Ok …toddle off then and cast a “vote “ for the honest Johns; that’s sure to fix the problem of the total lack of Democracy.

What we observe is the workings of Corporate Governance. Democracy is dead mate!

Keep on voting though, it’s sure to improve your outlook.

Disagree, dept. heads need to go with change of Government. So, they cannot adversely affect policy. Free and fierce advice is one thing, but politically biased advice is not wanted. Nor running interference.
Alan B.

Sir Humphrey Appleby; "Ministers come and go Bernard, but we shall always be here."

I don’t often agree with Scott, but on this occasion I think he’s right – Australia is moving away from the old Westminster tradition of a permanent, professional, independent, apolitical senior public service providing frank and fearless advice to a more US type system where the senior public service changes with each change of government or even minister. Each system has strengths and weaknesses. Personally I preferred the old school. But if we are to move to a more political system, there should be some process that at least tries to ensure appointees are qualified and competent and not excessively partisan.

There is transparency - you'd want to be an assiduously woke upwards-manager, to get a top gig with Gender Equality Net Zero Albanese.

Comley, who was 2011-2013 Climate Change Secretary under the previous Labor Government, seems to me to be decidedly well qualified.

How on Earth do know-all Academics & those smarter than them from struggle street think that integrity & competence among heads of Public Service Departments can ever be expected to improve to acceptable levels without a National Service ?

To right Indy, as soon as we can get a 'Seniors National Service' up and running the better. Get those old folks out of 'Gods Waiting Room', wasting their little remaining time playing bingo, I say, get em' off the booze and away from the pokies, we'll all be better off, there's too much of it going on these days. Can't keep paying unsustainable Aged Welfare, now can we. Anyone who is fit and "reasonably" well, and under 90, lifestyle illness like heart disease is no excuse for not doing a bit of hard yakka, anyway it serves them right. These malingers should be put back into the work force immediately, don't you agree?

Paul1405,
A National Service works for a large percentage of the population but the field your posts place you in can only be sorted out & avoided by the use of condoms !

I reckon all public service positions should have a maximum term of 5 years, after which they should not be eligible for employment in any public sector position for a period of 3 years.

Would it be great if bureaucrats knew what it was like in the real world.

The same should apply to all academia.

Hassy,

Other than being spiteful, your suggestion is impractical. There would have to be a massive, on going training program of new recruits costing millions. Besides, when you make one of your regular trips down to 'Centrelink' for a whinge about your aged welfare payment, a new recruit might not be familiar with your case history, and under pay you.

BTW weren't you a public servant once, a non productive swing off the taxpayer teat in the Air Force? Did you resign after 5 years?

Did you resign after 5 years?
Paul1405,
That is a typical dumb, stupid bureaudroid remark ! If everyone was treated the same way it wouldn't be a problem at all.
If the appraisal system would be such that merit is indeed part of that system then we would have a much better functioning bureaucracy. The automatic renewal of a position rather than proper appraising guarantees ruining our Public Service.
The notion of not being allowed to move an incompetent bureaudroid sideways or down, prevents many good competent bureaucrats from doing a proper satisfactory job !
The Public Service union really has to be sent to T.A.F.E. do do a course in integrity & responsibility & general sound mentality !

Indy,

Do you agree with what Hassy said; "I reckon all public service positions should have a maximum term of 5 years, after which they should not be eligible for employment in any public sector position for a period of 3 years."

I see that as a regressive spiteful suggestion with no merit what so ever. How about if we cut you and Hassy off aged welfare after 5 years and make you wait another 3 years before you can reapply to get your snouts back into the taxpayer trough. What a wonderful idea, agree?

Paul1405,
you have one really warped mentality ! Why don't you try if you can muster your two brain cells work together for a moment & see if you can build on Hasbeen's broad suggestion rather than perpetually be a time-waster !
I would like to see bureaudroids ousted for good to give way to decent bureaucrats ! To do that the PS Unions need to be made responsible for their indecent policies for protecting & overpaying the many useless !
The many decent Public Servants are denied the positions they could hold competently for the benefit of all.
Abolish the Peter Principle at once !

Indy,

"broad suggestion" there is nothing BROAD about it, Hassy was SPECIFIC;

"I (Hasbeen) reckon all public service positions should have a maximum term of 5 years, after which they should not be eligible for employment in any public sector position for a period of 3 years."

Now you come with the insults at me, and a load of weasel words, trying to distract from what's said. You are full of it! You either agree or disagree, its a clear cut statement

Paul1405,
Even the below average village idiot would realise that policy/policies require refinement upon a broad off the cuff idea ! And, yes to me Hasbeen's is a broad statement !

What is your idea on weeding out the Peter Principal ? Would you feel threatened ?

Indy,

In any large organisation, and some small ones as well, you are going to have mismanagement, incompetence, laziness, even criminal behaviour, that's typical where all kinds of people are employed, the public service is not unique in that regard. There must be oversight to ensure these practices and failings are minimised, if not completely eliminated. You have a personal gripe against the public service, and a general dislike of public servants, you have demonstrated that many times on this forum, no doubt attributable to your own failure when publicly employed. The termination of you as a public servant demonstrates there are workable mechanism in place to expunge the lazy and incompetent. Agree?

a personal gripe against the public service,
Paul1405,
There you go again twisting facts to veil your Peter Principal career. I don't have a gripe against the Public Service & I'd have thought that that was abundantly clear by now. What I do object to are the bureaudroids of your calibre not being shifted to position where they would be of at least basic use to society. I don't know how some of the heads of Departments can sleep knowing how many lives their underlings are allowed to ruin !
Are you one of them, you certainly are rather defensive of them !

Indy,

Many times on here you have called for 95% of the public service to be sacked! A ridiculous claim attributable to one having an unhinged mindset. There goes great numbers of police officers, defence force personal, even your local garbage collectors etc etc.

you have called for 95% of the public service to be sacked!
Paul1405,
Yes and, I stand by that ! The evidence for this need is all around us.

As for your claims re; There goes great numbers of .... You're as per usual not getting the point due to your mentality.
Let's try again, how'd doing away with people who aren't interested in their work affect all these "great numbers of" if we replace them with Public Servants who will do their job ?
Get this into your thick Union skull, I'm advocating as is Hasbeen, to remove non performers NOT the positions ! Demoting the many useless would provide thousands upon thousands of jobs for people with integrity & a sense of responsibility !
If you don't want to lose your cushy number, Perform !

Amazing one old bloke says; "I (Hasbeen) reckon all public service positions should have a maximum term of 5 years, after which they should not be eligible for employment in any public sector position for a period of 3 years."

Then another old bloke when told he wants 95% of the public service to be sacked!, he agrees; "Yes and, I ( Indyvidual) stand by that! The evidence for this need is all around us."

In nether case did they offer any sort of qualifies to their unequivocal statements, although Indy is now trying to use weasel words as he realises how stupid their ideas are. Hassy is probably still on one of his extended nanny naps, might pop in later with another one of his gems, like lets nuk Pakistan as he has said before!

I would recommend a booking at the 'Shady Pines' Retirement Home asap is in order for both of these fellas, suffering from some form of old age delusion.

Remember fellas if they introduce your plans, there goes your fortnightly old age welfare payments, no public servants to stick taxpayer money into the bank for you, then you would be up sh!t creek!

Paul1405,
What exactly then would you do with non performing Public Servants ? Give them another raise & up their Superannuation ?
I'm clear about it as is Hasbeen that non performers on way above award salaries have no place in the Public Service !
The Public Service Union needs to put on the spot why it is perpetually tolerating the Peter Principle !
If there is indeed an excuse for this they should comment publically on the situation. How many Australians actually believe our bureaucrats are not only grossly overpaid but also cost us even more than is morally & economically acceptable ?

Indy,

You have a distorted view of the public service, probably based on your own dismal failure in the short period you were a PS, before being terminated. Like in private enterprise, public servants are subjected to performance assessments and reviews, and those who fail to meet standards are weeded out. Now how about you justify your demand that 95% of public servants be sacked, and stop with the weasel words.

Thanks for the article Scott Prasser- adds to the debate.

With respect it's less about transparency and more about trust- but we trust some people more or less than others. Sometimes transparency leads to trust- but sometimes it leads to vulnerability and exploitation of the institutions. You could argue that objective reporting by institutions is critical in a democracy so that the people can make decisions in the interest of themselves rather than the special interests of politicians and special interest lobby groups.

The wise probably trust based on perceived outcomes rather than rhetoric and media.

This is especially recognizable when talking of transparency in the defence department- what the public knows the enemy knows. Remember the hebrew Warner Bros made "Snafu" movies- loose lips sink ships.

As Sun Tzu says "confront the enemy directly- win by deception".

But Australia has become divided and weak by multiculturalism and trust has been lost.

If bureaucrats had to spend at least 3 out of every 8 years working in private enterprise it just might introduce some private sector work ethic into our feather bedded bunch. With some work ethic we could halve the public sector work force,& still get more done

It might give them some idea of what it was like in the real world, which just may get them, top understand what their lack of prompt treatment of various requirements cost us.

Yes I know it is just a dream, but wouldn't it be nice if some of them did more than a days work a week.

public servants are subjected to performance assessments and reviews, and those who fail to meet standards are weeded out
Paul1405,
yes and, pigs fly !

Kudos guys

You have a distorted view of the public service,
Paul1405,
No, you have a warped character that does not want to accept remuneration based on merit ! Only one with such thinking can stand there & defend what's actually happening !
Good people are shafted because the hangers-on fight tooth & nail to keep the bandwagon rolling at everyone else's expense and, the VOICE is not even in yet !

Thank you Canem Malum, from the bottom of my heart, no one appreciates kudos from you more than me. Does that now mean we are bosom forum buddies, and we can hang out together? You can tell me about all those nasty commie, pinko, red fellas, and I can quote Marx to you, that's Graucho not Carl. You never know, I might even get an invite from you to join the "party"! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Indy,

You have a blinked views of public servants, and I doubt you have had much experience in the field at all. You did once say your were a PS for a short time, why were you a-holed>? Lazy and incompetent I suspect.

Hassy,

Would there be a lazyer mob of useless, than those total non-productive's playing with big boys toys in the military?

Paul1405,
Spoken like a true Peter Principle Bureaudroid !