Achieving new middles in mediocrity
Corruption, skulduggery, murder and questionable activities
Privacy Statement, Uses and Motivation
Achieving new middles in mediocrity Corruption, skulduggery, murder and questionable activities
Privacy Statement, Uses and Motivation |
MOSAIC PORTAL SITE MAP
 | The specific category pages of the Mosaic Portal includes the latest news about your work, profession, hobby or interests and lots of other relevant stuff? Eliminate the tiresome irrelevancies of a general web search by using the specific categories of the Mosaic Portal and let the Mosaic Portal bring it to you |
A deep extended index of subjects and subtopics where the research, and search, has been done to find sites with news, articles and resources about your work, study, family, lifestyle, interests, hobbies, entertainment, beliefs, and more
|
|
IMPORTANT
every portal page uses scripting to update content.
So turn your active content on.
|
|
|
| Archive of Australian political web sites |
|
Corroding governance in Australia Articles author: Kevin R Beck When politicians' incompetence is simply too much for society to bear ....a solid record of ... Kevin Andrews, common sense and the world is flat .... filtering the bullshit ... public policy and the church of the customer The Chair of the yet to be established Fair Pay Commission will be taking advice from God. Will God be communicating by email, or letter, or in some acceptable form to comply with legislated public sector record keeping practice? ... indicator of maturity Of Australia's 200 biggest companies, directors in 123 are reportedly breaking the law. Who are they and what is Australia's Treasurer, Peter Costello and the Australian Securities Commission doing about this scandal? More..... Advertisement: Wanted leaders for Australia, political, public and corporate See selection criteria..... Australia's mental health services a travesty, ... wasting Australia's human talent Uranium in Australia ethical meltdown ... |
|
(May, 2005) A Minister who corrodes the culture of his portfolio When did the current Attorney General, and former Minister for Immigration, P. Ruddock, and his senior adviser know that an Australian had been deported? Which Branch Secretary in the Immigration Department signed off on the email advising the Queensland police of the deportation? When did the Minister for Justice become aware that an Australian had been deported? Is it true that Immigration did not pursue the matter due to budgetary constraints imposed by the government through the Secretary and that it was referred to the Justice Minister's department? When did Alexander Downer's office and department know and when was the office of Prime Minister and Cabinet notified? Is Senator Vanstone bearing the heat, like a good party soldier, to protect more senior politicians and the Prime Minister? The rise and deterioration of John Howard's influence Most political commentators, and media, would rate John Howard's influence as primary in Australia and not waning. This is probably true as long as terrorism and fear remain the ascendant cntrolers of peoples' responses. It is also true if they continue to ignore the lack of accountability and the gisgusting examples coming out of Immigration and other departments. Some might say that Howard is merely a reflection of the times and the removal of ethics, and civility, as primary measures of our society, replaced by economy and wealth. For many years John Howard waited in the background wilderness of the Australian Liberal Party. It was always difficult for Mr. Howard, the bland politician, who borrowed ideas and ideologies. Examination of his time as a liberal politician, his speeches and his willingness to jettison these ideas, is on show. John Howard's moment was to come with the rise of indiviualism, self interest, opportunism, greed and insecurity and a burgeoning personal debt. In the backgropund lurks the shadowy reality, a willingness to embrace whatever it takes, racism, xenophobia, nationalism, war, inhumanity, lying, appealing to base interests and more. Appeal to the lowest common denominator and you appeal to the masses. When Pauline Hanson openly opined these, once taboo, traits, Howard's moment had come. The labor and liberal/national parties are finely balanced in the totality of the political landscape. There are, however, more than, 1,000,000 extreme right wing voters who, when the door is opened, spew forth their bile. The federal government executive must rule at all cost, and this requires strategically embracing every opportunity, particularly the far right. The Howard team mastered the art of political dog whistle. Australian politics is now about grabbing and retaining power. Thus we can discern little between labor and the conservatives. The extent of open racism, xenophobia and supremacy is the only demarcation between the two major parties. Labor continually tries to hedge its bets and is cautious. Howard is not cautious until his personal position is threatened. After a while winning at all costs, and its corrosive effect, becomes the bane of good politicians and it eats at the soul of them and at the party's heart. We are now seeing this in the liberal party. The liberal party, until John Howard, had high ideals, values and dignity. These have been trashed by mediocrity. The exceutive of the federal government is supported by sycophantic parliamentary members and apparatchiks, morally moribund advisers and media specialists, government public servants and a host of people who would never have gotten where they are without all grouping around Howard. Under a quality government and party machine, they would not have seen the light of day yet alone administered Australia. The liberal party machine suffered a political coup. How do we measure the pettiness of this Prime Minister, and his cabinet? If a school wants a new flagpole, paid for by the Australian government, they are required to invite a member of the governing party (liberal or national) to the ceremony. The opposition members of parliament are an oversight. For the first time, well beyond any politicisation begun by labor's Hawke and Keating, Australia's public service has been drawn into a political mire that now envelopes the parliament, and bureaucracy. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Mr. Farmer, apologises in a Senate hearing for the woeful performance of his department. The Minister, now administering band aids everywhere, for her inept performance, gives conflicting statements about detainees even as the Prime Minister in the other house says something else. The federal police Commissioner, Keelty, shops ignorant, and subhuman, Australian drug mules overseas so that they can face the death penalty rather than arresting them when they arrive here. Perhaps it is time that drug couriers were made an example of. So let's not waste time, and money, fighting their death sentences or let's leave them to rot in Indonesian gaols? The Australian government no longer serves the ctizen and has become a comedy of erorrs, masquerading as a government, and a public service made into a government service with all of the average performance of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, embedded. The Prime Minister, and his cabinet, could market the effective methodology. How do we measure the magnitude of this man's ignorance or performance? There are so many examples of degrading standards, and performance, everywhere and the Immigration Department is just one example. Then there is the claim that the federal police operate overseas without any policy framework direction, as an extension of the army or as an intelligence agency, providing information to other law enforcement agencies in South East Asia, that is detrimental to Australian belief systems as to the death penalty, our own national interests and citizenship. The disabled are harrassed, the unemployed labelled as `shirkers' and any critics are threatened, denied access and we have every day, "the citizen versus the state". As for open, and accountable, government, Howard and his ministers would seem to have little concept as to what that may be. Philip Ruddock is Minister of Immigration when its disgaceful acts cause pain and suffering to non Australian and Australians alike. The culture is described formally in independent reports as horrible, the climate of management as sycophantic, mean and incompetent, there are no checks and balances. Ruddock, now Attorney General, is not held responsible for any of it, Farmer the Secretary is rewarded with an Australian honour and ultimately is promoted to a senior diplomatic role. Ruddock comes across as a clinically cold and calculating man whose every word is measured and cautious, framed in legalism and political speak. He is one of the least likeable Ministers of the Australian government and it shows at every instance. One can never get an answer out of any government Minister, state, federal or territory. They are evasive, dissembling and some believe, even lying. They are held in contempt in published surveys, and generally, by a great number of the population. There is nothing on can do for they are entrenched in the system. They are, collectively, the primary reason for the <Corrosion of Australia's Character supported by an elite, and unaccountable, group in advisory, public service and corporate roles.. This executive has made talking in tongues, an art form with none better than the former Immigration Minister, now Attorney General, Philip Ruddock. Paraphrasing his standard drivel, "there are protocols in relation to certain matters that are under ongoing investigation and in relation to those certain matters there are certain relationships jurisdictionally that define the parameters of how we deal with, or not, these certain matters whilst considering other matters in relation to those and others." It is now apparent that under this federal government, Australian citizenship can be deemed irrelevant, in the interest of government policy and objective, the affected are simply "collateral damage". The media has been amused by the Howard - Costello leadership issue. How many liberal politicians with the prestige, and liberal breeding, of Costello have kept their counsel, while others have devalued the party to what it is today? The answer is, many. The dissenters in the federal liberal parliamentary party (there are many) question the values and behaviours of the executive. They are disgusted, and appalled, by the government's diregard for human dignity and democracy. They say that any policy that fails "the test of human dignity" goes against fundamental democracy and the foundations of the liberal party. Dismissively the Prime Minister says that they are to shut up and will not be allowed to vote their conscience. They must toe the government (cabinet executive) line. The fact that they represent constitunets is irrelevant to this presidential style of politics. There appears to be little, if any, conscience in the government executive and in Howard himself. The underlying tenets of One Nation and the bigotry thrive in the federal cabinet room. John Howard says that he serves at the pleasure of the party, however he has failed the party and has failed to manage the damaging issue of mandatory detention, locking up mentally ill Australiansa nd deporting others, and it is blowing up in his face. Watch him judge the mood and jettison this policy. As more and more cases of vile treatment, and thuggery, surface, there are hundreds of cases, hidden from the public gaze, not twnety, not thirty, hundreds, in relation to the operation of Australia's detention centres, he is being forced into a corner. He will have to dump his Minister, Amanda Vanstone, also. The voters will not end John Howard's era. In July the government will gain control of the Senate. John Howard will have a cabinet reshuffle to let steam out of the detriorating position he finds himself in. Even when he does this he will learn it is too late. One day in late 2005 or early January 2006, the party will come and knock at the door of the Prime Minister. They will not come on behalf of Peter Costello. They will come on behalf of real liberals, the ones whose stomachs can no longer tolerate the cancer eating at the party and the quality of the nation's governance. They will tell the Prime Minister that he can go with triumph, or he can go with acrimony. It will be immaterial, for he will go regardless. With him will go the callous, the bigots, racists and a pack of under performing non elected parasites along with several millions of dollars of public money. When he goes John Howard will be portayed as the consummate politician, by a segment of the nation, and the media, that has lost its penchant for rigourous inquiry and analysis and its ability to judge what is leadership, what is quality politics and government and what is cant. Some, in the community, in opposition politics and in institutions and elsewhere, will maintain their rage. John Howard's Prime Ministership has been a degrading contribution to the nation's soul and character. If Howard stays the liberals will be ruined over time and the Nationals will rise up to become the party of the ordinary people in the vacuum caused by Labor's obsession with factional power and past glories. The elders of the Labor party cling to power, manipulate and degrade its traditions and history, and contribute to Australia's corrosion. There are no political leaders in Australia who exhibit the qualities that are defined in the text books or the qualities of the great leades of the past. Mediocrity is in ascendancy across the nation. John Howard has not made individual Austalians richer monetarily, it was economic forces, globalism and other things beyond his control. However the successive cabinets of John Howard has collectively made Australia poorer, as a civil society. He has one, and only one contribution, that can be measured with any certainty, his time in office and the size of his pension. The party has to appoint a new leader well before the next federal election and it will be a moderate party member, nothing like John Howard. There are many in the liberal party, who without Howard, will lose all status and position. If Peter Costello is appointed the leader before the next election then labor will not have a chance electorally until after 2010 and will go furter into the wilderness. (May 2005) The breathtaking vision of one of Australia's labor party executives. In 2003 a firestorm raged through the Australian Capital Territory killing four people and destroying hundreds upon hundreds of homes, public buildings, public forests and lands and infrastructure. At the time the labor Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, presented a statesman like image, stating that if the community wanted to blame someone they should blame him and not the firefighters and emergency services management, who it appears never thought that such an event might occur in the land of bushfires. One might think that it is the ACT Assembly and bureaucracy's, poor planning, myopic attitudes and capabilities, as to how a community should be managed and protected and their risk analysis capacities. There was an element of hubris and ego as the two jurisdictions (NSW and the ACT) engage in seeking who can pee higher up the wall. The Australian Capital Territory politicians, and bureaucrats, have created an uimage that they do not need to be told or advised by anyone else. If your view of the world is that you are supremely capable in your abilities, and these are framed within the parameters of the next budget, and the next election, mired in self interest and status quo power bases and positions, then it is unlikely that the community is going to have a visionary and unconflicted government and civic management. Mr. Stanhope set up the appropriate enquiry and then waxed lyrical about how Canberra would be prepared in the future, funding local community fire response teams. About twenty eight have been established with expectations of another sixty. They are run by volunteers, in the suburbs, which is another issue that could be examined in detail. Politicians will, like corporate boards and anyone else in positions of authority, spend as much money as they see fit on their own justified salaries, conditions and that of their favourites and pet projects but the community, and employees, must always be largely volunteers by comparison. The Chief Minister, ever politically adroit, managed to assist in derailing the enquiry turning it into a multimillion dollar legal fight with no discernible outcome, wasting enough money to fund hundreds of local community services with or without volunteers. Ironically the government supports a proposition that the Coroner, in charge of the enquiry is biased. Let he who is among you without sin cast the first stone. Politicians and the those affected would never be biased would they? The Supreme Court action supported by the poor judgement of Stanhope came down unfavourably. The Chief Minister said the judegment was flawed. Such is the arrogant assumption that he holds his views above the indepndent judge. In the meantime Stanhope stumbles on to greater heights of political, and leadership, ineptitude. He never ceases to amaze at his ability to take his leadership to even greater heights of trivial pursuit. The government has declined to provide the promised funding ($250,000) for the next suburban group of community fire volunteers. They slide away on a claim that at least they are funding the existing twenty eight to remain viable. The overall establishment of all sixty was initially to be circa another $500,000. Jon Stanhope, the Minister and the Treasurer (and probably the whole of the labor party) claim budget austerity and that the bickie tin is empty. Some time ago, Mr. Stanhope went to Tasmania and he visited a tree tops walk, in a forest. He was indeed impressed. In the budget, instead of the firefighting community initiative, the people of Canberra have $150,000 for a viability study for Stanhope's new pet project, a tree top walk in a forest south of Canberra that may one day not be there, because of a fire, but the metal walkway will be. People, outside of Australia, should know that Mr. Stanhope is not a Premier of an Australian state. He is Chief minister, in a regional community. He is the head of what is normally a city council, which explains much about the quality of governance in the Territory and the decision making process priorities. (May 2005) Robert Carr (NSW) has achieved a record as Australia's longest serving state Premier. Bob is a trained journalist and actor. Every term Bob Carr has promised good government and services for the people of New South Wales. His media and acting skills are called upon every day. Here is his partial political birthday card. The state's rail infrastructure is old and unsafe The trains do not run on time, if at all, sometimes they crash. There is insufficient fresh water and there has been no strategies and investment to deal with this up until 2005 The state's energy systems are old and run down and there has been no investment in them up until budget statements in 2005 Crime, disregard and disrespect for society, law and the police is high and the government does not know what to do about this breakdown in civil society A civil society is a reflection of its political leadership The education system is a hotch potch of federal and state political and social engineering ideologies. There is policy and political fighting, whether it be about money or ideology, industrial relations or standard tests. NSW is underfunded, burdened by a multi-layered bureaucracy that is mediocre and stifles innovation and attacks morale. Despite this and luckily for the children the teachers and parents are dedicated and resilient. The state and territory hospital and health systems are ham strung by multilayered bureaucracies, and interest serving groups, concerned more with finance and pandering to political masters, override and admonish highly qualified and dedicated nurses and doctors. It is a system run from the top down instead of the profession up. There has been no regional, or rural, development investment by governments in services. The bureaucracy, and ministry, claims the work of private companies as its own initiatives in areas where development and job creation occurs The Carr government is Sydney city centric and wastes millions of dollars on shoring up its political currency in inner city local government politics There has been no significant investment in manufacturing, in science, technology or knowledge industries in the state by the Carr government On the topic of police, the Premier is less than forthcoming about the number of police suspended or pending dismissal. The matter of Monique Turner is disturbing. A female officer in the NSW police service who reported a rape by a fellow officer claims victimisation. here is the story NSW has a history of corruption in its police service and the existence of a military style, boys club. The Ministers of Carr government, in every portfolio, have a record of mysogony, evidenced by the victimisation of nurses who blew the whistle on their health bosses and the government. One Minister liked to wear a black shirt with his shaved head, he was inspiring image for a politician, so warm and approachable Some members of the public may have mistaken him for the anti - family court, outlaw divorce, father's group, known as the black shirts. On balance, who would the public be inclined to believe. Monique Turner, that she was raped by a fellow officer, the Minister, the police Commissioner? There has been a number of trails, but all to no avail, so now it's sack Monique time. In the citizen versus the state, Monique Turner is just another case. Is she being railroaded out of her career by the boy's club, the politics and the system? Probably yes. because the system in NSW is bent. Bob Carr has never displayed an interest in individual citizen's rights unless it affects his personal electoral prospects. He is a boorish, autocratic politician, who likes to write books and publish his diaries, as if anyone of any intelligence, other than the media from which he emerged, is interested. He has little in common with reality and the people. He will not give a commoner the time of day unless there is something in it for Bob Carr. He stays in government on his media and acting skills, and because the opposition is inept, not because he is a talented leader. Why change government if the alternative is even less inspiring? He will leave government having made no lasting contribution to NSW of any substance, but taking a nice superannuation package with him. Due to Bob's poor poor planning and lack of investment and innovative thinking the people of Sydney may find soon enough that they cannot shower everyday. Ever noticed how people who aspire to high levels of success and powerful positions will invariably talk about 'how tough they are'? There are numerous examples we see in every day corporate, and public life, and many of them come from people, who either have not quite made it to where they want to be, or from those who have managed to devalue the organisations, and assets, they have been given, some even go to jail. Kim Beazley came back to the ALP leadership because there was apparently no alternative, which is a statemenet when you consider how many labor politicians there are in the federal parliament. It must be heartening to know that you are the saviour, the last report or it might result in hubris. The leader of Australia's federal labor party, extolls his `theories of strength' in attempting to justify why he fails to communicate with, and to gain a concensus, from his colleagues as to how he might respond to the Australian government, to policy and to everyday issues. Beazley, and his cotery of advisers, strategists and spin doctors, have been there before. They were not good at any of their tasks then, because they failed on multiple occasions to get Beazley into the Prime Ministership and he even lost the leadership of the party. They have packed and unpacked their boxes and appear to have learnt very little from the experience. They delude thesmelves as to their capabilities and the constituencies they purport to represent Beazley's blatehring about `strength' and `hard ball politics' is about the annual budget. Kim Beazley has decided somewhat unilaterally that the Labor party should, whilst dreaming awake of moments of glory past and relevancy, block the passage of tax cuts to everyone and propose an alternative. It would be agood tactic if the ALP was an opposition pary of substance over the long term, but they are not. Beazley is grasping at his final days of power. At first Blather's justification of his knee jerk response to the tax cuts, forget about any other issue of substance such as locking up and deporting Australians accidentally, was that leadership required the hard decisions and the strength. What bull. Then, since that sounded somewhat hollow given his past performance and experience and real knowledge of such things, since he has had a few goes at leadership, and winning elections, and missed out, he was acting in the interest of the ordinary worker and the lower income earning individual. It is unfair in Blather's eyes that people on higher incomes should get large tax cuts and others get paltry ones. The percentages should be different for each group so that we reward the lesser individual performances for reasons that are not quite clear. Here we can suspend the fact that Labor has policies directly supporting the value of globalism, competition, markets, individual endeavour and wealth creation. Instead we should upon command, embrace their alternative `hat' and offering - Labor, the party of the worker. Rubbish! The definition of worker, has changed dramatically over time, leaving "blue collar" Labor, and the trade union movement, floundering. Then we can stretch Labor's role, to embracing the notion that the senior Labor parliamentarians, who earn salaries in the top echelon of the workforce, somehow miraculously by right, relate to the lower income in society when the other side of politics, who are also in the same income category, cannot. It does not matter that Kim Beazley, and labor career politicians, have rarely, or never been, in this sector of the income band, except when they were struggling students, public servants and trade unionists, or maybe a builder's labourer, and it does not matter that they have absolutely no correlation whatsoever with the `battlers'. They still push the envelope of belief, and misrepresentation, of their history and their roots. Beazley's next claim to the moral defence of his view of leadership and justification is that he has shown that he is prepared to `play hard ball politics" because he is standing up to the state Labor leaders who think that he is `full of it". Do we actually care that he is confronting them and they are confronting him and that he feels good about this? This is irrelevant to being a good leader. Back to the archaic belief that belligerent `bull in china shop' styles are the essence of a good leader. Beazley is not alone in this archaic notion and he seemingly draws sustenance from similar role models in the corporate world, and a media that is enthralled with the gladiatorial contest of Australian politics, and stories and claims of representing the `worker', that are drivel, rather than the mundane, and very boring deeper, analysis and critique of the failure of political governance and quality of public interest service that envelops the nation. There is the defence that journalists in the parliamentary gallery have little material to work with. However there investigative skills appear to be on the decline. In a few weeks the Howard, conservative coalition, will have a majority in both houses of parliament and Beazley's notions of leadership.hard ball politics, and delusions as to whom the party represents, will be worthlerss. He will not have the numbers to block tax cuts, allocation of car park places and paper clips. All he will have, is what he has now, words, words, words. However politics, and governance, is a complex business and a game where there are many human perosnalities, aspirations and interests and it will not be all ahead full steam for the Howard government's agenda as so many commentators predict. I actually think that the Howard government will splinter, and unravel, like a whirly top as scandal, evidence of poor performance and other crimes against good governance and public policy surface to bite their collective arses. Mr.Kim Beazley Leader of the Opposition Parliament House Canberra Dear Mr. Beazley I was wondering when you and Mr. Swan would be having surgery as a result of shooting yourselves in the foot with the one bullet? While you are there get the "bob each way on everything" labor party patented implant removed from you and the "feathers" replanted in Swan to create a better looking duster. It seems that political septisaemia from the tax bullet may be spreading to the brain, if your interview on Neil Mitchell's talk radio is anything to go by as you were looking a bit grey whilst rambling and being evasive. Whilst you, and your tremendously effective strategy team, make out disingenuously that you are denying employees a $6 to $60 pay cut, on some spurious spin on fairness, your labor mates in the ACT Assembly will receive a handsome pay rise. They give the highest gross negative return for money, in every portfolio, of any government. While on the topic of value, and return for money, what is the logic behind keeping Laurie Ferguson, Simon Crean and a number of others on whilst Chris Evans, Carmen Lawrence and Lindsay Tanner are on the benches? Do you believe that there is a perception out there that makes using her talents a danger to the federal party? All the valuable experience anmd political nouse gone to waste on what grounds? If this is the case then how is Bob Carr staying in government? He's got more telling negatives in his political career, about health and mental affects on people, than she has. Why not form a book club, with the front bench, and study the nature of leadership and strategy? This would be more effective than the exercise you conducted, and the document you produced full of old theorries and ideas, just after you took over from the dummy spitter. The problematic issue of Simon Crean hanging around may be settled for you at the coming preselection. Also, what was the purpose of trying to push Petro Georgiou in parliament? Could it be surly jealousy that some liberals display more compassion and humanity than the hacks of a diminished federal labor party? You can blame Laurie Ferguson squarely for that perception, he is unable to develop and articulate any policy largely due to being incoherent, and creepy, on television. This is the team you are taking to the next election? I doubt it. Yours sincerely Kev Ms. Sharan Burrow President Australian Council of Trade Unions. Dear Ms Burrow May I enquire the purpose of your being in Geneva,spending union member's funds (which come via the unions to the ACTU and from other sources) on something that will actually not deliver an outcome in Australia? It seems that the Prime Miister will simply blow the dog whistle "we are not going to have people in Geneva, activists and socialists, tell us how to run the country". Rightly so too, and this will probably go down well with the greater part of the Australian nation. Does it ever tax your mind why the overall membership of trade unions is so low? Perhaps it could be that what you see as important, and strategically well thought out, is not so? What about applying your efforts to getting the teacher in Orbost, Victoria, reinstated? His career was terminated by a very nasty piece of legislation which has little ethical merit when interpreted and applied against a man who 13 years ago, when 19 years of age had a sixteen year old girlfriend and which according to ex-teacher, Steve Bracks, turned glamour Premier, makes him unfit to teach. Could it be that Orbost is not as invitinmg as Geneva and that strutting the board walk there for a valid purpose is not as `headline' grabbing as the ego booster of hanging out on the world stage? Yours sincerely Kev Mr. John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia Dear Sir I note that Schapelle is to be given, free of charge, the services of two skilled barristers. I was wondering when my barristers will be contacting me? Yours sincerely David Hicks Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Dear Prime Minister I'm thinking of travelling. If I get arrested for drug smuggling overseas will you give me two barristers? Also if I send my picture to the Australian Department of Immigration will that improve my chances of not being put into detention and being allowed to reenter Australia? Yours sincerely Kev How bright is this government servant? They ring the Chinese Embassy and tell them that they are from the Australian Department of Immigration and they ask if a particular diplomat works there. Why not also tell them in the same call, to avoid them guessing, that the Chinese diplomat is seeking asylum and ask if they have a view on that. Does this government servant think that the staff at the Chineses Embassy is as thick as they are? The Minister says that the officer gave away no information. Please Amanda, pull the other leg. Instead of asking the Chineses Embassy, why not ask the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, also a government agency, if the person is on the Australian Chinese Consular List of Delegates, instead of triggering the alarm bells? This is without a doubt Australia's most stupid, and dangerous, government agency and yet the Minister persists with the proposition that behaviour and action is a cultural thing. What, shaped by Philip Ruddock or whom? And was it culture that can be blamed when Amanda Vanstone, as Acting Minister, deported a pregnant Chinese woman who, days after being handed over in China, had a needle stuck through her stomach into the baby's head killing it? Is this the culture that we have allowed to fourish under our eyes by our elected national government? Is this the culture that the flaky labor party under Beazley, Crean, Latham, and Beazley again, have assisted to nurture? Was it a cultural thing when Amanada Vanstone was Minister for the Department of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs and it could not function effectively under her direction either? That department simply disappeared, but unfortunately for Australia, the Minister did not. This is a digusting, appalling and degrading government lead by peole who are, as they themselves like to say, "unAustralian" and not worthy of any respect what so ever. Australia, and the Australian Liberal Party, might regain its dignity when Howard, Ruddock, Vanstone and Downer are gone. It is a pity that they cannot be deported as "undesirables of questionable character" as they have labelled others. Dear Prime Minister Did you say that the antics of the media, Australians, and the sending of the substance to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra would damage Schapelle's appeal? Do you have a view that Indonesian judges are less capable of ignoring the media, and other influnces, than Australian judges? It seems that you are always putting out conflicting and mixed messages. It is because of the manner in which you conduct our national government that the Australian public perceive that there was a deal done for Schappelle and somehow the Indonesians recanted? I even thought that the Australian government had done a deal through political channels and that the dills in the media, SC's legal team and the lovely and kind man who is fudning her legal case were stuffing it all. I still think that there is deal behind closed doors with SBY and support from George. Are the nine Australian drug couriers, shopped by the Australian federal police, to receive the services of 18 free barristers? Or is it only the young and pretty that are feted to such zealous concern? Are their any other Australians awaiting trial or who are in jail, that you, the government and the labor party oppoistion have fallen over yourselves to express concern for? There are aren't there? Could it be that the media did not run 600 stories on them and they do not provide political capital? As always, best regards Kev Mr. William Farmer Secretary Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Aboriginal Affairs Dear Bill May I call you Bill? It is a big department isn't it. Why are Australian aboriginals, and their affairs, mixed in with Immigration and Multiculturalism? It is a good question isn't it, or not as the case maybe depending upon where you are standing? However, why I am writing is to ask how your own performance, and that of your Deputy, Assistant and Under Secretary's and Branch Managers fits in with the Senior Executive Service criteria which I looked at for your positions? Have you all seen them? According to the Australian Public Service Commisssion, "The Senior Executive Service (SES) is the leadership cadre of the APS". Just in case you, and your colleagues haven't seen them, or you may have forgooten they were there and in your contracts of employment, here they are all, just click Yours sincerely Kev Dear Refugee/Australian Citizen (choose according to your status) I have assessed your case based on the in depth evaluation and exhaustive analysis of my department, and advice that we have no tolerance. Suffice to say that you should now go on the web and read our policy. If you cannot read normal English, or bureaucraturkey - speak, we are happy to supply you with an interpreter at a user pay fee of $350 per hour, or part thereof every five minutes, in line with our policy of cost neutural service delivery or not. Do not try play acting or speaking in tongues because we are wise to all the tricks and we are used to surprises. A. Vanstone Minister for clearing houses and ignorant cultural services Lifting the bar of mediocrity to achieve new middles Ceding Australia's government, and public service, to mediocrity "Debbie Whitmont uncovers disturbing new evidence in the case of Cornelia Rau, who needed help but instead got ten months inside a jail and a detention centre. Cornelia Rau’s case has raised uncomfortable questions about how Australia treats people at the social margins such as the mentally ill, prisoners and asylum-seekers." Source of Quote, Full Transcript The Australian Immigration Department is under investigation for its performance in relation to the incarceration, and deportation, of legal Australian residents, and its general operational ethos in relation to the prisons it runs outside of traditional state jurisdictions. These prisons were established by the Australian Labor Party and exist today under a bipartisan agreement with the conservative Colaition government. However the focus, and blame for ignorance, and degradation, of Australia's federal public service and corrosion of standards and ethics, by its public service management, should not be there alone. The state systems of mental health care are also derelict largely due to the low attention levels of funding and interest by governments, which are now all Labor, and policing methods of identifying and locating missing people. State and federal relationships are dysfunctional and too often, petty. There is no discernible co-operation between the states and the federal Immigration agency largely due to the arrogance of the Immigration Department, going to the highest levels of the service and into the Ministry. The lack of attention to managing a quality operation by the senior bureaucrats and the Minister is evident for all to see. They are so inept at what they do that they lock up Australians, because they are unable to identify them. The Minister in charge of this degrading state of affairs, Senator Amanda Vanstone, is a revolving door Minister, moving between portfolios (education, employment, youth affairs, justice, indignous affairs and immigration in a few short years that the Coalition has been in government. The performance of all of these portfolios diminished dramaticaly under her tenure. Also culpable, and derelict, is the Australian Department of Health which oversights national health but probably argues that mental health is somehow not in their purvey. Here we also have revolving door personnel. Senior people who now are located in senior roles in Health, and elsewhere, including in Prime Minister and Cabinet, were mired in the scandal of the Children Overboard incident just prior to the last election. Photographs were doctored, and misleading content and information was conveyed to the government, by Ministers and others, and out to the public by the government claiming that refugees were throwing their children into the sea in order to circumvent the government's policy of turning desperate people away. This was not simply poor performance it was scandalous dereliction of public duty by public servants and members of parliament, who simply moved on. Loyalty over rides quality public service performance, for the senior personnel of Australia's government agencies are not 'public servants' they are 'government servants' whose careers are at the pleasure of the Minister and the Prime Minister of the day. This wonderful transition was begun by Labor and perfected under the Coalition, and Labor today stabnds mute, with their thumbs in the bums and their mind in neutral. The benchmark of their performance is how well they serve the Minister, not the public that pays their wages. Government servants, and ministers of parliament and advisers and the rest of the corrupting (of governance and democracy) lot, have adopted the cloak of managerialism, believing themselves to be important chief executives, who fly business class and stay in higher grade hotels, see themselves as people of stature and esteem. Quite a few of them are from shining examples to the tens ofn thousands of good, dedicated `public servants', who if they know what is good for them will, like the greater number of Australian people, stay quiet. They people scurry from the spotlight of accountability into the darkness of their corroded souls. Australians, generally, have no interest in politics, governance or the qualty of the performance of the public service, perceiving it to be so low as worth getting rid of. In this attitude, they too are also derelict. Australians, and others are oncarcerated and abused, degraded and humiliated, because Australians casually cede the most important aspect of society - their governments and public services - to mediocrity, and corrosion, with blithe apathy and careless abandon. (April 2005) "Twenty one of You - Out You Go", so says Australia's Immigration Minister on the advice of the Immigration Department that these people have "serious character flaws". This is ironic coming from a department which itself is inept as demonstrated by the Cornelia Rau case and treatment of many Australians and incarceration and mental torture of refugees, by the department and their private, mercenary police forces previously featured It could be argued that the criteria for working in federal immigration in Australia is the possession and demonstration of serious character flaws. Character flaws abound, in Queensland a former Premier with serious character flaws will be given a state funeral and corporate leaders go to jail whilst others just roll along. The Acting Minister, The Honourable Peter McGauran, in all seriousness, said on television that since the government had allowed 97% of the East Timorese people (1479 allowed - 21 declined) who had fled their country's brutal foreign occupation, and wars, had been allowed to stay, that we should `give the government the benefit of the doubt'. A government whose record of secrecy, lying and misrepresenation is a hallmark of its governance, should be given the benefit of nothing, particularly if Ministers rely upon the advice of a department that has a record of incompetency, stupidity and disregard for quality public service and ethics. Amanda Vanstone the senior Minister in the Australian government may like to give out the medicine and prove that she is as toughas the men in politics. It is extremely hard to respect her let alone like her as a poltician for she demonstrates no heart or empathy seemingly relishing her job. She goes from portfolo to portfolio mostly dealing out misery and hard justice. Why send people back to a country where the future is bleak and the living squalid and where the government is demonstrating as much intolerance as Australia. These people have been here for up to ten years. Now that is a measure of the Department's performance and the government's soul. All people who are natural Australians became so by an accident of birth, not of right. Those who chose ctizenship often de,omstrate greater commitment and value their citizenship, some do it out of necessity. The mean people who are citizens cannot be deported and unfortunately we as a nation are stuck with mean politicians. Meanness and despotic behaviour are traits of the modern polital leader, career politician and ultimately governments of Australia and even in East Timor. It is good that the government service and the politicians protect us, the weak, insipid and acquiescent Australian nation, from the evil and scary refugees. This is again the age of the citizen, and the non citizen, versus the state and the public exhibition of how power corrupts. East Timor's parliament is discussing a new law that would allow the interior ministry to deport any foreigner who engages in political activity or even attends a political meeting or demonstration. This same government is bleating about an unfair Australian government which might have some merit, but being hypocritical themselves diminishes their credibility. "Tell Australia to "Stop Stealing East Timor's Resources and East Timor's Future!"  The problem for the Australian government is that deporting East Timorese people, who have lved here for years, in the community, is not the same as ill treatment of middle eastern people in many Australians' eyes, for the East Timorese risked their lives to save our soldiers from the Japanese in the second world war and diggers and others remember. They also remeber that many Australian governments pandered to a brutal regime of control over these people until the Howard government took a stand and sent troops in. Many of these are coalition supporters. They are familiar with flaws of character and may wonder why a group of non Australians should be singled out for special attention? "Queensland police attempted to take a young man, Sam Hogan, into custody. The young man was depressed and delusional and relatives were concerned for his safety, but he had committed no crime. The events of last April are still being investigated by Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission, but there is nothing ambiguous about the result for Sam Hogan. After being sprayed twice with capsicum spray and handcuffed, he has been left with massive and permanent brain damage. While medical experts believe his injuries may have been caused by pressure to the neck from a police restraining hold, it's not the only tragic case involving capsicum spray" Source and Transcript Ceding government and the public service to mediocrity Articles assembly, and commentary, by Kevin R Beck, owner of the Mosaic Portal and Forum We may judge the actions of leaders such as Steve Bracks on a limited scale and the manipulation of particular focus is one of `economy'. Managing the economy is being presented as the primary determinant of good political governance and leadership. If this is accepted then the proposition of misusing the power of the state against the individual is no longer of any major concern since the greater part of the community is not affected. Yet humanity and caring is the mark of a true leadership even though we as a society may not value it any more or may view it with scepticism particularly in relation to government and politics. The Premier of Victoria, in Australia, has used the instrument of the state to destroy the livelihood and the career of an individual and he has exercised his power with impunity and without care. Under the stewardship of Bracks the parliament of Victoria passed an act designed to weed out employees who are threats to children within the Victorian education system. It is an unflinching act using all of the punitive powers of the state and there is no discretion and no right of reply or natural justice. About thirteen years ago a young man of nineteen years age had a girl friend who was almost sixteen years of age. He engaged in a relationship with mutual consent of parents and friends. Someone unrelated reported this `crime' to the police and statutorily the young man was charged. His lawyer advised him to plead guilty in order to avoid a conviction for the heinous crime of child abuse. He did so and no conviction was recorded. The world goes on. Fast forward to 2005 and the young man is a respected teacher in a Victorian school. A police check, emanating out of Brack's new law, exposes the young man's background and he is dismissed and banned from teaching. No court, no hearing, no reply, no justice. The Premier, a man who would pride himself on truth and leadership, states twice on a Melbourne radio programme broadcast to hundreds of thousands of listeners, that the man was `convicted' of a crime. The radio broadcaster states that this is incorrect. The all-knowing Premier, in typical ignorance since he has a reputation for being neither well briefed as to facts and of questionable capacities, restates his incorrect proposition. Learning later that he is wrong the arrogant Mr.Bracks refuses to apologise for he is a crusader in the protection of children and he believes that he is on safe political ground. He cloaks his arguments in the hypocrisy of protecting children, informed by his minders and political instincts that fear and insecurity are great motivators. Bracks has accused the Prime Minister of Australia as being a `scare mongerer' using such tactics to win elections. The hypocrisy and lack of lateral thinking of Mr. Bracks, unable to apply the same judgements to his own actions, is breathtaking He demonstrates that the individual when confronting the state is expendable and that the individual citizen is of less value than the politician. Brack's career aspirations are above those of the teacher whose life this self-serving politician has ruined. The school, local community, the parents and the parliamentary opposition and score of others say that this is wrong. The Premier is called `bloody minded' by a caller to a radio station and 'stubborn' and that he is. It is strange that Steve Bracks should take this unmovable position given that he was once a teacher and once a young man. He left teaching and we do not know of his personal background and suitability for continuance under his own legislation. There are no morality issues and strictures applied to being the Premier, even though on an equal judgement he is probably unsuitable to hold his position in government as a leader, if not morally, because he fails to demonstrate an appreciation of the proposition of the `citizen and the state' and which is paramount in democracy. Here the individual is sacrificed on a justification of greater public good.Antonio Gramsci (1890) expounded the principles and opined what happens when politics subverts the citizenry. The teacher's life is destroyed and the quality of governance in Victoria Australia under a labor politician who should, but does not know any better, is the lesser. It is the simple things that often unravel the managed world of the modern politician and what lies below the surface that they miss. This is Brack's last period as Premier, for as it states in the opening of this commentary, he has shown everyone who he really is. Not content with this exercise of using the state against the citizen, as a blunt instrument, it is reported that the Bracks labor government will regulate conversations between taxi drivers and passengers. It is rumoured that the government will ban discussions of religion and politics. No doubt the fools castle inhabitants will have, what they believe is a justification, but it neggars belief that they, their advisers and the Attorney General, Rob Hulls, could be so stupid. The High Court has ruled (in Lange, 1997, CLR 520) on a definition of political communication, and audience test, that would seem to give protection to this type of exchange, and private conversation, within the implied free speech on political matters under the Australian Constitution. The exchange may very well influence the vote of either party in the federal election or may promote the very essence of participation in democracy. As to their legislation on religious discussion that also seems to fall within the ambit of the Constitution. The Victorian government misjudges its legislative, and regulatory capacities, under the fedralism provisions of the Constitution. Such attempts at social engineering, and shaping, indicate that the Labor Party machines are intent upon foisting upon the people of Australia, their choices of leader regardless of merit, talent or qualities. Lesser mortals (the citizens, and their rights, are sacrificed upon the altar of political interests and expediency. Then on July 4, 2005 he follows up his cavalcade of questionable judgements with a statement regarding Steve Vizerd. Mr. Vizrd, appointed to a number of government comittees focused on snaring events for Melbourne is being prosecuted, in a civil action in the Federal court, for insider trading pertaining to a time during his tenure as a Director of Telstra, Australia's largest telecommunications company. Mr.Vizard has agreed a no contest with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, to avoid a criminal trial. He now awaits penalty and sentence. Another prominent fugures state that we need ten Steve Vizards. Miuses of one's position and trading on inside knwoeldge gained, in a government owned enterprise (Telstra) is a breach of the fundamental integrity of office and of the plank of the stock market. Bracks demonstrates questionable values of integrity . Why should he view Vizard's sin against society with less contempt compared to how he stands in judgement on the teacher's case. The difference is stark, he disappoints on every occasion and Mr. Bracks is yet another leader, who in public office, raises questions as to fitness. "Queensland police attempted to take a young man, Sam Hogan, into custody. The young man was depressed and delusional and relatives were concerned for his safety, but he had committed no crime. The events of last April are still being investigated by Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission, but there is nothing ambiguous about the result for Sam Hogan. After being sprayed twice with capsicum spray and handcuffed, he has been left with massive and permanent brain damage. While medical experts believe his injuries may have been caused by pressure to the neck from a police restraining hold, it's not the only tragic case involving capsicum spray" The Australian government has recognised China as a Market Economy.This is quite remarkable for a government that bases its credentials and credibility on a deep understanding of economic principles and management. Human rights arguments aside the Australian government is rewriting the book on market theory and in doing so is looking somewhat remote and somewhat ignorant of a true understanding, from the rest of the developed world, true market economies, making a grave error of judgement as to the capacity of China, its government, systems, regulatory frameworks and entrepreneurs. A billion consumers does not make a market economy, nor does it make this country the engine of the modern world. "Definitions of a Market Economy - Which One or More Fits China? "A market economy is a term used to describe an economy where economic decisions, such as pricing of goods and services, are made in a decentralised manner by the economy's participants and manifested by trade. This can be seen as a "bottom-up" approach to organising an economy (self-organization). It is meant to contrast to a planned economy, where economic decisions are made by a central agency, which can be equated to a "top-down" approach. " Source and Definition Explanation A country in which most economic decisions are left up to individual consumers and firms interacting through markets. Contrasts with central planning and non-market economy. Source and Definition Explanation "This is an economic system that permits an open exchange of goods and services between producers and consumers" Source and Definition Explanation "An economy in which the setting of prices and allocating of resources are determined largely by the forces of supply and demand". Source and Definition Explanation "Economic theory which is like the Yeti, the abominable snowman, in that it is always claimed to exist while nobody can find it. What is often believed to be market economy is nothing but a diluted and fragmented version perverted by capitalism, subsidies, politics and trade rules and applied only in trade involving minor sums. " Source and Commentary "An economic system where resources are allocated and production of goods determined by market forces rather than by government decree. " Source and Expanded Definition "A system of decentralised economic decision making in which consumers, producers, workers, savers and investors interact in markets through the forces of demand and supply to set prices in order to answer the basic economic questions of what, how and for whom. " Source and Expanded Topic "The national economy of a country that relies on market forces to determine levels of production, consumption, investment, and savings without government intervention. " Source and Expanded Topic "The allocation of resources is determined by the invisible hand of the price system. " Source and Expanded Topic "An economic system in which decisions are made largely by the interactions of buyers and sellers. " Source and Expanded Topic "An economy based on the private ownership of business and allows market factors such as supply and demand to determine business strategy " Source and Expanded Topic "Countries must meet six criteria under the United States Tariff Act of 1930 to be designated as market economies, Evans stated. Two of these involve labor standards and currency policies. " Source and Expanded Topic "The European Union refused China full market economy status because of what it said was too much state interference, the weak rule of law and poor corporate governance. " Source and Expanded Topic A COUNTER VIEW - CHINA IS A MARKET ECONOMY" Arguments in Support Of The Market Economy View Go To The Mosaic Portal's World of Market Economies (March 2005) Ideology & Philosophy Proposed abolition of compulsory up-front student union fees by the Australian government There is a trait that permeates Australian corporate and public life, it is manageent by threat. The Australian government threatens the states and territories, activists groups, critics, advocates and Australian institutions with 'loss of funding'. "Do as you are told or we will withdraw, or limit, your money". Melbourne University Council has firmly opposed the Federal Government,s plans to prevent Australian universities collecting non-academic fees from their students. These (non-academic) fees are used to provide amenities, services and facilities for students generally. The Higher Education Support (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005 - the voluntary student unionism (VSU) legislation - is expected to pass through the Senate after 1 July 2005 and to apply from 2006. At its April meeting, the University Council resolved to oppose the provisions of this legislation that relate to the levying of student charges. It has asked the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Glyn Davis, to take whatever practicable steps necessary to gain some moderation of the proposed legislation. "Students come to the University of Melbourne not just for the courses but for the 'Melbourne Experience'," Professor Davis said. "They want to be part of a campus where interesting things happen, where they have access to a life that extends beyond the classroom and encourages active student participation in University life." Professor Davis says the legislation has serious financial implications for the University if it is to preserve the essential functions of the 'Melbourne Experience'. From 2006, the VSU legislation will prevent the University collecting the Amenities and Services Fee, which this year provided $12.68 million to support a wide range of services and facilities. This fee allows the Melbourne University Student Union Limited to provide services and facilities for the University's more than 30,000 undergraduates, the University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association to tailor services for 9000 postgraduates, and Melbourne University Sport (MUSport) to provide superb facilities for around 10,000 club and MUSport members and 36,000 casual visitors in 2004. The University Council backed moves to minimise - without too great consequences for other University programs - the adverse effects on essential non-academic student services provided by the University, its auxiliary operations, controlled entities and affiliated student organisations. Melbourne has supported a student union for more than 120 years. The Melbourne University Union - modelled on the famous Oxford and Cambridge Unions - was established to "unite and promote the fellowship of the different schools of the University". The Union House has been on the same site since 1911 when a renovation was made possible with "funds raised from a compulsory club-house fee". Professor Davis points out that universities have been traditionaltraining grounds in the political process. "Many of our politicians served as student politicians. A prime minister, Sir Robert Menzies, and a foreign minister, Dr Gareth Evans, led the student council at Melbourne in different eras. "This university has also produced generations of business and community leaders, and journalists and editors who started with the student newspaper Farrago, who have gone on to make major national contributions. "We need to consider what the consequences of losing all this will be,not just for this University, but for the nation." Message from Chair, Interim Student Representative Committee. The student union is greatly concerned about the affect of the federal government's proposed VSU legislation which presents a serious threat to every student's university experience. It will affect the level of support services available to assist you with your studies and the capacity of student organisations to represent your interests to the University and in the community. It will also severely damage social, cultural and recreational life on campus. We are working with the University and the other student organisations on campus to ensure that the outcome of this legislation does not adversely affect your university experience. If you'd like to find out more about why the legislation represents such a threat, and what you can do to help, come see one of your friendly student union office-bearers, first floor,Union House. Message from President, University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association UMPA believes that the federal government's proposed VSU legislation presents a serious threat to every student's university experience. We are working with the university and the other student organisations on campus to ensure that the outcome of this legislation does not adversely affect your university experience. If you'd like to find out more about where your Amenities and Services Fee goes, and what you can do to help,stop by UMPA reception any time! For further information contact: Paul Donegan, Chair, Interim Student Representative Committee, p.donegan@union.unimelb.edu.au Matthew Belleghem, President, University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association, president@umpa.unimelb.edu.au Comment by Kevin R Beck: Ironically Sir Robert Menzies was Australia's longest serving conservative Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, John Hoawrd sits at Sir Robert's old desk and in many ways might consider Sir Robert as some form of historic role model. The Ministers, and Cabinet members, of Australia's government enacting this legislation all benefited from a free education including university, and also paid student union fees, and many engaged in student politics including Australia's Treasurer and aspirant Prime Minister, Peter Costello and another senior cabinet Minister Tony Abbott along with many others. It is typical of the conservatives in the conservative partis to take as much as they can get for free and then to be mean when in public office particularly if they are ideologically driven. I am a multiple graduate of the University of Melbourne (1997, 1999 and 2004) and I have paid student union fees at this university and my previous other two Australian universities and I believe that the Australian goverment is typically over reaching its intellectual capacity and abilities, without thinking of the political consequences. The Melbourne University Alumni is vast, and global, and its membership includes all walks of life, society and economy. Looking over the horizon for unexpected, and unanticipated or ignored consequences, is a forte of many in politics and corporate life in Australia. So as the Vice Chancellor indicates `it is time to demonstrate' this very point and enact the University Council's, opposition, on a glbal scale,to this stupid, mindless and illogical proposition which is veiled in a smokescreen of the conservative's "theory of choice" and 'individualism' which is corroding Australia's quality of life and society. |
|
Australia appears to be afflicted with the syndrome of not being able to identify,utilise and galvanise, its full human resource potential. The question is why? Some muse that underemployment, unemployment and access and opportunity, discrimination and a blinkered, narrow approach to determining peoples' skills and abilities are major impediments that governments, industry, business, employers, and community at large are not addressing. Outsourcing of the human resource recruitment fucntion has been identified as an abrogation of good management. Outsourcing of employment screening and other services, to the marketplace, by the federal and state governments in the case of public services and the creation of the Job Network is reinforcing the use of external parties and contractors. Unlike the individual employer these companies have multiple clients and assignments and are driven by the need to develop their revenue base. There are thousands of recruitment companies operating in a crowded market with differing levels of capability and sophistication. These pressures result in a resume receiving 30 - 40 seconds attention and the proposition that a candidate must cram their career and background into amaximum of two pages. An important decision that affects the life of the candidate, and the prospects of the employer, getting the right person is given trivial and curt attention. Evidence indicates that using outsourced recruitment services alienates the human resource function from an organisation and indicates that the entity and its management are focused on trying to do one of the most important functions on the cheap. Antipathy, by candidates, towards agencies is a growing trend and this is logical given that there is a plethora of agencies springing uplacking in resources and their own staff capacities. It may be argued that an organisation that cared about its practices in employment selection would not risk such an important function to someone who has no loyalty, or inner knowledge of the workings and culture of the organisation and indeed the sector in which the organisation operates. Read the mission statements, and rhetoric of the recruitment companies, and one can see that the claims of relationship and professionalism to the interests of the client and the job seeker are fraught with conflict of interest. They calim on the one hand to represent the employers, to know their business, interest and needs intimately despite having so many clients. They also claim to represent the best interests of the candidate. They are like alawyer claiming to represent both parties in a negotiation. Remarkably some critics argue that the inability of recruitment companies to know or detect competency is a bonus to an organisation's incumbent management. The owner of this web site has distributed a paper, to parliamentarians across Australa, on the use of profiling and psychometric tools to test employees and prospects and the issues for public policy facing legislators, arguing that such methodologies are flawed, fraught with risks and inconsistencies, and too often disadvantageous to applicants, with attendant legal and social consequences. Job advertisements almost always lack detail, can be misleading, demand skills and attributes for lower level roles that are more befitting a stellar performer. Misrepresentation is against the law in Australia and newspapers publish warning advice on their pages however job boards carry no such warning advice and the advertisement is simply transferred electronically from paper to the Internet. Misrepresentation is narrowly defined for legal purposes than the broader definition implied here. Candidate specifications are narrow, beacuse employers in Australia are not risk takers, are not highly experienced in global management practices and experiences as their US and European counterparts, and professional bodies are protecting their turf. In Britain employers take people from many disciplines to work side by side. This does not occur in Australia. There is little cross pollination in Australia and a closed shop mentality to people being able to do the job stifles organisational development and innovation. Criteria slection is a lazy approach to candidate processes and is used to bring everyone to a common denominator where precise criteria precludes recognising that skills are transferable across industry sectors. Employers are cannabilising their competitors and other organisations ably assisted by their contract agencies. This has an affect in the longer term on narrowing the expertise, reducing any cross pollination and ultimatley reducing the competitive ability of the nation as a whole. Job advertisements wax lyrical seeking "exceptional traits" as if they are in the majority within the market rather than a minority. About half of any population would be expected to have a peak in a single thinking style. Thirty-five percent of people have peaks in two thinking styles, with the most common combinations being analyst/realist, idealist/analyst, and synthesist/idealist. Two percent of the general population has a preference for three thinking styles. About 13 percent exhibit relatively flat profiles, with neither peaks nor valleys. How many recruitment practitioners are qualified to discern thinking styles and apply this knowledge to a role in an organisation? How does each style affect communication, skil, team behaviour, output and other abilities and which style is the exceptional one that fulfills the recruitmenters perceptions and demands? Which style matches the selection criteria set out by the employer? There is a preoccupation with the notion that if a person has worked for a big company then they are superior. Mention that one has worked for the "Big 4" in Australia, or for a brand name entity, a major bank or enterprise and bingo they have an advantage. Is there a recognition that these huge companies, and their employees, though lauded as the best at one point time, have been found to be incompetent and fraudulent often costing shareholders and tax payers millions and billions. This occurs under the noses of, and within the watch of, highly paid executives who are experts in their field equated with success who when moved on receive exorbitant payouts known as a `yellowen parachute' The public outrage does not appear to flow through to the recruitment agency screeners and the employers despite politicians seeming to get the gist and mouthing platitudes but doing little to address Australia's failure to harness its people talent. The free market is about choice, it is about discrimination on age and race and gender and many other discriminatory practices that are subtle. It seems that people think if you had an experience more than 3-5 years back it is inconsequential to modern day application and performance. Perhaps in the minds of recruiters, and employers, any experience in the big companies is worth more than a credible performance in a no name entity, particularly if you are older and fit a stereotype perception of the world of work. Research indicates that large organisations may actually stifle creativity, innovation and human development. It also shows that people with little experience beyond their own work spheres make rash judgements and are less likely to be able to determine potential and performance. There is nothing more annoying than being interviewed by a pesron of lesser experience, and knowldege, who also expounds on their own place in the organisation for the first ten minutes of an interview than having a set of governemnts that are blinkered and lack the necessary innovation and ability to tap the human potential of Australia. Psychometric Testing Requires Government legislative Controls The growing use of psychometric testing, outside of medical and psychological application for measuring mental retardation, poses issues for legislators at state, territory and federal levels as well as for employers and managers in the private and public sectors of the economy. There are human resource and recruitment firms that specialise, in the administration of such tests for all recruitment assignments. I want to point out why I think these developments will, in future, create problems in areas of discrimination, psychological practices as health issues and employment and why there is a need to consider these matters. Some work has been undertaken in jurisdictions across Australia in part on key issues but that there is no extension of this legislative work, on a national basis, to matters of psychometric testing for employment and performance appraisal. If legislators are prone to allowing the development and administration of such tests, particularly in the public employment sector, then then they might consider under what conditions (physical and physiological), qualifications of administrators and assessors and circumstances they are to be allowed and the public policy issues including litigation, employee relations, equal opportunity and fair practice, they are to be allowed. What are the licensing processes and mandated qualifications for administration, and assessment, in Australian jurisdictions for firms and individuals? What are psychometric tests? "Psychometric" literally means, measuring the mind and, in one sense, any systematic attempt to assess mental characteristics could come into this category. The term however, is usually used to describe specific tests for personality, intelligence or some kind of attitude measurement". I believe that the tests can be, and are, flawed and can have consequences if there is a lack of controlling framework within public policy. I set out compelling evidence that the growth, and consequence for legislators, goes well beyond simple legislation to a wider consideration. We have seen how people perform in schools under testing conditions and how some individuals do not perform well at all in exams. Are such people to be at a disadvantage in their quest for employment and career progression? In addition psychometric test performance, and results, are affected by external and internal factors - physical premises, reliability of technology, lighting and air conditioning, physiological influences such as language, cognizance, health at the time, sickness through flu, headache, worry and peer pressures and attitudes and the existence of an unknown medical condition or onset, in the subject, such as depression, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer type conditions. Legislators might also note that certain people are not subjected to such tests, e.g. chief executives, board directors and people of stature creating discrimination. What are the frameworks and challenges available to the subjects who are subjected to tests as part of the selection or appraisal processes? We know, from our own personal experience that attempts to classify and measure people is fraught with danger and consequence and labeling is an insidious practice. For those unemployed being placed in a measured category - dole bludger, job snob, shirkers - is not only demeaning but can be self fulfilling. It is similarly so for such practices in psychometric testing. "There is the danger that the labelling of an individual as possessing a particular trait or ability will tend to encourage conformity to that trait. The psychometric approach implies a nomothetic view of people: that is to say, a view that people are capable of being classified and measured. The opposing view to this would argue that humans are essentially individuals and not susceptible to classification. This is an idiographic view". SOURCE The purveyors, and promoters, will tell you, their target users, clients and subjects, that psychometric testing is but one tool in an arsenal of resources, that there is no right response to a question and that reliance on the interpretation, and results, is at best problematic, yet they will not address the above considerations. Each subject test can garner between $1,500 and $3,000 in revenue per test subject. Beyond the issues of employment and appraisal legislators should be aware that the growth of "psychometricians is not limited to working within the testing industry however. Many psychometricians are employed in industrial and organizational settings performing job analyses, consumer surveys, developing and validating personnel selection procedures, and performing market research. Positions in private and public consulting agencies, clinical research positions, and positions in managerial and administrative roles are also open to graduates of psychometric programs. Psychometricians can even find employment as researchers in fields only tangentially related to psychology, as statisticians, expert witnesses, and of course, in academic settings as well. The field of psychometrics has made and continues to make important contributions to psychology and to our society. Psychometric principles, applications, and issues continue to permeate every aspect of psychology and impact many people's lives. The complex issues brought on by our rapidly changing society provide new challenges for psychometricians and new directions for the future of psychometrics". SOURCE We can see examples of this predicted growth arising in the British Parliament: "Mr. Flook: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Marriage and Relationship Support branch of the Department will include the use of pre and post marital psychometric inventories as part of the criteria for considering bids for LCD grants. [96499], SOURCE Disrmination in employment, psychometric and other testing legislative issues: No legislation or registers beyond use of discrimination legislation, questions and answers for the general public In the Euopean Union: "Assessment of a person with a known medical condition for employment" and the legislative issues In Victoria Australia: Victorian Law Reform Commission, psychometric and other testing of workers, privacy, legislation and other issues In South Africa: Extent of pre-employment testing In the United States (Harvard University) Workforce Development (e.g., employment preparation and supporting families transitioning from welfare to work) and Tests/Assessments: Data sources include standardized test scores, psychometric tests, and other assessments of the program and its participants. These data sets are collected with the purposes of the evaluation in mind. The resources quoted are not exhaustive and are given to provide you with informative material to assist your response to this evolving public policy issue. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
I gotta live in two houses. Here's the view from one of them, whaddya reckon?
What's the view from your place like, good as this?