Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

ACT PS Gossip

By YapYapYap - 20 December 2008 77

Which ACT  Govt CEO has  just appointed his partner to a SES position in his department?. 

What would Wayne Berry say about it!


What’s Your opinion?

Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
77 Responses to
ACT PS Gossip
miz 9:49 am 21 Dec 08

Unsurprising. It’s common knowledge that the ACT govt bureaucracy stemmed from the former Department of the Capital Territory, which was renowned as the bottom of the heap from a PS perspective – ie, the crappiest and least desirable department career-wise, where you only worked if you couldn’t get a position in another dept.

Not much has changed, it seems, given the constant flow from ACT to fed depts; and it certainly appears that the ACT community has been reaping a sorry harvest of the poor decision-making (such as this nepotism) and general mediocrity since self-govt!

PantsMan 6:43 am 21 Dec 08

In my entire PS career I have never had to actually write the word fiefdom, but I have often thought it.

I am still a very smart person. 🙂

Thumper 9:06 pm 20 Dec 08

That would be ‘fiefdom’.

MWF 6:57 pm 20 Dec 08

C’mon, gis’ a clue? Initials even? Something? Anything? How can it be gossip if there are no clues 🙁

PantsMan 6:55 pm 20 Dec 08

If the ACT and its PS could only be moved to a small Pacific island, then AusAID could send some aid workers there to help.

There is just no scrutiny within the ACT PS. The Commissioner for Public Administration is basically just an SES officer in CMD. They just sign the regs under the PSM Act. There is no real independent scrutiny, and there are no things such as a State of the Services report such as those that are prepared in the Commonwealth.

Staff turnover is just rampant in the ACP PS, and having CEOs thinking that if they promote their incompetent friends to their little thiefdoms, because they can and will never leave, just makes things worse.

Thumper 6:43 pm 20 Dec 08

Believe me, nepotism is alive and well in the public serice.

2604 5:56 pm 20 Dec 08

PantsMan said :

There is a department in the ACT PS where being personal friends with the CEO seems to help your career chances. Anyone want to take a guess at which one?

Most likely, all of them.

I honestly can’t believe that anyone would be surprised by this situation. I was only in the circus for three years but saw numerous instances of plum jobs and/or consultancies going to the Secretary’s or Minister’s mates.

PantsMan 5:37 pm 20 Dec 08

I’ve had a look through the Gazettes, and found a few potential “partners” who’ve just been given executive contracts. Refer here:

This may well be a very proper and open process, but it does not look that great.

There is a department in the ACT PS where being personal friends with the CEO seems to help your career chances. Anyone want to take a guess at which one?

monomania 5:23 pm 20 Dec 08

Sorry, didn’t read Yap’s post properly the first time. The CEO in this case is a male. I suppose, although it doesn’t matter the partner could be as well.

monomania 5:18 pm 20 Dec 08

And what about the situation of the people between the CEO and his/her partner. What kind of perceived or real additional clout will he/she have. Who signs off on performance reviews and bonuses, approves training courses, conferences and the like. Don’t know the Public Service but I can’t help thinking that there will be a real conflict of interest regardless of who determined the person was the best person for the job. They aren’t because they’re the boss’s partner.

I-filed 4:28 pm 20 Dec 08

As if stepping aside from the panel is going to avoid a nepotistic appointment! Viz a friend of mine who was instructed by the FAS in a high-profile federal department on whom to appoint when he was sitting on the panel to recruit to a junior SES position … he obeyed the instruction (as you do).

gargamel 4:17 pm 20 Dec 08

I agree Sepi.

I though disagree with you harvyk1.

I still call crackpot as the post is anonymous, there is no real indication of what role the CEO took etc etc. That’s why I disagree with your view harvyk1 – there’s insufficient information in the original post for me to draw the conclusion you have.

I guess my view is that the post shouldn’t be treated seriously because it is *really* light on facts.

I’ll be happy to eat my words if there are more facts added to what started this thread that suggests that a conflict of interest (whether real or percieved) exists.

For all we know the partner was a senior public servant who had been doing his or job very well for a number of years and received the appropriate recognition by an interview panel recommending a promotion – with the CEO appointing them on the recommendation of this interviewing panel.

harvyk1 3:47 pm 20 Dec 08

Gargamel, it does represent a huge conflict of interest. If the CEO thought that their partner was the best person for the job he should have stepped aside and given the power to hire their partner (or another person) to an impartial 3rd party.

From memory the ps handbook (or at least the doco they have sitting around in most gov’t departments) actually states that you should do anything you can to avoid a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Even if hiring ones partner is not a real conflict of interest, there is certainly a perceived one.

sepi 3:46 pm 20 Dec 08

You are supposed to exclude yourself from the interview panel if a rellie or close friend applies…

gargamel 1:53 pm 20 Dec 08

About it!!!! oR aBoUt it…?

I smell a crackpot….

Are you saying that person a is precluded from obtaining a position just person a is married to person b – even if person a was THE best person for the job?

1 2 3 6

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site