Comments on: Poor Godwin Grech – a martyr to the cause of public service

By: Trevor Cook

Trevor Cook — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:05:00 +0000

Agreed Qreus, Grech’s email to Turnbull was as delusional as it was outrageous.

By: Qreus

Qreus — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:42:38 +0000

As a serving public servant of over 20 years I miss two old mates, Frank and Fearless, seems like they have left the room.

The Canberra Times states that Mr Grech liked to mentor younger officers in the Treasury, the one piece of advice that he seems to have missed and one that all public servants should heed is, that when you are dealing with politicians – remember that “They are not your mates!” If they want information, that is what briefing notes and QON’s are for, oh yes and the information should be accurate delivered without fear or in Mr G’s case, Favour. Godwin crossed the line and forgot for whom he worked. Let us hope that, as his carcase twists in the breeze hanging from the gibbet constructed by his own hands, there are those watching who think long and hard about being mates with politicians.

By: Danztheman

Danztheman — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:03:38 +0000

I think Godwin Grech is a liar and deserves everything that comes to him. That said, it’s not surprising his name is mud and Turnbull is nicely avoiding responsibility.

There is a stereotype that public servants are overpaid fat cats … I have seen the long and hard hours that so many work to prop up the careers of our “elected leaders”. And when things go wrong, it’s the public servant who takes the blame. The public service loves a good paper trail, and in this high-tech era, it’s no surprise this senior public servant lived and died by the email.

The public service is utterly useless and should be dismantled.

By: zoomster

zoomster — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:38:17 +0000

I’m sorry, Trevor, but the whole point of representative government is that you represent your electors.

I don’t know whether you’re having trouble expressing yourself or whether you simply mean what you say, but it sounds to me as if you think it’s wrong for a politician to help a constituent.

Err – that’s actually their job.

A politician who refers a constituent’s request for help on is NOT doing anything wrong and wouldn’t think for a minute they were. It’s their job.

A politician who refers a constituent’s request for help on is NOT performing a meaningless courtesy (if they think that way, they are a crap local member). They are doing their job.

It is a politician’s JOB to lobby on behalf of constituents. A good local member doesn’t just write a letter or make a phone call and leave it at that. A good local member checks that their ‘courtesy note’ has been acted upon, that the constituent has received a response, and that the constituent is happy with that response.

That’s the local member’s job.

FFS, what do you think pollies are there for??

By: SmellingTheCoffee

SmellingTheCoffee — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:39:55 +0000

Everyone worldwide knew sexed-up Bill had to be “lovin Lewinski” Blind Freddy down the street could see that. What I don’t get is why demonstrate your point using a sex case relating to a foreign former president? Is there not an example closer to town that you could have used to demonstrate your point? Or could it be that you used the “sex sells” mentality just to get more readers to read your (sorry but I feel) one-eyed views/or are you just a little bit too old and crusty to have clear vision? (Sorry, but in comment 5 you did call yourself a “cynical, old, former public servant”. In any case, the point that I was making in my comment was simply this, the people of Australia elect the politicians to SERVE the people. Obviously there are boundaries to which politicians are expected to work within. The so-called evidence (the infamous email) which was being used to suggest Mr Swan did anything that had crossed that boundary, was proven to be A FAKE! Surprise Surprise.

By: Trevor Cook

Trevor Cook — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:58:30 +0000

Zoomster, let me try again. Smelling the coffee (comment 21) like many people think Swan like other politicians should do stuff for electors on an individual basis. Most politician know this is wrong but they don’t like to disappoint so they make ‘representations’ ie pass on the request with a nice little and innocuous cover note. An essentially meaningless little courtesy. This is what Swan said he did in effect. My point is that if Swan really agreed with smelling the coffee (and that his job as a politician is to intervene on behalf of individuals) he would have simply said yes I did help this constituent that’s what I am here to do. But he didn’t say that. Now this whole saga, in relation to Swan, boils down to when a representation stops being a nice little political courtesy to keep the faith with an elector and becomes something more inappropriate (ie something smelling the coffee thinks any politician doing his job ought to be doing). Is a representation still a representation if it includes a phone call, or a fax to the Minister’s home from a bureaucrat and so on. This of course is an argument that has distinct jesuitical overtones and / or is reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s definition of ’sexual relations’ as something to be distinguished from engaging in just one or two sex acts.

By: zoomster

zoomster — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:31:08 +0000

Sorry, Trevor, genuinely puzzled now. In post 20, you accused the Treasurer of lying to Parliament (can’t see how I’ve misread that).

By: Trevor Cook

Trevor Cook — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:40:08 +0000

zoomster – I guess your link for serious accusation remark is a joke. But in case not – the point is that Rudd and Swan argue that they did nothing for Grant other pass on the ‘representation’ to Treasury. This is the utterly appropriate and proper position and why Swan has steadfastly denied doing anymore. Many people (listen to talkback) like smelling the etc simply assume that he did do more than that and say so what? In their view helping out constituents in a personally interventionist (tammany hall) sort of way is what we want pollies to do. It is the smelling etc of the world who are making the serious accusations.

By: zoomster

zoomster — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:27:34 +0000

Trevor – link for the very serious accusation you made against the Treasurer in 20?

Whistle blowers alert the public to issues of public importance. They don’t leak just for political advantage.

By: Trevor Cook

Trevor Cook — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:11:58 +0000

Dear smelling the coffee, if Wayne Swan was just doing his job why did he deny doing anything for John Grant when the issue first came up in Parliament? The distinction between heroic whistleblower and despicable mole seems to be a bit like the old terrorist vs freedom fighter distinction. The federal police are currently investigating these matters, but the ABC and many others seem to already know what the outcome will be. Hhhmmm.