After being the subject of an extraordinary political 'witch-hunt', CPSU member Trent Smith is at the centre of an explosive legal battle set to test the limits of the Public Service 'Code of Conduct'.Trent Smith was dismissed from his Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) job last July after being accused of acting politically when he advised an Opposition staffer to check the Hansard record of Parliamentary proceedings and other public sources of information.
The case has taken 4½ years and involved DFAT trawling through 8000 emails and spending a million dollars of tax-payers' money.
Learn more here and post a comment below. Check out recent media reports here.
DFAT-sacking-a-gross-overreaction
Diplomat-threatened-dfat-head-court-told
Govt should drop witch-hunt and reinstate Trent Smith now (CPSU media release)
DFAT-may-probe-spys-suicide
Bureaucrats-agog-at-evidence-of-skulduggery-in-ranks
Govt witness contradicts himself at unfair dismissal hearing
Diplomat-drops-more-bombshells
Envoys-past-faces-tough-scrutiny
Diplomat-tells-of-46m-in-bank-account
Key Govt witness admits being mystery source
Diplomat-tells-of-giving-loans-to-thai-drug-dealers
61 comments:
Without taking away from the seriousness of the injustice visited upon this man, I can't help but think of the Dilbert cartoon where Catbert the evil HR manager declares a "WITCH HUNT" draws up a list of potential suspects, and punishes people just for being on the list.
Keep fighting mate, the union and every member is behind you.
This is an abomination, but tragically no more than we've come to expect from Howard's lickspittles. In one sense I'm pleased to be heading towards retirement, but I hold grave fears for Australia as we head down the American path of politicisation all all aspects of what was once a world-class public service.
Paul Keating's banana republic has arrived.
My thoughts are with Mr Smith. I have had some experience of being investigated on spurious grounds and know how devastating it can be even when you know you have done nothing wrong.
Chin up mate, you'll win in the end!
It's clear Mr Smith was doing his duty not breaching it. Public Servants are required to serve the people and Parliament of Australia.
APS Act S3 (a)
"to establish an apolitical public service that is efficient and effective in serving the Government, the Parliament and the Australian public;"
s10 (g)
"the APS delivers services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public and is sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public;"
I know of cases in which the Goverment required Public servants to inform the Opposition of details of proposed legislation and identify objections. Such cases are much closer to partisanship than Mr Smith's e-mail.
Reinstate the man he has done nothing wrong.
The Howard govt is made up of a bunch of right wing thugs. In another time and place they would be setting fire to the Reichstag.
Hang on.... someone is breaking down my door..... probably little Johnies thought police.
I do believe that it is type of ' we must all to the corporate line ' is a growing culture within middle and upper ranking public service managers of all political persuasions.It is becoming common and is extremely destructive.
These people somehow try to be more 'corporate' than their cousins in the commercial world by developing and rigidly enforcing self serving 'codes of conduct' which they use to terrorise staff into submission. This is not a political issue this is an industrial issue.
I would not be at all surprised if there is not a workplace psychopath at work here within the organisation.
Of course I am taking your case at face value and you are certainly not an objective party. You are quite partisan and probably unable to be objective after 4 years of struggle.
You are going to have a lot more of this sort of issue in the next few years irrespective of how the political landscape arranges itself. I would very much like to see you develop a workplace wide approach to the bullying.
Geoff
Good on you Trent, As a fellow unionist I am with you all the way. I hope you are successful. I didn't know people like you existed anymore. You are inspiration to all of us.
Regards
Gary
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE OF THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT WASTING TAX PAYERS MONEY IN AN EFFORT TO RE-ENFORCE THEIR OPPRESSIVE REGIME. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE AND THOSE DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO HAVE PURSUED THIS LINE OF ENQUIRY SHOULD BE SACKED. WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark
If the facts are as stated, continue to spend members funds, engage QC's and sue for damages/costs.
chris
Firstly thank you for the information regarding the ridiculously mis guided campaign against Mr Smith under the guise of Code of Conduct. It is to be hoped that all costs are awarded appropriately and highlighted in parliament. The email update on such matters is always greatly received.
I am a concerned yet hardly surprised given experience within (my Department). It is a regrettable fact that modern management principles have taken much discretion away from local area managers to actually manage people and instead placed this in the hands of HR departments who are directed (and need to justify their existence/success) to act under Code of Conduct/APS Values in formal action.
Repeated Conduct cases have emboldened Senior Executives to the point that trends self perpetuate. It is a matter of some urgency that the CPSU investigates the amount /nature/outcomes of Code of Conduct matters across departments. Here, the Chief Executives operating instructions mention that a register is held to ensure consistency yet when I asked the CPSU to investigate the register they were reluctant.
Until the CPSU takes an active role in defending every targeted individual (read Union members/delegates or opinionated staff) this trend will continue.
For the record I was an active Delegate who has taken the road of least resistance and am now merely a sometimes interested member.
I was very sad to hear about the witch hunt with Mr Smith. We must all support basic principles. The first APS value is behave honestly and with integrity. I believe Mr Smith has acted professionally and needs to be reinstated.
Regards
Margaret
Please accept my strong support for Trent Smith and his fight against the Government attempt to blackmail all public servants.
Please pass on my support to Mr Smith. I see this sort of intimidation of public servants as the thin end of the wedge in terms of behaviour that threatens the foundations of our democracy.
Cheers
Bob
Where on earth are the courts on this one.
Thank you for your article on Trent Smith and, on the basis of yours and other media reporting, it is clear that his dismissal by DFAT was both wrong and unfair. I therefore look forward to the AIRC clearing his name and returning him to his job plus compensation for the attempted humiliation of Trent, etc, by DFAT. Of course, it takes a brave man to pursue this line of action and I congratulate Trent for doing so. May I however suggest that you publicise 'fund-raisers' on behalf of Trent so that those of us who haven't yet assisted or contributed can do so.
Yours in comradeship,
Why isnt this story big news in the media????
There has been some coverage mainly in Fairfax media. Here are some links
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/DFAT-may-probe-spys-suicide/2007/05/29/1180205243227.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bureaucrats-agog-at-evidence-of-skulduggery-in-ranks/2007/05/25/1179601670573.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/diplomat-drops-more-bombshells/2007/05/23/1179601492712.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1931236.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/diplomat-tells-of-46m-in-bank-account/2007/05/22/1179601412736.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/diplomat-tells-of-giving-loans-to-thai-drug-dealers/2007/05/21/1179601331974.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/envoys-past-faces-tough-scrutiny/2007/05/22/1179601410999.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1930409.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/diplomat-threatened-dfat-head-court-told/2007/05/21/1179601329967.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dfat-sacking-a-gross-overreaction/2007/05/20/1179601242793.html
After reading this article, I certainly feel for Mr Smith in his battle against bureaucracy and I wish him well. I too have been fighting to clear my name and reputation for almost a year and sought the assistance of the CPSU. My department has finally offerred me a VR to get rid of the problem, which is certainly not the best outcome for the Australian taxpayer.
I have worked in the APS for over 20 years and did not know one could not respond to apolitical requests from opposition parliamentarians or staff. I thought we had to respond to all Parliamentary officers. One would never provide an opposition member with anything other than what's in the public domain, but I was under the impression that public servants served all parliamentarians, not just the members of the current government. I have been involved in the responses to requests from the current government asking for information to support their campaigns and provide information that is then provided to local members for use in their mail outs to constituents, a practice I find an abuse of tax payers money and public servants.
Have a go at the current government for that, when all Trent was doing was his job. What is one going to say - Sorry I can't help you? This should also mean that as a member of the APS, a parliamentary librarian could not provide the information that Trent provided. Where does one draw the line??
Please give my regards to Trent Smith. This is a ridiculous situation.
Hope he goes away.
Howard not Trent.
The tale of Trent Smith's ordeal is something I have been following in the papers, though CPSU has provided some added detail. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the issue is the bias that it reveals in the higher levels of at least some APS agencies. There are two aspects of this that would be enough on their own, but together they are devastating:
(a) There was a breach of information security in DFAT. Trent came
under suspicion for being responsible. It is clear that he was selected
for investigation on the basis of his political opinions. He was
cleared, but Departmental management wanted his head anyway, so they
went looking for a pretext. Having found a plausible one, they sacked
him. Unfortunately, it seems that many others in DFAT are guilty of
similar "offences", including the number one witness against him. They
haven't been punished. What is the difference between the people whose
actions have been overlooked and the one who has been sacked? Their
political opinions.
(b) The evidence about the prime witness is nothing short of astounding.
My translation of it is that he effectively said "Give me back my
security clearance or I'll leak sensitive information". And they gave
it back! It seems that only a Lib/Nat supporter (as admitted in the
press) could get away with that. The ultimatum is in itself proof that
the cancellation of his security clearance was justified and I believe
merits investigation itself for a possible breach of the APS Code of
Conduct.
The injustice in this case is outrageous. There is one rule for Lib/Nat supporters in DFAT and another for ALP supporters - and in neither case is the APS Code of Conduct any more than window-dressing. It is a demonstration of the corrupting effect of political power and how workers need to be organised independently & democratically in defence of their interests. When Departmental management becomes a partisan of the political opinions of the Government, it is the Union which is the best guarantor of the ability of APS staff to give independent advice.
In Solidarity,
Trent Smith vs DFAT is indeed a precedent-setting case. It will decide if a Department has carte blanche to use the APS Code of Conduct as a tool to selectively bludgeon employees (particularly active union members) into submission.
What is amazing is how arbitrary it all is. On one hand, Smith is sacked for replying to an e-mail from an Opposition (ALP) staffer; DFAT said it violated the apolitical value of the APS. On the other hand, a number of DFAT's own witnesses against Smith admitted that they had contact with Opposition staff members but hadn't reported it to their supervisors.
Meanwhile, DFAT’s star witness against Smith, Matthew Hyndes, is on record not only having had contact with ALP staff members himself, but having threatened to leak sensitive information about the Department and its officials unless his security clearance was restored. Not only was the security clearance restored, he is now Australia’s Deputy High Commissioner to Sri Lanka.
Does this seem inconsistent? Note that Smith was an ALP adviser in the late 90s, while Hyndes had campaigned for the Nationals and has Liberal Party connections.
DFAT is clearly using APS apolitical values as a political hammer. CPSU members beware!
I support Mr Smith's continued action for redress.
There used to be a phrase attributed to "the best of the best" of public servants; that is, those that were "frank and fearless" in their advice.
Good on you Trent..."evil only prospers where good men remain silent" or something like that.
Even so, you have the courage to pull off this no mean feat.
This is bullying at it's worse and flies in the face of all we are trying to do to eliminate it in our schools. It also flies in the face of the 9 values for Australian Schools that we are trying to instil in our students as well as undermining the civics and citizenship programs that are being taught- all "initiatives" of the Howard government. Finally it is a totally improper use of our taxation dollar. Roll on November elections...
JA
Hang in there Trent. I hope the AIRC sees this witch hunt for what it is.
If the details of the matter are as reported in this bulletin, then I whole-heartedly support Trent Smith in his efforts to be re-instated.
I have observed the practices of this government since 1996, and have had a growing distain for the leaders, and their spin-doctors.
With their passing, the remedy must include the outing of all their fellow travellers in the public arena.
Their bullying tactics and efforts at intimidation must be resisted and proved to be not effective.
This action against Trent Smith must be vigorously resisted, and taken into the public arena.
Let all the odium of bad people management associate itself with Work Choices and all that it entails.
Typical public service bullying
Working in Immigration, there has been much rhetoric within the agency about the need to take responsibility for issues and fix problems or bring them to the attention of Management. There has also been some focus in the APS regarding whistle-blowing, including a Griffith University study which officers of this agency have participated in.
However, the case of Mr Smith and of the former Customs officer recently found guilty of releasing a confidential report he authored in regard to security problems at Kingsford Smith airport in the early part of this decade reveal the true ethos of Commonwealth administration at this time, which is to keep your mouth shut and do what your told !
I am astounded by revelations about Mr Smith and the behavior of DFAT. If the issue wasn't so serious, it would be absurd. The fact that DFAT is continuing on, with their own star witness bringing them into even more disrepute, reveals how shallow and outrageous their whole vendetta is against Mr Smith.
This is clearly an example of how the current government is politicising the Australian Public Service. What's worse, it is using the cloak of the APS Values to attack others, when their own behaviour itself is a more significant breach.
What is required is an external to DFAT inquiry to investigate and bring charges for breach of the APS values against those in DFAT for their behaviour against Mr Smith. Perhaps even a Royal Commission, to look at Mr Smith's case and the larger issue of the politicisation of the APS.
Perhaps when we have a change of government.
Hugo
Dear CPSU,
Thank you for being there to support Trent Smith and the principles of operating without fear or favour that are fundamental to being a public servant.
What has happened to the public service?! Why is it being run by ruthless, ambitious "no prisoners" types who wouldn't know ethical conduct if it ran them over?! Is it fixable?
I fully support him. I know what he is saying about it being far easier to walk away. I could have also done that when my eyesight started to fail.
I now have a large screen, a document enlarger. I am getting ZoomText and this has all taken just over 12 years. I am an APS2 and this department will do it's utmost to make sure that that is the way it stays. So go forward. Make a stand. If I can help or if you have anything to support me with let me know.
I am appalled by the government's treatment of Mr Smith based on the information presented in your article and truly wish that he wins his court case and is reinstated in his job soon.
The AIRC has not reinstated anyone since 2003 even if the termination was harsh,unreasonable or unjust. In the event it is found to be their usual compromise is 6 months pay in lieu of reinstatement as long as the Agency argues that the relationship has broken down (irrespective as to who is responsible for that). 6 months pay in lieu of reinstatement can cover your legal fees and leave you a little change. Is that Justice? Agencies terminate because if they impose a lesser sanction then it can be reviewed by the Merit Protection Commission. If it's termination they can't review it and it has to go to AIRC and legal costs incurred by the employee who's been rendered without an income to further disadvantage them while the Agency has taxpayers money to spend on AGS QC's and legal staff bigger than Ben Hur that will drag a case out until you either run out of money or die. Significant reforms are needed. This situation is outrageous. Trent's fight is admirable and we all wish him well against these clearly biased thugs.
From Mikhail Alexandrov
Trent Smith is a decent person, who should get his job back. If this does not happen now, it will happen after the regime change in Australia. Trent’s persecution by the authorities makes a laughing stock of Australian democracy. Here in Moscow in conversations with foreign diplomats and politicians I always give his example as a manifestation of political repression by Howard’s regime. This regime should be stopped until it encroached on more fundamental human rights. That is why all democratically minded Australian people should support Trent in his just cause.
Dear CPSU,
If they want to talk about adherence to “codes” or "guidelines" – these guidelines indicate that apolitical extends so far as handling media enquires & making public statement. They also indicate that senior management obtain a determination from the Minister as to whether conduct constitutes breach of requirement to be “apolitical” or were they guessing or biased or making a determination without hard evidence? If they didn’t check it with the Minister is DFAT in breach of the guidelines? Obviously Trent Smith did not feel he was in breach and had no concerns about it otherwise would have queried it with managment as required - see below
"Agencies have found it useful to have in place procedures, agreed with Ministers, to handle media enquiries and make public statements. (Note: requirement to be apolitical seems confined to these actions).
Employees should discuss any concerns they have about what constitutes an effective apolitical and impartial role with senior management. Senior management, in turn, may need to discuss the matter with the Minister or the Minister's office"
Apolitical, impartial and professional
Last updated: 25 August 2003
http://www.apsc.gov.au/values/conductguidelines4.htm
The role of the APS is to serve the Government of the day: to provide the same high standard of policy advice, implementation and professional support, irrespective of which political party is in power. This is at the core of the professionalism of the APS.
The APS works within, and to implement, the elected government's policies and outcomes. While it is not independent, it is well placed to draw on a depth of knowledge and experience including longer-term perspectives.
Good advice from the APS is unbiased and objective. It is politically neutral but not naïve, and is developed and offered with an understanding of its implications and of the broader policy directions set by government.
APS employees have a role to assist Ministers with their parliamentary and public roles, such as drafting speeches.
In the course of their employment, however, APS employees should not engage in party political activities such as distributing political material, nor should they use office facilities or resources to provide support of a party political nature such as producing political publications or conducting market research unrelated to program responsibilities (see page 94).
APS employees are required to be impartial in performing their official duties. In implementing government policies and programs decisions must be made on merit.
APS employees have an important role to explain policies and analyse the reasons behind them, to assist the elected government to achieve its policy aims and help meet program objectives. This can involve speaking at public forums and engaging external stakeholders. APS employees need to do this professionally, and avoid partisan comment. Their approach to speaking publicly about policies needs to support public confidence in the ongoing capacity of the APS to be impartial.
Agencies have found it useful to have in place procedures, agreed with Ministers, to handle media enquiries and make public statements.
Employees should discuss any concerns they have about what constitutes an effective apolitical and impartial role with senior management. Senior management, in turn, may need to discuss the matter with the Minister or the Minister's office
This story seems incredible in this day and age and I look forward to further updates in CPSU News as this case progresses and hopefully, for justice sake, Mr Smith is vindicated.
Bruce
Trent - don't give up. You are also fighting for all who want an APS free from management-endorsed harassment, intimidation and bullying. I am probably naive, but I still believe that the culture engendered in the APS percolates right through the culture and society of the nation.
Public servants have a process to which enquires are made and responded to, Rudds office called this guy directly because he was a former Labor staffer, Rudds office put him in a situation where he broke the rules. Enough to be sacked, I think not. If it wasn’t a former labor staffer the person would of got a slap on the hand. I use to work for a Coalition MP. Since returning to the public service I have been treated terrible by my department. I would suggest that any one thinking of undertaking MoPS seriously consider the consequences. I work in a building full of CPSU cronies. And because I worked for the “wrong side” I get treated like I was working for the Russians during the cold war, or is that a good thing for the CPSU?. This works both ways people.
Sure it works both ways. The is not about politics, it concerns the politicisation of the public service. We all want to see a public service run according to generally accepted rules, not corroded by unethical people willing to lower themselves to political games. Anyone in the public service deserves a fair go, regardless of their political complexion. Trent Smith's case is not about politics. It is about drawing a line in the sand about decency and fairness in the public service.
The AIRC (www.airc.gov.au) has the email that Smith sent ... very trivial. Smack on the hand at worst!. Compare to what's in Senate Hansard and on the AIRC website about the "star witness" Hyndes. Makes a mockery out of the APS (esp DFAT). The public must be laughing their heads off. The serious part is the cost in time and money (>$1m). What Hyndes has been upto and DFAT's protection of him is a discrace (www.aph.gov.au. See estimates hansard of 29/05 - interesting reading).
How long can DFAT management go on burning public funds on this mindless persecution? Surely this has got to the point where the Secretary or the Minister has realised that DFAT looks arrogant, out of touch, vindictive and ruthless? Otherwise it's not a great look for a department that prides itself on being the creme de la creme!
Keep fighting Trent - I know how hard it must be, but the idiots who sacked you and their Government masters need to be taught a lesson. All the best.
Is this what lies in store for honest hard working APS employees who dare to try to do our jobs in a fair and reasonable manner? I really feel sorry for Trent. The code of conduct is definitely being used to victimise people and I am fed up with it. Fight on Trent. We are behind you 100%. I have been in the APS for nearly 22 years and I have never known such dark times. The shadow of the 'Government of the day' is hanging very low indeed.
Senior public sector managers these days wouldn't know honesty and ethics if they fell over it. Most use the APS Code of Conduct in the same way that witches use a broomstick.
Anonymous above who worked for a Coalition MP's office and who claims to have been treated badly since is hardly in the same boat as Trent is. If he was he would be unemployed now but he still seems to have a job despite his grumbling.
What a crying shame... what a disgrace... and what a waste of public monies.... where is the ethics and morals of our government.... this money could have been far more wisely and effectively used. I would like more accountability of where my taxes are used... Certainly not on these witch hunts.... definitely on health or education or something that benefits the community not a political cause.
Trent
The insidious politicisation of the PS is leading to a slow compromise of core values. Your witch-hunt has galvanised many of us to look at where we "draw the line in the sand".
Keep up the good fight.
It sounds like we need an investigation to find out who is responsible for this huge waste of public funds and sack them.
A public servant responds to a request for information by pointing someone to hansard. Public servant gets sacked for this and appeals. The department trots out a witness who seems to have admitted blackmailing the department and who has had a shady $46 mill go through his bank account.
Gotta admire that for a demonstration of the APS values in practice haven't you?
Perhaps current cases like Trent Smith and Allan Kessing would never have happened if the FDOA (a public service union) had followed up its excellently stated complaint in 1973 re persecution of William Toomer for doing his job as Senior Quarantine and Grain Ships Inspector for Western Australia.
However, better late than never to protect our democracy. Please persist.
Keith Potter
keithjpotter@bigpond.com
Thanks CPSU for fighting for Trent.
The way I see it, the case hinges on the testimony of Matthew Hyndes.
If he is a credible witness then there should be a parliamentary inquiry into the deal that Mr Hyndes admitted to with DFAT (Mr Chester). Allegedly the deal was about destroying incriminating evidence about DFAT staff (ie contributing to the death of Mr Jenkins among others) in return for Mr Hyndes's security review. DFAT's vested interest in Hyndes's testimony to fuel the political witchhunt though seems suspicious in itself.
Alternatively, if Mr Hyndes can not be believed, which is highly likely because he doesn't seem to have a shred of intregrity left after the hearings, Trent should get off completely.
However, DFAT thinks Mr Hyndes is credible, so maybe they should hold the inquiry into Mr Chester anyway?
T.M.
I have been reading the newspaper articles about Trent Smith and your CPSU blog for some time and am amazed at what has been going on.
It is clear that this type of 'APS Values bullying' is increasing across the entire public service. Hopefully the CPSU and its members can do something to slow it down.
But perhaps the most surprising thing about what I have read on this case was that apparently DFAT's Mr Chester (who has been responsible for this action against Trent) went to Senate Estimates and told them they shouldn't enquire too deeply into the allegations that Mr Hyndes tried to make a deal with DFAT to destroy incriminating evidence until a finding first comes out of the AIRC.
At the same time, Mr Chester's people asked that the AIRC Commissioner not make a finding about whether DFAT had in fact breached its duty in any alleged deal with Mr Hydnes.
Does anyone else find all this a bit too contrived and convenient?
I'm also interested to know whether Mr Chester has declared to Senate Estimates a potential conflict of interest in all this?
Perhaps this type of behaviour should be the subject of an APS Values review, but one conducted outside the hysterical witchhunt atmosphere of DFAT and other similarly complicit and compromised departments.
When is a DFAT political witchhunt not a DFAT political witchhunt?
When it is an APS Values Review?
How many DFAT public servants does it take to prosecute an APS Values Review?
As many as the taxpayers can afford.
When is campaigning for the Liberal-National Party not apolitical and a breach of the APS values?
When the person responsible is your star witness and they have admitted they are sorry?
How does DFAT determine the credibility of its witnesses?
It allows them to make allegations against the largest number of DFAT employees, until the 'right' employee is referred to, and then they focus their entire case on these rambling accusations.
What do you call the person responsible for maintaining the prosecution of a DFAT APS Values political witchhunt?
Minister.
What does DFAT management do when they weather a crisis like allegations against them on the AWB Enquiry?
They hold a celebration 'Get out of jail free' party.
CPSU - this may be the most important case for the next decade - when can a public servant simply do their job without being drawn into the world of political witchhunts. Please keep on fighting the good fight for Mr Trent Smith.
I would be interesting in knowing how Trent Smith explains the email to a Labor staffer ?. I assume he can't blame that on Dr Hyndes as well ?
Mr Smith's e-mail was a response to a request for information from an advisor to the then Opposition Foreign Affairs Spokesman, Kevin Rudd. In his response Mr Smith guided the advisor to public sources. That should have been the end of the story.
Further thoughts on the APS Values
In order to increase efficiency and flexibility the APS have stumbled upon principles-based decision making; perhaps forgetting the reason that cumbersome employment procedures were used in the first place was to restrict the scope of employee work duties so they couldn’t be exploited.
The upside of principles-based decision making is that APS management have a larger discretion to achieve a win-win solution with employees to achieve mutual outcomes.
But, unfortunately, the downside is that the protections that were previously in place to provide certainty for employee entitlements, and to limit their obligations, is quickly diminishing.
Enter the APS Values. Because they are also principles-based, their scope is relatively large and all encompassing. But, of course, there are few employee protections when management wants to use them for their own purposes.
After many years of employment in a public service that is progressively clouded by discretionary (and therefore increasingly uncertain) principles-based administrative policies, procedures, handbooks and guidance, it is unlikely that any public servant will have an absolutely spotless record.
The very act of staying current with all these policies suggests you’d have little time to actually do your job; and the concept of management sponsored training is similarly laughable.
Even where the organisational culture acknowledges this disjunct, i.e. that no one could comply with these endless policies, management still expects the right to argue that ‘select’ employees have breached them to their employment detriment.
Which means that if management chooses to stage a political witch hunt or vendetta against an individual APS employee, then it is likely that management will find something, no matter how minor, that can be used to argue a breach of the APS values and the employee’s duty to serve their employer.
Mr Smith’s dilemma is a case in point.
Where DFAT could not attack Mr Smith on one line of enquiry, they instigated a fine-tooth-comb investigation that searched thousands of minor records until they found something they thought they could use against him. The fact that what the found was either extraordinarily minor or relied on suspect testimony was beside the point for DFAT, because with the mantle of the APS Values, and their inherent discretionary uncertainty, they had the opportunity to construct an argument that even the slightest breach was serious (irrespective of their own witnesses admitting to much the same behaviour).
Because the APS values are now principles-based, the classical protections for workers have been eroded. In an organisation that cares for its employees, this isn’t a problem; but for those organisations, like DFAT, where political pandering seems more important than a functional managerial organisation, there are few protections left.
This is clearly the beginning of a very ugly industrial relations climate for APS staff. While APS staff may be willing to reform administrative processes to increase efficiency, flexibility and to achieve mutual outcomes, they do so at their own peril if their management chooses to take these principles out of context to single out an individual employee.
If the AIRC rules to allow DFAT to pursue this bastardisation of the virtues of principles-based decision making, then it may very well be the watershed that begins the inevitable resistance against such decision making without a comprehensive set of employee protections.
DFAT's behaviour against Smith has been explained by lots of system type comments about principles-based decison making, political pandering and witch hunts.
While these may all be true, the real issue is accountability and possible corruption.
DFAT's star witness Mr Hyndes not only revealed testimony that destroyed his credibility, it also revealed what really goes on behind closed doors in the department.
And this is apparently only the tip of the iceberg with what really goes on there. What with the AWB Inquiry and all the other issues.
Stuff a Royal Commission. There should be an immediate establishment of an Independent Commission Against Corruption into DFAT's activities.
While this government may not have the guts, because of the political repercussions in an election year, the real issue is those being victimised by this culture and its destructive self-serving behaviour.
Smith's case is a cautionary tale to us all. Find out what's really going on before it is too late.
I just read that Mr Hyndes has had his diplomatic posting extended for another six months.
It must be disheartening for all those in DFAT to know that hard work, diligence and ethics will not be rewarded, but that making accusations against fellow staff members and attempting to threaten the Department will.
Mr Hyndes admitted to taking detailed notes of his meetings and discussions with colleagues. I suppose anyone who works with him will have to be particularly careful they don't provide him with any further ammunition.
It must also be demoralising to know that what DFAT does to other governments is now being done to its own employees.
I used to think that DFAT had the cream of the APS. Now I think its staff, and its culture, are more like the bottom of the barrel. Especially when promotions are more about how far you will go for the Department and its narrow political agendas rather than doing what's right.
And always keep in mind the new DFAT mantra: keep your enemies close, and your DFAT colleagues even closer.
DFAT - the smartest people in the room. And every day becoming more like ENRON.
Post a Comment