The public servants in the Canberra bureaucracy are meant to be impartial. Being impartial would mean they only comment on their ability to carry out laws, not whether they agree with policies ideologically. What we see again and again is that the bureaucrats are not impartial. They make submissions that support the woke policies of the Canberra elite, like net-zero.
I asked the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC), who are meant to be the enforcers of the code of impartiality, about one particularly bad example where an agency endorsed the government’s net-zero ideas. Their response? “Well that’s just your opinion.”
The Canberra public service and their referee are so out of touch with everyday Australians that they can’t even comprehend the question. It’s easy to see why Canberra was the only state or territory in all of Australia to vote Yes on the Voice.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. The Australian Public Service works under or in accord with the code of conduct. Is that correct?
Dr de Brouwer: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How does that work in practice? I know that is a broad question.
Ms Talbot: As we alluded to earlier in our evidence, we have the APS Code of Conduct, and that sets out the standards and, I guess, the expectations on all public servants. In particular, the Public Service Act is quite clear around articulating what the APS values are and how they apply to all public servants. I can go into more detail around the code of conduct requirements if you wish.
Senator ROBERTS: Basically, the code drives behaviour or indicates the behaviour or values that are appropriate.
Ms Talbot: It sets out what the appropriate behaviours are, what the appropriate expected standards of conduct are, and it does outline the APS values and goes into some detail about those values.
Senator ROBERTS: So it is broad not specific because it doesn’t apply to just one department or one agency? It’s very broad.
Ms Talbot: It applies to everyone, but sitting underneath that there is quite a detailed document, and in particular sitting under the Public Service Act there are also commissioner’s directions, which go into more detail as well around how everything actually applies.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you elaborate on the Australian Public Service value of impartiality, specifically how the Public Service should be interpreting it practically in making submissions to inquiries?
Ms Talbot: Is there some specific inquiry?
Senator ROBERTS: My concern is that it seems some agencies aren’t being fully impartial in making submissions, especially in the area of climate policy, for example. This is dangerous because it leads to group think. My interpretation of the value of impartiality is that if an agency or department is making a submission on, for example, a law change, that submission should be limited to the agency’s ability to carry out the policy change. That might mean resource considerations and practical issues of whether they can enforce a policy. Is that what you would be expecting in a submission that meets those values of impartiality, rather than making a submission in favour of or against a policy on the basis of political aspects?
Ms Talbot: What I can say is that the guidance around impartiality is reminding public servants that in conducting their duties they are to be apolitical and they are obviously not to be biased in the way in which they conduct their duties. I think you’re asking me more for an opinion around a particular instance that you have in mind.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about several instances. It seems we have some agencies and departments making submissions that endorse the policies being put forward from an ideological standpoint, not only commenting on the practicalities of implementing the policy for that agency or department, as I said. For example, the Australian Energy Regulator made a submission to the national energy laws amendment bill. In that submission they endorsed the net zero policy setting of the government and said they support it, which doesn’t seem to be impartial. Shouldn’t they only be commenting on their ability to implement the changes, not endorsing the policy driving the changes?
Dr de Brouwer: The requirement of impartiality, as Ms Talbot outlined, is that the APS is apolitical. But it also provides advice—and I will quote from section 10(5) of the act—’that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’. This is within the CER’s view of what is the best available evidence, what is coherent with that and what is required to achieve that.
Senator ROBERTS: So they would be informed by scientific evidence, would they?
Dr de Brouwer: That is what I think the CER will say. You should ask them.
Senator ROBERTS: You are smiling.
Dr de Brouwer: We used to deal with this in estimates 10 years ago.
Senator ROBERTS: Net zero policy is within climate policy. That’s subject to a lot of contention in the public, so supporting that would seem to me not to be upholding impartiality, especially when there have been no logical scientific points, including empirical scientific evidence, to back up net zero anyway in the world. They failed the science test, so surely they are acting partially?
Dr de Brouwer: I think that is your view, Senator Roberts, and it is up to that authority to explain how it views the evidence and provide the explanation to you of why it’s acting impartially.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much.
Hiring practices and codes of conduct obviously need to mirror our constitution. Organisations Australia wide failed that test. A regulation should be coupled with penalty covering a specific condition whereby a person’s right to free speech cannot be limited by their employer. Whistleblowers are curtailed excessively by organisations free hand at stifling free speech. I had my personal Facebook page trolled through by QLD HR looking for an infringement. No permission asked, no proof of wrongdoing, no right to face my accuser and handed IT policy and compelled to take down my page despite no wrong. Just because I offended some princess. I lost a lot of original work in doing that and it has affected me. My faith in my fellow colleagues ability to be free thinkers is lost to them. Just because they feel compelled to follow the party line.
It’s 2003 (+/- ten years) I’m standing on the corner of Queen and Edward Streets waiting for a friend. I’m fifteen minutes early, but being April/October or thereabouts, the weather is pleasant so I’m enjoying the sunshine.
5.437 metres away is a female with a clipboard. Profile: Clothes rejected by Lifeline, four colour hair, a nose ring , twelve earrings Doc Martin footwear and more tattoos than Popeye, she is obviously a Uni student who goes (sometimes, when no protest marches are occurring) to classes on social something.
Two hundred and seventy six (or thereabouts) people pass us. She selects three from the mass and invites them to participate in a survey. They comply, and she hands each the clipboard and pencil. It’s only (about) four questions. Yes/no. tick the boxes.
Stick my face in where it’s not needed or wanted. I’m curious. I approach her. ‘Hi, I see you are conducting a survey. I’m not busy, I’m happy to help’.
Looks around. Wot 2 do? She sees herself as cornered. Thinks: ‘Get the pain over and get rid of him’. She hands me the clipboard and pencil.
NOT verbatum (Too long ago) but close. Q/ Do you think the fascist government should be allowed to use bully police to oppress law abiding citizens? Q/ Do you agree Uni Students should be paid a salary considering the important the will play, after graduating, on Australia’s welfare.
I totally agree!
I used to think the world was just “upside down” with its ‘justice system’, dealings & responses to victims & the innocent. But I’ve since realised it is also “inside out” too. Human justice will always be a farce, as no-one is fit to judge another & most have their own prejudices & agendas!
Pray in Jesus name for justice & fairness because only he can see into every human heart, and bring about restitution.
Keep up the good work Mr Roberts. It was fun watching them squirm, but I wish the public knew more of this. News reporting is now about politicized opinions, nothing to do with facts.
Clearly, an agency endorsing Net Zero at the advisory stage fails the impartiality test. The role of agencies must be limited to providing recommendations as to the advantages and disadvantages of a submission. They can certainly recommend a preferred position but it should not be endorsed by the agency until it becomes law.
Can’t help but observe that the unelected bureaucrats have been captured throughout all western liberal democracies.
Let’s call them what they are; Technocrats.
Blah Blah Blah….still no accountabiltiy. there is not many people that are looking past their noses. I agree whith ALVAR.
Mafia Honoured Society (Australia)
We the people of the world,
Do NOT recognize The World Health Organization
as being anything other than being an advisory body,
with no power whatsoever to enforce
the recommendations that they make In all matters,
We the people make up the whole- of – society and
We are the masters of the whole-of-government.
We claim our right to personal,
Individual sovereignty in all matters,
And cede that authority
Only to God, our creator.
We the people of the world
are responsible for our own health, and
WE ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE WHO.
and any CORRUPT CRIMINAL GOVERNMENTS
FIGHT FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM!
My lord and the farmers feed these people what’s going on Malcom .thank goodness reality has kicked in
If Judges are not public servants, what are they?
There is overwhelming evidence that judicial bureaucrats are breaching the code of impartiality, denying the public the right to a fair trial, not allowing evidence in to protect colleagues, making conflicting decisions about members of the public v the legal profession, i.e. one rule for lawyers when lawyers tamper with government documents to dishonestly gain a financial benefit for their client which is an offence under the criminal code where the same criminal acts by members of the public result in hefty fines and sometimes prison.
How many judges have been found guilty of a criminal offence, sex offences, over handedness, breaches of judicial impartiality, and many more offences.
Time judges are not protected and can no longer hide behind separation of powers.
Audit all cases that have breached the rule of law and more importantly all past and future judgments or mediated settlements that involve forgery of bank customer signatures need to be reviewed and compensation awarded to the victim of judges who are ignorant of laws that are a criminal act.
Three strikes and out for judges who do not apply the law and protect banks that forge customer signatures.