May I quote?
“Questions as relevant today as they were in March 2005.
Still no action has been taken and no evidence of increased caution in approach to chemical usage or policy.”
Referring to an article way back on 8.3.05. Pretty simple, yet so much in it, it could be a haiku.
My interests have included public governance, administration and practice.
Statutory obligations, I believe, are considered as law ie, they are obliged to be adhered to; eg, duty of care, OH&S, freedom from harassment/bullying, amongst others. Doctors and others have to report things. When statutory office holders’ obligations are not honoured, penalties can apply. Or at least they should. Who polices this?
Regarding the office of the State Service Commission, it would seem that any investigation of an alleged misconduct or failure to fullfil duty as an officer, (or even) other than as an officer, would be undertaken by the Commission. If a department or GBE chief or delegate, was for any reason, unable to oversight such a process, even with the assistance of the OSSC, the Commission still has many obligations under law. The processes set out in the SSAct, regs, instructions etc show the way forward, even in difficult times. This is what they are there for. Why the rules were codified and written. It seems the legal buck at the end of it all, rests here. Or, perhaps in the courts, of course if allowable. At least to require the existant law to be upheld and reaffirmed. When people who are in an office with a statutory obligation, for whatever reason do not require this obligation to be fullfilled, they also become liable. An investigation starts with a please explain. Perhaps the OSSC is liable, for lack of please explains.
Forgive my flippancy if interpreted that way, but just about any research scientist would say, without any emphasis, “of course science has a limit; that is why we research.” So, research (and perhaps) change to policy are a requirement, particicularly to define and address any perceived problem. One abrogates responsibility when one does not cause research. It has been at least from march 2005, that’s 5 years and what change process or progress do we know of or have? Some record keeping?
Is the UTAS able to assist? Many fine minds in governance, science, law, administration and just about whatever we need. Learning and verification and proof. Hiding away from the truth helps no-one except who? Why does government not avail itself of UTAS or OSSC or both?
The ethics commission is too far off. Corruption tries to entrench and hide initially. It likes to keep a quiet closed shop. When confident it becomes belligerent. There is always a lack of ability attached when the good bloke becomes a snarler.
In any case the OSSC is legally equipped to start to unravel who is responsible for what and support them for change. Change is needed. Is it empowered to do so? YES, but if not why not? Is it being artificially constrained from performing its statutory obligation, being its legal duty to you and to me? How and by who? For what purpose?
Possible problem: Corruption kills
Possible answer: Kill corruption.
This is a requirement of the law. An obligation. No way out of it, unless one is also breaking the law.
It is a requirement of every public employee to report misconduct, as defined, in the workplace, as and when, it is seen. Similarly leaving the scene of an accident or failing to report a death or a crime etc is an offence in criminal law. Get it in the open. Report it. Talk about it. (with someone safe!!)
Full merit selection processes are much safer than political appointment. Are they actually able to do the job of work they are hired for? Are political appointees bullying merit employees? Is science being starved? Who can it be reported to?
Class actions may well be the order of the day for the future.
Wrongdoing is crook. It has repucussions for both sides. I believe evidence for a commission of enquiry is being noted, collected, collated and made ready. This will not go away and no longer can be kept quiet.
TT has heaps already. Those with responsibility will be accountable and be seen to be accountable. They will still be in the courts long after they are retired, whether as public employees or not.
