The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Absence of ethics in the public service > Comments

Absence of ethics in the public service : Comments

By Noel Preston, published 21/7/2005

Noel Preston argues there are legitimate concerns about integrity in the public service.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
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...
Posted by Odysseus, Friday, 22 July 2005 12:44:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Perseus, Saturday, 23 July 2005 9:28:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by David Mason, Wednesday, 27 July 2005 8:53:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 29 July 2005 10:43:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by anomie, Friday, 29 July 2005 10:57:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 1 August 2005 11:46:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy