Zissler explodes

http://www.4icj.com/kp/

The distinction to be made between the public sector and the private sector is that people like Mr Sizzler are spending public money. Mr Sizzler has no right keeping secrets from the public, we are entitled to exactly the same level of knowledge that he is.

We do not live in a North Korean style dictatorship (well not yet, anyway). Government should be entirely transparent and totally accountable. Why is Mr Sizzler entitled to be more informed about the conduct of OUR government than any other citizen?

If he doesn’t like it maybe he should take up a position in Pyongyang?

The fact that it was a raw brainstorming doc not a policy proposal should have been at the top of the story. Of course, if they did that, there wouldn’t have been a story.
Just the usual smoke and mirrors non happenings from our pension for life feebs.
Big Al, you aren’t seriously suggesting ethical behaviour in govt, or worst of all, personal responsibility are you?
Vote TFP. ’nuff said.

But I digress … this is about professionalism in the public service. No civil servant has the right to divulge internal government business, regardless of what their personal feelings on an issue might be. The dumber ones with the lowest professional skill-set, probably think that they are doing something to progress an issue in a direction that they believe would be best – but the reality is that they are merely immature and arrogant. They should be weeded out in a public investigation and summarily dismissed.

By trying to get mileage from this, by criticising the Government for being heavy handed, the Liberals merely highlight yet another reason why they’re not ready for Government.

KaneO, I too was wondering about the coverage of NPA calls for the environment to be “quarantined” from the ACT Government’s budget cuts – I couldn’t decide if the nasty little whining shit-bag watermelon was deliberately trying to prove how dumb he could make friends of national parks appear or whether he was joking.

I *loved* the comments attributed to R Paxo about “restricting recreational access to the Googong Dam would be “an outrage and a tragedy”, that would take away one of the best angling tourism attractions in the ACT region.
Access to Googong is already heavily restricted.
Of course, it fits in nicely with the Carp Protection Zones (cunningly disguised as trout waters and trout cod habitat) and Blowfly Protection Legislation from our ban-its in govt.

(Googong is of course NSW, but it’s the same NPA driven rubbish)

The is a place for whistleblowers though – eg. children overboard etc.

emd: Also known as the “Bay Of Pigs Strategy”.

Agreed Big Al, all public officers have a responsiliblity to keep internal documents internal, no matter how much they hate it. Manage the situation rather than expose your dept, job and the boots you will no doubt taste higher up in the food chain, with responsibility. In the Private Sector you would be torn a new one. Luckily for these folks, a cup of tea and slap on the back of the wrist is all they may face. Weak in my mind.

Al, I think the oxygen theives in all this are the tools running the show, not the poor little pen-pushers at the bottom.

Maybe if the likes of Zissler all took a pay-cut then the ACT might not be in such strife?

I don’t think that reminding the pen-pushers that they have legal obligations regarding disclosure has much to do with whether or not the report was all that sensitive. The whole leaking thing is really a poor reflection on the pubes in that department – they’re simply not professional enough to do their jobs properly. Regardless of what was leaked, the only appropriate response is to call in the police, fully investigate the whole affair and then summarily dismiss the maggot(s) responsible for the unauthorised disclosure. It sends a clear message and boosts morale because everyone knows where they stand and the oxygen thieves are weeded out.

And what the fark is this zissler bloke doing at a lord mayors conference in Qld?

Couldn’t the mayor make it?

Haven’t seen the document in question, but it’s possible that this isn’t a secret slash & burn plan.

Standard practice for most departments is to put up a proposal paper with three or four choices: one is do nothing and face the consequences, one is an extreme change that also has unacceptable consequences, and one or two sensible solutions.

This method usually results in the author getting the proposal they want, because the do-nothing and do-everything alternatives are obviously unacceptable.