 22 June 2010 dealt with the matter of "Centenary Drive Car Park – petition received," item 13.095/10 but on this occasion the minutes contain no declaration of interest by that senior staff member, and his name is appended to the report. Was he involved in the preparation of that report? So do we assume that his pecuniary interest was merely intermittent?

We come to the meeting of 18 May 2010 "Cameron Park Maclean-Classification" item 13.062/10. The minutes show no declaration by that senior Council staff member neither is it known what participation if any he had in this matter. So, again we find no declaration of interest by him. Nor is the extent of his involvement known to us, again, was he involved in the preparation of this report?

Next we look at Council papers for 24 February 2009, item 09.002/09 "Reconfiguration of Maclean Car Park (involving some elements of Cameron Park)". Here we have a declaration of interest from that senior Council employee only now it becomes non pecuniary "Lease shop next to car park", we are left to wonder why the change from "pecuniary" to "non pecuniary"? Circumstances do not appear to warrant this.

I note that at its last meeting on 20 July 2010, item 13.103/10 "Centenary Drive Car Park – potential retail site" the same staff member within Civil & Corporate declared a pecuniary interest being a "business owner in proximity to site". He nevertheless assisted in preparing that report to Council. Would it not have been better to divorce him from the proceedings, entirely?

I wish to highlight the fact that appropriate controls, checks and balances along with recognised principles of staff supervision and segregation of duties appear to be largely absent. Mr. McPherson the General Manager as this officer's immediate supervisor should have ensured that he was never placed in a situation where questions of conflict of interest might arise. Nor do we know the extent of that employee's involvement in the matters to hand for we can only speculate as to what was the actual extent of his involvement out of session? I believe that the Mayor has an over arching responsibility where supervision of Council employees is concerned, I am not convinced that such supervision is adequate. I do not feel that the employee involved has been well served in this respect, neither I think have the people of Maclean.

JOHN HANCOCKS

Maclean

* GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT live.com.au for consideration.

Wednesday 14 July 2010

Clarence Valley Council: when does a précis turn into an attempt to censor and distort?


In response to "So What": the face of not-so-good governance on the NSW North Coast.

The Clarence Valley community is entitled to be concerned in regard to the process adopted by the Clarence Valley Council to reduce public budget submissions to a précis form, then respond to the précis.

It is not unreasonable for our elected council representatives to be pressed for time, so one can understand the beneficial logic behind such process. Unfortunately it has not taken long for Council's unelected bureaucrats to exploit the foibles of this process.

It had been pointed out in previous budget submissions that Grafton came into amalgamation carrying a $1.2m deficit while Maclean came in with a surplus. But I could not find any evidence that Council had ever reconciled that deficit.

It is on public record that Council's rates and service expenditures are calculated on the percentage levels that existed at time of amalgamation. Consequently an unreconciled $1.2m deficit more than likely still exists, undetected and negatively influencing council finances.
Naturally I raised this query in my budget submission.

In its infinite wisdom, administration responded that the deficit had been offset by:-

a) Purchase of sections of Stage 2 Yamba Bypass (est. $1m)
b) Purchase of open space at Townsend (est $216k)

I pointed out in my subsequent budget submission that a) and b) are debts and when paid appreciate in value generating direct/indirect revenues for Council. Therefore a debt cannot reconcile/offset a deficit which is an imbalance in council ledgers and continues until reconciled.

Embarrassed by its faux pas, administration reduced my submission to précis form, to read:-

"Concern that the issue of the GCC bringing a $1.2m deficit into amalgamation while the MSC brought in a surplus has not been adequately answered."

Administration then boldly answered its (misinterpreted) précis:-

"Amalgamation occurred on 25-2-04. This response is written on 21 June 2010 and it is "so what".

These are public monies administration are mismanaging. To properly reconcile this deficit, Grafton rates should have been increased in line with its service expenditures or, its service expenditures should have been reduced in line with its income.
As neither was done, Grafton has continued to live beyond its means at the expense of the rest of the shire.

If these self-serving unelected bureaucrats can be indicted for their inept administration, then they must also stand indicted for their self-indulgent and less than totally frank integrity, ethics and moral values.

Their contemptuous disregard for the community consultation process undermines public confidence and erodes public trust as energetically as it mutilates democracy.

Ray Hunt
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents.Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Thursday 12 November 2009

NSW public servants have too much time on their hands?


NSW State Water Corporation has an e-tendering training page on its website and someone down south obviously thought it would be hilarious if the example contract used on the page was for a Clarence Dam.

Yes, very funny.
Folks on the NSW North Coast get the joke after spending so much time and effort repelling water raiders wanting to dam our coastal rivers - in particular the Clarence River.
Not so sure those down at Lithgow would be amused though - given their own problems with a "Clarence Dam".



This is the Training version of the NSW eTendering system.

The records found on this website are not real.

Please visit https://tenders.nsw.gov.au/ for current tender opportunities and contract records.


Archived Tender Detail View - SWC99999

RFT ID SWC99999
Publish Date 14-May-2009
Close Date & Time 14-May-2009 12:45pm

Monday 31 August 2009

Best political & intergalactic tweets seen recently and other stray thoughts


  • Rod McGuinness
    rod3000 Can I suggest NSW Cabinet have a caged death match? Last one standing gets to be Premier for 18 months. ....

  • Since when is dying at 77 years and 6 months of age considered an "untimely death", when average male expectancy in the United States is in the vicinity of 77.7 years?

    A Scots farmer is now officially riding on the sheep's back as he took home a record £231,000 for a stud ram, named Deveronvale Perfection.

    GODWIN Grech, the Treasury official at the centre of the fake email affair, proposed a fee deal to the merchant bank running the OzCar fund whose chairman was a key backer and personal donor to Malcolm Turnbull.The effect of the deal was to enable Credit Suisse, the bank hired by Treasury to implement OzCar, to maintain its $5 million in fees, despite the fund being scaled back from $2 billion to $1.3bn. The Weekend Australian can reveal that John O'Sullivan, the chairman of investment banking for Credit Suisse, donated more than $20,000 to the Wentworth Forum, the Opposition Leader's political fighting fund. According to The Australian on 29th August 2009.

    Australia spammed outerspace on 28 August 2009 with 25,800 messages from Earth to Gliese 581d, a planet outside our solar system which may support life of some sort. These messages will take 20 years to reach this planet - at which time expect an intergalactic spam filter to activate.

    Best intergalactic tweet from the Hello from Earth project:
    "Yidigunmardin nuruku yajingewa wuremulu jandange. Our dream, we're telling to them young kids. We're talking all this dream for the future.
    Yidumduma Bill Harney
    Wardaman people, near Katherine, Australia"


    Senator "Barney Rubble" Joyce (playfully rewriting history) reduces investigations into Australia's breach of UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to merely a matter of; "The main issue with AWB was there was a concerted effort, a political motive to get rid of Australia's single desk".

    Amusing DIGG cover headline for article in the Seattle Weekly, USA; Gays Too Late To Ruin Marriage, Straights Beat You To It

    Friday 7 August 2009

    Turnbull gets a serve concerning rights and obligations of Australian public service employees


    Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull gets a serve he deserves via this media release from the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Lynelle Briggs:

    Media release - Disclosure of information: rights and obligations of Australian Public Service employees

    Issued 6 August 2009

    'It is extraordinary and quite wrong that comments are being made claiming that it is reasonable for public servants to give Government information to Opposition parties. This isn't normal practice, nor is it usual practice, and it is not whistleblowing,' the Australian Public Service Commissioner, Ms Lynelle Briggs, said today.

    'It is not commonplace for public servants to meet with Opposition parties to brief them before Senate Committee hearings, and it should never happen without the knowledge and consent of their agency head or Minister.'

    'As public servants, we serve the Government, regardless of its political complexion. That is the simple constitutional reality. It is not part of our role as APS employees to serve the Opposition. By convention this means that public servants should have little contact with Opposition or other non-Government parties and requests for briefings are referred to the relevant Minister's office. This is a key consideration in the way in which we manage official information.'

    Ms Briggs explained that 'the integrity of the Australian Public Service (APS) is fundamental to its good standing, its credibility and its legitimacy as an important national institution'.

    'The APS is required by law to be apolitical, impartial and professional, and to be openly accountable for its actions. Public servants are also required by law to behave honestly and with integrity and to act with care and diligence in the course of their employment. They must comply with all Australian laws, not provide false or misleading information, and maintain appropriate confidentiality about their dealings with Ministers.'

    Ms Briggs noted that these duties are set out in the Public Service Act which contains a strong ethical framework to guide the behaviour of APS employees in their working lives.

    The APS Values impose a legally binding duty on all APS employees to serve the Government, to be responsive to its requirements and to be accountable for the way in which the public service helps it achieve its goals.

    Explaining what this means in practical terms, Ms Briggs said:

    'It means that, as public servants, we do not allow party politics to interfere with giving unbiased and objective advice to Government; it means we implement the decisions of Government irrespective of what our own views might be about them; it means we provide the same level of policy advice, implementation and professional support to every government, irrespective of the party in power.'

    Ms Briggs said that public servants who leak information are often confused in the media with whistleblowers. 'A leaker is not a whistleblower.'

    The Act makes clear that a whistleblower is a public servant who believes that they have uncovered actions which breach the Code of Conduct and who reports them to an authorised person within the public service, which includes the Public Service Commissioner. Whistleblowers maintain the integrity of the system by seeking to correct perceived wrongs through reporting to authorised authorities.

    'Leaking involves the unlawful release of official information and is a breach of the Code of Conduct. Leaking, whatever the motive, destroys the trust between the Government and the public service and makes it harder to carry out our responsibilities. It undermines public confidence in the independence and non-partisan nature of the public service and is unacceptable practice for any public servant', she said.

    The Australian Public Service Commission clarified this issue last month in a circular to all Australian Public Service agencies (2009/4: Disclosure of official information).

    Contact Officer:
    Patrick Palmer
    Media Liaison and Group Manager
    Corporate

    Email: patrick.palmer@apsc.gov.au
    Tel: 02 6202 3524

    Tuesday 4 August 2009

    Neverending UteGate Saga: transcript of the Auditor General's report


    Sometimes it feels like Utegate just won't die.

    What with Malcolm Turnbull allowing ABC TV's Australian Story to remain behind the scenes with him as that fake smoking gun email blew up in his face and his prior dealings with a public servant increasingly exposed as something very like a political conspiracy.

    The Federal Leader of the Opposition's Utegate 'scandal' is looking very like an old wreck in the back paddock.

    At least the Auditor General's report, Representations to the Department of the Treasury in Relation to Motor Dealer Financing Assistance, is finally out and concludes in part:

    15. Concerning the issue of whether preferential treatment was given to Mr Grant's case, the Treasurer spoke briefly with Mr Grant, at the request of the Member for Oxley. Treasury was aware that the dealer was acquainted with the Prime Minister, but there is no evidence that the Prime Minister was aware of the representation, or that the Treasurer or his Office applied any pressure on Treasury to give this dealer more or better assistance than others.

    16. Some attention has also focused on three progress reports in relation to the Ipswich Central Motors/John Grant Motors representation that were sent to the Treasurer's home facsimile. The available evidence is that the Treasurer had raised concerns that this representation indicated that delays in operationalising the SPV was having an adverse effect on motor dealers. The first report was provided at the initiative of the Departmental Liaison Officer in the Treasurer's Office so as to provide some reassurance to the Treasurer that, notwithstanding the delay with operationalising the SPV, viable dealers were still able to receive assistance. The second and third reports were provided at the initiative of Treasury, by using the 'Reply to All' function within the email system10, noting that the Treasurer was not in Brisbane when the second report was sent. Following the third report, as the Treasurer was not seeking ongoing updates on the status of this particular representation, the Treasurer's Office sought to indicate to Treasury that reports should not be sent to the Treasurer's home facsimile. No further updates were provided to the Treasurer in respect to the Ipswich Central Motors/John Grant Motors representation.

    17. The approach taken to assist Ipswich Central Motors/John Grant Motors was proposed by Mr Grech and, when initial attempts to assist the dealer were unsuccessful, no further assistance was offered by Treasury, or sought by the dealer either from Treasury or Ministers. The dealer has since made arrangements for ongoing wholesale floorplan finance from other sources without further departmental assistance.

    All 120 pages of the report can be found here.

    Photograph by muffin51 at Photobucket

    Wednesday 24 June 2009

    Godwin Grech, celebrity and other political trivia this week


    I suppose it was inevitable - Federal Treasury Principal Advisor, Financial Systems Division, Godwin Grech, now has a FaceBook fan club and a Wikipedia entry.

    Godwin is being widely discussed in the mainstream media and the blogosphere because of his testimony before a Senate inquiry last week.

    However, the author of the FaceBook entry remains a bit of a mystery.

    I'm rather inclined to suspect a Liberal party staffer organised the creation of this entry, after hearing Liberal Party MP and parliamentary attack dog Joe Hockey admit on ABC News Radio yesterday that he tried to contact Mr. Grech on Saturday to offer moral support.

    Meanwhile according to the Commonwealth Hansard for the House of Representatives (using a quick word count) on the day that email was revealed as a fake, honourable members rose to use the word lie 9 times, lies 2 times, lied 22 times and liars 1 time.

    Thursday 21 May 2009

    Pollies and top public servants feel the pain (at least for another four months)


    This week the Remuneration Tribunal announced it has deferred its annual pay review for federal politicians and government agency heads.
    Before everyone goes "Oh, that's a shame!" remember that the Chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority - which is never happier than when it is censoring the Internet - is still comfortably off on an annual salary package of $408,560 (
    "Mr Christopher Chapman will receive a personal loading .... while he occupies the office") as well as getting Tier 1 travel.
    Christopher Robin was until January 2006 a director of Babcock & Brown Investor Services Limited.
    ACMA's Deputy Chair gets $296,260 and an Member gets $272,690, with the same travel allowance.
    Of course they are not among the highest salaries paid from government coffers as the Chair of APRA comes in at a cool $603,130 each year, with a specified superannuation loading.

    Friday 17 April 2009

    So you want to look through my medical records?


    Seems that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Health Minister Nicola Roxon and Human Services Minister Joe Ludwig think it's a beaut idea to have faceless Medicare bureaucrats trawling through the local doctor's patient records just in case he or she is trying to defraud the Commonwealth.
    Matching everything (from that brush with the kid's head lice, those uncomfortable haemorrhoids, that dose of the clap, problem with alcohol or recent unplanned pregnancy) to a Medicare billing form with your name on it within 2 years of the date on the audit notice.

    But that's not all!
    The local hospital, medical specialists and corporate practices can also be asked to hand over your medical records on demand, as well as aboriginal health workers; audiologists; clinical psychologists; diabetes educators; dieticians; exercise physiologists; mental health nurses; occupational therapists; psychologists; socialworkers; and speech pathologists.
    Wait there's more!
    Not only does Medicare get to look at all those medical records - it gets to take away and keep the originals.
    Which means that your confidential records are in yet another government data base.
    The doctor's solicitor can also obtain a copy of removed records, so there's yet another person keeking at your maladies.

    As to which practitioners will be audited - well it's all a bit of a lottery really because at the moment the government is sorta promising (with fingers crossed behind a few backs) that there will only be 2,500 of these snooping expeditions each year.
    Retaining any form of patient confidentiality? Well it's easy to recall those times when Centrelink staff or police officers have been caught out snooping on relllies or selling information from government data bases.

    Joe Ludwig expects to have this hunt 'n' hound firmly in place by July this year.
    If you want to have a say in all this go to this page on the Department of Health and Aging website for details of the draft legislation which turned up very quietly last Thursday.
    You have under 24th April to make a submission.

    Wednesday 18 March 2009

    STOP the CELL OFF - NO PRISON$ FOR PROFIT$! Will Grafton gaol be sold off next?

    The NSW Government is planning to privatise the state’s prisons.
    While Minister Robertson claims there will only be two privatisations, the Department has other plans. At the recent Parliamentary Inquiry, Commissioner Ron Woodham said Grafton would be next.
    Private Prisons mean more assaults on staff and inmates, lower paid and untrained staff and more escapes. Prisons should not be run for profit.

    Stop the Cell Off!

    Sign the petition here.

    www.stopthecelloff.org.au

    Monday 9 February 2009

    Australian Law Reform Commission does online forum and phone-in on secrecy laws, 11-12 February 2009

    Media Release 9 February 2009:

    The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) today announced a national two day phone-in and new online discussion forum as part of its commitment to engaging in widespread community consultation on reform of Commonwealth secrecy laws. 

    Anyone who has ever been involved in handling Commonwealth information will have the chance to speak out about their personal experiences and concerns in a national secrecy phone-in on Wednesday 11 February and Thursday 12 February. The ALRC is also launching a new consultation vehicle through its Talking Secrecy online forum.

    ALRC President, Professor David Weisbrot, said "Consultation is part of the ALRC's DNA and we are determined to use new technologies to expand that process. The online forum and national phone-in together comprise the next critical steps in the ALRC's consultation process following the recent release of the Issues Paper, Review of Secrecy Laws (IP 34, 2008). This paper seeks feedback about how to balance the need to maintain an open and transparent government, while still protecting some Commonwealth documents and information—for the purposes of national security, for example.

    "The ALRC now has mapped over 500 secrecy provisions spread across 173 pieces of legislation and these—associated with a myriad of administrative, civil and criminal penalties—present a complex and confusing scenario of options for individuals handling Commonwealth information.

    "Some secrecy provisions—normally pertaining to defence and security—regulate the activities of anyone, including the media, who comes into possession of Commonwealth documents or information, imposing obligations on them. If the individual handles the information incorrectly, he or she may face heavy penalties, including jail."

    Commissioner-in-charge of the Secrecy Inquiry, Professor Rosalind Croucher, said that the phone-in will enable individuals to speak about their personal experiences with complete anonymity and will assist in shaping the development of proposals, and ultimately recommendations, for workable laws and practices.

    "To facilitate more public discussion about secrecy laws, the ALRC's Talking Secrecy online forum will encourage interactive comments and debate that will run the course of the Inquiry. This is a first for the ALRC.

    "The ALRC would like to hear people's views about a range of questions such as: do secrecy laws stop you from doing your job; what information, if any, should be kept secret; how easy is it to comply with secrecy laws; when should you be allowed to disclose Commonwealth information; and have you or someone you know been in trouble for breaching a secrecy law and, if so, what happened?"

    To participate in the secrecy phone-in call 1800 760 291 between 8:00am and 8:00pm (EST) on Wednesday 11 February and Thursday 12 February 2009 (calls are free from landlines but calls from mobiles will incur a charge).

    The Talking Secrecy online forum can be accessed at http://talk.alrc.gov.au.

    More information about the Review of Secrecy Laws can be found in the Inquiries section of this website.

    Monday 12 January 2009

    New Australian Electoral Commission head: come on down, Ed!

    "Mr Ed Killesteyn commenced his five year appointment as the Electoral Commissioner, Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on 5 January 2009.
    Mr Killesteyn said he was pleased and honoured to be appointed to the position of Electoral Commissioner, and looked forward to continuing the AEC’s strong and well deserved reputation for delivering an electoral system that serves well Australia’s democratic heritage.
    Mr Killesteyn has held a number of senior Public Service positions, including four years as a Deputy Secretary at the then Department of Immigration and Indigenous Affairs, and most recently as the Deputy President of the Repatriation Commission and a Deputy Secretary at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. "
    Now Ed has a bit of a chequered history hidden in that wee bio - anyone remember Truth Overboard and the Palmer Report on DIMIA's treatment of Cornelia Rau?

    A soft word of warning to Ed, as he starts one of the most important public service jobs in Australia (running our elections) - don't stuff up!

    Friday 5 December 2008

    The lowdown on federal public service job satisfaction

    From PS News, Edition Number 107. Updated to Wednesday, 3 December 2008 :

    PSsssst...!

    Numbers game
    Statistics galore have been released this week dissecting the size, attitudes, preferences and personnel in the Federal Public Service with the annual (and thick) 'State of the Service' Report issued by the Commissioner.
    Packed with unbeatable information about who's been doing what, where, when and with whom in the past 12 months, the unfortunately acronymed SOTS report also divulged what federal employees really think about their jobs, bosses, workplaces and profession.
    And, to some extent, the news is all good!
    77% said they had a satisfying job; 71% were proud of their Agency; 65% would recommend it as a good place to work; 45% thought they were well managed and two-thirds said they had a achieved a good work-life balance.
    On the other hand the news could be seen to be less rosy.
    Looked at another way those same stats tell us that 23% thought their job wasn't really that satisfying; 29% weren't particularly proud of their Agency; 35% wouldn't recommend it as good place to work; 55% thought they weren't being managed well and a third hadn't quite struck a good work-life balance.
    What is they say about statistics again?


    Who's who and who's moving in the NSW PS