Noel Preston says: "There are signs that grievances are bubbling up all over the place, while complaints procedures are too often subverted."

This is countered by appearances. The Courier Mail in Queensland has a column "SOLVED - The Red Tape Busters". This is the kind of media that gives people the idea that if you follow a procedure you will get a just outcome. The problems addressed in the column aren't actually solved advice is given on how to solve them. It gives the impression that a hand full of successes is representative. Given recent events in Queensland, it is clear that all you get in most cases at all levels from the backyard dispute to enquiries into hospital deaths is stonewalling and muck about. Police Department burueacracy is one area that an independent body needs to take a good, long hard look. Don't believe police websites, I think, it is all words and pretence. CMC and police ethics committees are earning a reputation as arse-covering exercises.

Could one of the main reason for the lack of ethics in the Federal public service be that howard has politicised the once fine service.As he has done to our once independent armed services, not forgetting the office of the G/G which has been politicised also by arrogant howard taking over the G/Gs duties and resposibilities on many occasions.All this flies in the face of the Westminister system of government that Australia once had. As said by Noel Preston howard has also openly and publicly rewarded perceived incompetence by the head of a department. This has sent a very visible message to the public service in general- "be loyal to me not the Australian people and follow liberal policies and you too could be rewarded" By the way look at the way incompetence and uselessness in the ministry is rewarded by a very well paid overseas appointment - yes again by the master politician. numbat

We should note that Queensland is often cited as a desireable model political system; one without an upper house (review chamber) of any sort.

While second chambers do not necessarily quarantee better politics, they do sometimes provide another entry point for the exposure (and sometimes the redress) of grievances and poor performance. Although the Senate has exposed some pretty dubious practices, its relevance has been downplayed of late to the extent that the kind of investigative work in children overboard for example is now most unlikely to occur, a state of affairs which understandably suits the Liberals, but also ironically the Labor Party.

It's an important issue Noel.
The core factor is missing in the discussion. That's not your fault, Noel; it's missing in all public discussions of the ethics of serving the public.
You end with a quote from Dag Hammarsjold: "Only they deserve power who justify its use daily."
This reveals a serious misperception - that public service is power. Sadly, public service is power; but it should be responsibility.
And the missing core factor is: accountability.
Public servants should be accountable to the people they serve.
This principle should apply to elected representatives as well as employees of public institutions.
Just think of the level of accountability of elected representatives - one day every 3 or 4 years. They are accountable less that 0.1% of the time!
No wonder corruption in public life runs so very very deep!

We need more than ethics which the charts for the ship. We need ethos which is more. It is the compass.
This ehthos has to be infused into the system and until the vacuum of leadership is replaced by visionary, ethically-grounded politicians and senior administrators this will never happen.

What system ever seeks accountablity, transparency, and morality, as well as the encouragement of what we strangely called "whistle blowers" (someone brave enough to stand outside the herd)? The very nature of politics, promotion in the "public service" (oxymoron) is based on different paradigms. We therefore get what we deserve perhaps.

I no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy and although I know there are wise leaders out there, there are few on the ground. Commercial and "political" interests usually dominate everything done in the name of the public. Firefighting like in the Morris Enquiry, and expensive Royal Commissions is too often the proxy for sound, wise and responsive government/governance. Let's move the deck chairs around again, change the letterhead and the logo and pretend it's all different.

It is interesting to note that the only instances of actions for "apprehended bias' to make it into the media in recent years have been initiated by bureaucrats and elected officials seeking to shut down legitimate inquiries into matters that are likely to produce a finding of gross negligence contributing to the death of persons.

The first action was funded by the ACT government to shut down the coronial inquiry into the ACT fires that was paying very close attention to the actions and inaction of the ACT Chief Minister et al. The second was brought by Qld Health officials who continually failed to take any action in respect of reports on the competency of "Dr Death".

This is symptomatic of the entire public service culture where "rights" are the tools available for their own kind to either pursue their objectives or protect their own interests. The public, in their eyes, have no rights. They are merely the holders of concessionary privileges that prevail until such time that the governing tribe may need to call them in.

I have been ripped off, scammed, stooged and pimped at in four languages and five continents but I have never seen a larger, more concentrated gathering of fleshcrawling spivs than one would routinely find in any gathering departmental policy officers.

They do not serve. Our need is merely their franchise.

I also lament the loss of our house of review in Qld, abolished by the Labor Party in 1922 after a referendum. The standard of politician in Qld is so poor that the loss was probably not missed. I believe we are one of the only states/countries in the Westminster system without one. The new changes to the House of Lords is a shining example of what we could be.
Now back to the footy and my beer...

A key Qld ALP number cruncher once gave me the best argument in favour of keeping/re-establishing an upper house. This chamber provides the ideal place to dispose of "dead wood". Without it, parties are doomed to retain long serving members in the lower house long after their best years have passed. An upper house provides an option with a degree of status that softens the blow and challenges no loyalties, when a departure is needed, making it easier to implement in a timely fashion.

This informant was of the view that the additional cost of the upper chamber was nothing compared to the hidden costs of carrying dead wood in the lower house and the resultant lack of opportunity for bright new prospects, many of whom expend their most contributive years just getting into the chamber. False economy, indeed.

While it is understandable that current events in the Queensland Public Service underscore the need to infuse the Service with renewed ethical performance, responsibility and accountability, it is quite unfair to tar all "bureaucrats" with the same brush, particularly, when they are not in a position to defend themselves, in a the way that members of parliament, and media commentators can.

I understand the problems faced by honest, diligent and professional public servants, David, but like it or not, we are all judged by the company we keep. But one need only look at the background of Mr Crosier, the NSW Chief Scientist (ex WWF) and that of key Qld DNRM people, to recognise that there are serious and blatant conflict of interest issues present.

My understanding of a professional's duty in relation to conflict of interest is that it falls on the person concerned to recognise their own conflict of interest, to report it to all concerned, and to step aside until the relevant matter is dealt with. The rot in Qld dates back to a ruling by Goss that membership of an environmental group does not (necessarily) constitute a conflict of interest. This has since been interpreted as meaning, "cannot possibly constitute a conflict.

Much of the so-called public service is no such thing because they do not serve the public as primary obligation. They are nothing more than enviro-political servants, and grossly asynergistic ones at that.

Take your point, Perseus, but appointment of apologists for other causes goes both ways. Consider Australia's recently-resigned chief scientist, Robin Batterham. His other job was as a senior advisor to Rio Tinto. Not surprisingly, his sole prescription for a greenhouse solution was geosequestration of CO2. Jobs such as his are in the gift of politicians. It's hardly surprising we get political appointments. All one can hope for is that next time, you'll get the bias you prefer. And others will complain instead.

The facts are, Anomie, that Batterham was at the peak of his scientific field. Crosier, prior to WWF, was nothing more august than a ministerial advisor. And in opposing Batterham's appointment, the political greens protested loudly and frequently on a principle that they have not respected in the past and which, at the time of protesting, they were engaging in themselves. That is a long way short of "the best one can hope for".

Avoiding and reporting conflict of interest goes to the very heart of "best practice" and "professional duty of care". And any deliberate attack on those standards is an attack on the social contract itself.

Quite so, Perseus, but we could equally argue that, say, Tim Flannery is at the top of his field. Do you think he'd have given the same advice as chief scientist? They choose those whose opinions suit them best.

Flannery is a Paleontologist who has spent most of his life looking backwards. A luddite in drag is hardly a wise choice when selecting someone to drive the bus into the future. He has long since made the switch to pure politics and appears to have difficulty distinguishing opinion from fact. Batterham or Bugs Bunny? Not a taxing choice.

Australians have turned a blind eye to the ethics and the authenticity of their representatives in the public service sector and have allowed the system to be bogged down with deceipt and lack of transparency.

Our Government representatives continually shift the blame and as stated in this article suppress the truth.

If our government representatives were in the real world they would be sacked.