TOWARDS A PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE FOR QUEENSLAND

See also:

• Reminder 
• Response 
• Reply

17 June 2004

Mr George O'Farrell,
Acting Public Service Commissioner.

In your letter of 7 June 2004 in response to Dr Bruce Flegg's representations on my behalf to the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, you stated that:

"Mr Craig has raised issues concerning his previous employment in the public service on numerous occasions. I am satisfied that Mr Craig's grievances have been properly aired and examined by appropriate officers."

As you will be aware I have a long standing dispute with the Department of Premier and Cabinet. This arose when, in a formal 1992 grievance about the process of making a senior policy R&D appointment, the Department refused to allow professional merit (the core issue in the formal grievance) to be independently considered by anyone competent to do so. And, though there has been a vast amount of obfuscation and waffle from that Department and others, there has never been any meaningful response at all to that dispute. For example:

• in a 1992 Fair Treatment Appeal, the Tribunal dismissed my concerns about the Department's actions without meaningfully addressing its refusal to allow professional merit to be considered (which had been central to the Appeal also). The Tribunal just mentioned this in passing, and implied that this was outside its jurisdiction;
• in response to my letter of 10 July 1998 requesting a review of the situation, Dr Glyn Davis (then Director General of the Premier's Department) miraculously conducted a 'careful examination of issues' involved in my dispute without even mentioning what my dispute was about - ie the Department's refusal to allow professional merit to be considered in a formal grievance (as noted in reply of 28 August 1998);
• in a letter of 4 October 2001, I challenged one of your predecessors (Ms Rachael Hunter) to identify any document sent to me that even mentions the actual subject matter of my dispute. I presume that she was unable to do so, as I received no reply.

I have thus submitted to Dr Flegg (see my letter of 15 June 2004) that your claim to him that my 'grievances have been properly aired and examined' is preposterous.

I respectfully request an appointment with you at a convenient time so that I may have the opportunity to get an explanation of your claim to Dr Flegg that my "grievances have been properly aired and examined by appropriate officers".

Yours faithfully

John Craig.

CC: Dr Bruce Flegg MP, Member for Moggill

Reminder

18 July 2004

Mr George O'Farrell
Acting Public Service Commissioner

I refer to my letter of 17^th June, and note that I do not yet appear to have received a reply. I have attached a copy of that letter in case the original went astray.

 4 August 2004

Final Correspondence

I refer to your letter dated 17 June 2004 regarding your 1992 grievance with the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

As you have previously been advised by many officers, including my predecessor, the issues that you have raised have been extensively investigated over the last 12 years.

While I understand that you are unhappy with the outcome of these numerous investigations, I regret to advice that nothing further can be offered in the way of assistance for you. Therefore this matter is now closed and any further correspondence from you will not be acknowledged.

Yours sincerely

George O'Farrell

7 August 2004

Mr George O'Farrell
Acting Public Service Commissioner

I refer to your response to my letter of 17 June 2004 in which I had:

• disputed your unsubstantiated assertion to Dr Bruce Flegg that my "grievances have been properly aired and examined by appropriate officers";
• outlined a sample of evidence showing that the refusal of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to allow professional merit to be considered in a grievance about the process of making a senior policy R&D appointment has never been directly dealt with at any stage;
• requested an appointment to gain an explanation of your outrageous claim.

I note that your response asserted (once again without providing any details or evidence) that 'the issues that you have raised have been extensively investigated over the last 12 years' - and then declared (as many of your predecessors have tried vainly to do) that 'the matter is now closed and further correspondence from you will not be acknowledged'.

However the fact remains, which has been the subject of my lengthy dispute with the Department, that the Department unreasonably refused to allow professional merit to be competently and independently considered - though there were very significant and difficult merit issues involved that were critical to successfully carrying out the senior policy R&D role. Moreover the Department has since been unable to explain or justify this abuse of natural justice - despite the implications for the Public Service as a whole mentioned below. As suggested on 4 October 2001 to one of your predecessors, it is impossible to point to any response from the Department or anyone else that has directly addressed the actual subject matter of my dispute. All that has been generated is a vast amount of waffle (eg about prior 'investigations' - though all of the latter had also carefully avoided the issue).

I can understand why your Office (and others) are so keen to cover this matter up. The fact that professional merit has not been a necessary consideration in senior Public Service appointments (which the Ombudsman's letter to me of 10 March 1993 indicated was the result of a Government decision to prevent appeals against SES appointments) means that:

• there is no firm basis for professional credibility in the 'senior' Public Service; and
• 'senior' officials appointed on contracts under Queensland's manifestly unjust Public Service arrangements could easily be in a precarious position.

However you are (as your predecessors were) over-optimistic in assuming that the victims of any abuse of power will share the beneficiaries’ enthusiasm for declaring the matter ‘closed’. And I have a strong sense that community leaders may not indefinitely remain as undemanding of professional competence in the Public Service as they have been in recent years while ‘yes-man-ship’ has been the preferred substitute.

CC:       Dr Bruce Flegg, MLA, Member for Moggill
            Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations.