Hi all
It is just me, or has the State Services Commission lost its way.
Quote “The State Services Commission is the Government’s lead advisor on New Zealand’s public management system and works with government agencies to support the delivery of quality services to New Zealanders”
Its vision is: ”A world class system of professional State Services serving the government of the day and meeting the needs of New Zealanders”
“The State Services Commissioner's statutory roles are to appoint and manage Public Service chief executives, provide leadership across the State Services, investigate and report on matters relating to the performance of the Public Service departments and provide guidance on integrity and conduct to State servants. It also leads New Zealand's e-government programme, has a central role in developing State Services people capability and advises the Government on the structure of the State sector, including the allocation of functions between agencies”
Ok that sounds really good in theory but what happens in practice.
Lets take a look at Child Youth and Family Services, they come under the SSC criteria. CYFS also are meant to abide by the “Public Service Code of Conduct” I suggest you read it.
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=4894&PageType=toc&displaytype=pf
So if someone has a complaint that CYFS have breached the Code of Conduct you would think the SSC would want to know and Act.
Go and read the responses from the State Services Commission (SSC) on my webpage
http://graemea.snap.net.nz/
I would like to hear from other who have tired the avenue of the State Services Commission and see if you got results or even answer. You will also find other blogs on this page and a link to some photos
Cheers
Graeme Axford
Newest blog
“See my letter to the Governor General, Hon Anand Satyanand about the corrupt New Zealand Government and some in Parliament”
http://government-nz.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Material published on this blog does not necessarily mean an endorsement of the material by Graeme Axford. I offer no guarantee of, nor accept any responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of information published on this site. I reserve the right to amend, alter, edit, or delete any information that is either submitted for publishing on this blog , or subsequently published by me on this blog from elsewhere., Complaints regarding any material published on this website may be forwarded to graemea@minidata.co.nz for consideration. I will not allow foul language on this webpage or overly offensive comments, towards anyone. As there seems to be great debate over what’s offensive, the easy way to sort it out is if the people mentioned email me complaining then I will consider removing the content.
36 comments:
From: Graeme Axford [graemea@minidata.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:13 a.m.
To: 'aking@ministers.govt.nz'
Cc: 'commission@ssc.govt.nz
Subject: FW: question asked twice no answe yet?
Dear Minister
I am trying to get some answer from the State Services Commission but either get referred to the Ombudsmen’s office or ignored.
I questioned the SSC about their own code of conduct in relation to CYFS actions and got referred to the ombudsmen’s office for an answer. I questioned the SSC EEO policy and never really got an answer.
Why not sack the SSC and give the Ombudsmen’s office their resources as clearly they don’t do anything.
I am a little pissed of with them now going to set up a blog to go along with my current one.
As I have already waited a week for a simple answer if 24 hours goes by and I still don’t have it expect a vists
http://graemea.snap.net.nz
http://childyouthfamily.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-------------
From: Graeme Axford [mailto:graemea@minidata.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 16 April 2007 10:03 a.m.
To: 'commission@ssc.govt.nz'
Cc:
Subject: question asked twice no answer yet?
Dear SSC
Last week I wrote and asked a question which I need an answer to sooner rather then later please.
If someone goes for a job interview with the government department and is unsuccessful do they have the right to get that decision reviewed?
In asking for a review do they have the right to full disclosure of all the facts, by that I mean is there any reasons why information could/should be withheld?
What response is the department required to take if any in order to resolve the issues.
Is someone wrote a letter outlying several reason why they think the decision was not friar does the government department at least have to respond to some of the concerns or can they ignore them all. Just simply saying the decision was final. No expiration, justification given in
I have copied this email to a National MP as I feel the SSC has lost its way. Not only would you not give me a straight answer about the EEO policy, or if a government department breached the State Services Code of Conduct. Referring me to the ombudsmen’s office instead, but now you ignore reasonable request for information in a timely manner. Is this something the SSC can answer or will I have to yet again go the ombudsmen for this information you should be able to provide because your failed to do your job. I will be advising your Minister of my complaints. It seems the ombudsman is doing the SSC job for them so have to question your use.
I will be ringing your minister tomorrow if this information does not come today as its been nearly a week as this request for information should be easy to answer.
I might set up a SSC blog to find out how many other people are not happy with the SS fogging people off.
Cheers
Graeme
Hi Graeme
I have just followed the new links and hope people see the significance of what you are saying and doing in relation to CYFS…
Here are some extracts and examples:
Public servants should perform their official duties honestly, faithfully and efficiently, respecting the rights of the public and their colleagues..
Public servants should perform their official duties honestly, faithfully and efficiently, respecting the rights of the public and their colleagues…
In performing their duties, public servants should respect the rights of their colleagues and the public…
Public servants should perform their duties honestly and impartially, and avoid situations which might compromise their integrity or otherwise lead to conflicts of interest…
Public servants should not bring the Public Service into disrepute through their private activities…
Public servants should avoid any activities, whether connected with their official duties or otherwise, which might bring their department and the Public Service into disrepute, or jeopardise relationships with Ministers, clients, or the general public.
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=4894&PageType=toc&displaytype=pf
With these ratbags, complaints
either go away or complainant does.
Much like ACC or gambling, only the house wins.
Another law unto themselves!
"Bopkess.Graeme's problem is;
Tartai d'satrai by these still-life dildos
I am a little lost, Are CYFS meant to be following The Public Service Code of Conduct? That’s got to be a bloody joke!
Maybe someone needs to tell them that.
I can see how the SSC have avoided answering your questions it seems they can’t even give advice on that which they are meant to know about and govern.
The SSC takes up a lot of money to run according to the budget information I have from treasury. They have a lot of Bureaucrats who can’t seem to answer your questions of a reasonable nature. The way you crafted the problems with the SSC EEO data gathering is good thinking. I think the SSC are afraid of you because of that. I can see your experience as an advocate coming through
Maybe the SSC should employ you that wouldn’t be a hoot. LOL
Well done on the webpage and blogs...
Hi Graeme
I just noticed this new blog and think this needs to be here instead...
from what I read on your webpage, do you mean to tell me that Social Workers already have the following:
1, New Zealand Association of Social Workers (nzasw) code of ethics
2, The New Zealand Public Service Code of Conduct.
3, Social Worker registration board Code-of-Conduct
And now people are proposing an independent complaints authority for CYFS to go on top of this all. You stated “let’s not reinvent the wheel but rather fix what we have. I agree because, if these codes are meant to be abided by then it seems the problem is enforcing them within CYFS practices. I agree and see your point.
Why have another set of rules, codes for CYF to ignore and the extra expenses involved.
From what I understand the nzasw code of ethics is based on a world wide standard adopted and tailor-made for New Zealand.
From what you have been saying if I read it right anything less then that is a rip off, for New Zealanders no matter how you spin it.
Let’s see if anyone else agrees with this and will help push it along as the minister clearly hasn’t. They should put someone like you in charge of any CYFS complaints authority, as your webpage shows you to be a good thinker and someone who will stand up and say when things don’t seam right and won’t give up until the answers come forth.
Cyfs are a law unto themselves.
Hence, we are getting a comprehensive
petition finalized. It is in 2 parts
and will need the support of all past, present victims of cyfs abuse & friends to keep it in it's near entirety It is under wraps, until it is presented to the Clerk of the house> soon. A huge fight will erupt from cyfs. watch this space.
Dear Graeme
Under section 13 of the Children's Commissioner Act 2003, the Children's Commissioner has the statutory duty to act as a complaints authority in respect of allegation of inappropriate action by CYFS:
13 Functions in relation to Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989
(1)The Commissioner has the following functions in relation to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989:
(a)to investigate any decision or recommendation made, or any act done or omitted, under that Act in respect of any child or young person in that child's or young person's personal capacity:
(b)to monitor and assess—
(i)the policies and practices of the Department; and
(ii)the policies and practices of any other person, body, or organisation that relate to the performance or exercise by the person, body, or organisation of a function, duty, or power under that Act or regulations made under that Act:
(c)to encourage the development, within the Department, of policies and services that are designed to promote the welfare of children and young persons:
(d)on the Commissioner's own initiative or at the request of the Minister, to advise the Minister on any matter that relates to the administration of that Act or regulations made under that Act:
(e)to keep under review, and make recommendations on, the working of that Act.
(2)In this section, child has the same meaning as in section 2(1) f the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989.
If children who have been uplifted by CYFS are denied contact with their parent(s) or not returned when that threat no longer exists the Office of the Children's Commissioner has jurisdiction. There is no jurisdiction, however, when the decision is one that has been ordered by the Family Court. In such an instance the only remedy is through the judicial process.
I need people to email me with some facts, so I can pass onto the person who advised me of these processes. Anything you send me will be passed into an MP to be looked at.
The problem I have been told is many of the cases on my webpage and blogs along with the many others is seen as more slinging off the quantifiable facts. I have been told by another MP that the aforementioned process are robust and if people don’t get their kids back it’s often because they have not told me the full truth about what’s happening.
People that’s a challenge for anyone who has used the processes and been failed. One MP said if I can prove the system does not work then they could put a private member Bill in to have it changed. (Independent complaints authority)
So I need no more then a two page A4 summary with when you tried, what happened and the outcome. And most of all why and how you feel the system failed you. I need concrete evidence that can not be easily refuted and the MP who will check up on everything I pass onto them.
People don’t shoot the messenger or be cynical this is a good opportunity.
I have been told most MPs who view watching cyfs think because of the anonymity it’s the same people writing in and making up cases to justify there own means… That either way the cases can not be investigated for truth, given the lack of facts and pure hearsay. That there is always two sides to the story and often that does not come out.
Email me on graemea@minidata.co.nz
Cheers
Graeme Axford
Hi Graeme
I can see why you are not a happy camper this statement makes the SSC look like idiots”
“The State Services Commissioner issues the code, can advise and guide on matters of interpretation and application of the code, and retains the power to investigate serious breaches of the minimum standards set by the code. However the State Services Commission is not in a position to investigate particular alleged breaches of the code unless they are of a particularly serious and/or pervasive nature. In general, the investigation of alleged breaches of the code is the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Department concerned”
http://graemea.snap.net.nz/index.html#code
Given you basically said that CYFS lied, set you up, discriminated and kept information from you if that’s not “particularly serious” then what the F*ck is?
They are so stupid trying to pull this kind of stunt on someone like you.
Hi Graham, As the SSC appoint the CEO of CYF have a look at this..
CYFS CEO Peter Hughes’ Job Description.
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (Reprint as at 10 February 2005) 013
1: General objects, principles, and duties
7 Duties of chief executive
General duties
7 Duties of chief executive
(1) It is the duty of the chief executive to take such positive and prompt
action and steps as will in the chief executive’s opinion best ensure—
(a) that the objects of this Act are attained; and
(b) that those objects are attained in a manner that is consistent with
the principles set out in sections 5 and 6.
(2) In carrying out the duty imposed by subsection (1), the chief executive
shall—
(a) monitor, and advise the Minister on, the effect of social policies
and social issues on children, young persons, families, whanau, hapu, iwi, and
family groups:
(b) promote—
(i) the establishment of services (including social work services,
family support services, and community-based services designed to advance the
welfare of children and young persons in the community or the home); and
(ii) the adoption of policies (including the provision of financial
support to parents, families, and family groups)—
that are designed to provide assistance to children and young persons who lack
adequate parental care, or require protection from harm, or need accommodation
or social or recreational activities:
(ba) in relation to child abuse,—
(i) promote, by education and publicity, among members of the
public (including children and young persons) and members of professional and
occupational groups, awareness of child abuse, the unacceptability of child
abuse, the ways in which child abuse may be prevented, the need to report cases
of child abuse, and the ways in which child abuse may be reported; and
(ii) develop and implement protocols for agencies (both governmental
and non-governmental) and professional and occupational groups in relation to
the reporting of child abuse, and monitor the effectiveness of such protocols:
(c) ensure, wherever possible, that all policies adopted by the
department, and all services provided by the department,—
(i) recognise the social, economic, and cultural values of all
cultural and ethnic groups; and
(ii) have particular regard for the values, culture, and beliefs of
the Maori people; and
(iii) support the role of families, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family
groups; and
(iv) avoid the alienation of children and young persons from their
family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group:
(d) establish and fund Care and Protection Resource Panels:
(e) establish procedures to ensure that the cases of children and young
persons in respect of whom action has been taken under this Act are regularly
reviewed in order to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of that action:
(f) ensure that persons providing services under this Act receive
adequate training and comply with appropriate standards:
(g) monitor and assess the services provided under this Act by the
department and by other organisations, groups, and individuals.
Compare: 1974 No 72 ss 5, 6
Section 7 heading: words substituted, on 1 October 1999, by section 13 of the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act 1999 (1999 No 82).
Section 7(1): words substituted, on 1 October 1999, by section 13 of the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act 1999 (1999 No 82).
Section 7(2): words substituted, on 1 October 1999, by section 13 of the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services Act 1999 (1999 No 82).
Section 7(2)(ba): inserted, on 1 July 1995, by section 4(1) of the Children,
Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Act 1994 (1994 No 121).
Previous - - Contents - Search Acts - List of Acts - Next
Previous - Contents - Search Acts - List of Acts - Next
Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (Reprint as at 10 February 2005) 013
1: General objects, principles, and duties
5 Principles to be applied in exercise of powers conferred by this Act
General principles
5 Principles to be applied in exercise of powers conferred by this Act
Subject to section 6, any Court which, or person who, exercises any power
conferred by or under this Act shall be guided by the following principles:
(a) the principle that, wherever possible, a child’s or young person’s
family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group should participate in the making of
decisions affecting that child or young person, and accordingly that, wherever
possible, regard should be had to the views of that family, whanau, hapu, iwi,
and family group:
(b) the principle that, wherever possible, the relationship between a
child or young person and his or her family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family
group should be maintained and strengthened:
(c) the principle that consideration must always be given to how a
decision affecting a child or young person will affect—
(i) the welfare of that child or young person; and
(ii) the stability of that child’s or young person’s family, whanau,
hapu, iwi, and family group:
(d) the principle that consideration should be given to the wishes of
the child or young person, so far as those wishes can reasonably be
ascertained, and that those wishes should be given such weight as is
appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the age, maturity, and
culture of the child or young person:
(e) the principle that endeavours should be made to obtain the support
of—
(i) the parents or guardians or other persons having the care of a
child or young person; and
(ii) the child or young person himself or herself—
to the exercise or proposed exercise, in relation to that child or young
person, of any power conferred by or under this Act:
(f) the principle that decisions affecting a child or young person
should, wherever practicable, be made and implemented within a time-frame
appropriate to the child’s or young person’s sense of time.
Compare: 1974 No 72 ss 4A-4C; 1983 No 129 s 3
Posted by cyfswatch at 07:58
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
http://watchingcyfs.wordpress.com/tag/insiders-speak-out/
Hi Graham
this is another one.....
Message from a former MSD Management Insider.
Hi folks, Well an interesting debate, NZ Govt vs CYFSWatch New Zealand.
Congratulations on your site!!!
I sincerely hope that the Govt sits up and takes notice of how people really feel and I hope that they look at the majority of stories and at a minimum investigate move to change the culture. I have read the entire site and thank heavens that I have yet to have had dealings with CYFS.
I have seen the manipulation, lying, backstabbing, misreporting and cover ups first hand. I have seen first hand however is how MSD treat their own staff, in fact I became part a management structure in that organisation that contributed towards it, something I am not proud of.
There are individuals in that Department still today that are bullies and it is these individuals that drive the organisation. The effects can be life altering and devastating.
Over over several years I made some interesting observations. Having worked very closely with the GM of Operations in her former role, (in fact I even had the odd drink in her pub in the past) and also working with the CE MSD I can tell you that that both individuals will be thumping their fists and roaring (or should that be ranting) but at night when they crack a bottle of wine they don’t give a fat rats arse about what happens.
I have had a conversation with one of these individuals during which they berated their own staff and stated that they were absolutely ‘ghastly’ to name but a few comments made in a “safe environment”. The question is are they now prepared to back those comments and statements? Or were they just angry with the minister of the day pressuring them into taking the job???
In line with Google ToS and not wanting to get personal so I’ll play nice. What people in key Govt need to understand is that the Internet is a big wide world and what you say and do today will come back and bite you in the bum. If not tomorrow then when you least expect it.
Karma has a way of catching up with you lovey. Aye Lorraine. O and on a closing note, the department has a funny way of shuffling lying, manipulating, backstabbing etc individuals around so be weary of internal movements.
P.S I got sick of the BS and left, but I implore this site never to give up. Rustic101
Posted by cyfswatch at 07:44
Labels: Message from a former MSD Management Insider.
I can not believe what the SSC is meant to be doing. It seems CYFS don’t follow their own standards as outlined in the Public Servants Code. Like you I contacted the SSC and was advised to get in touch with the CEO. What a lot of good that was NOT. So then I contacted the ministers who said it would be inappropriate for them to intervene….
So if the SSC appoint the CEO for the MSD then surely they must be able to do something???? It seems like a never ending story… So the SSC, CEO and Ministers don’t seem that helpful who can then???? Talk about passing the buck…. If I had a buck for every time I hear this story I would be rich. It seems for all the money they spend of Bureaucracy someone should be ale to know or do something of substances. What a waist of money and time having all these people to cover each others asses.
Well while we are in that subject look at this...
INVESTIGATE:
And some of the chickens coming home to roost would be?
Tamihere:
The number of do-gooders who are paid extremely well in government. We’ve got 180,000 fewer unemployed, but a bigger bureaucracy than when we did!
What the hell is going on here?
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/tamihere.htm
I have a question to the "have your say?"
How can you prove the "threat no longer exists” when the only one that did was in CYFS mind...
Whoever wrote that list for you is way out of touch with the comings and goings of CYFS…
If I was the SSC & CYF I would employ you because of your quick thinking and ability to come at things from a different prospective. You could be their best friend or worst enemy I know no which one I would rather have you on. LOL
They could use you on their interview panel for people with disabilities and bring you in to trouble shoot the hard cases, cos F*ck you are good at it from what I read…
Them dumb assed F*u*hers can’t see that. Thank Allah …
Hi, Graeme, a dicky bird told me that
there is a Group called the NZ Association of Social workers, who have an excellent Code of Conduct, that is based on one recognized world wide.
Yet cyfs has never adopted it?
Which is strange/ strager still when one of the bosses, I am told! of the NZ Assoc of social Workers, is:
Paula Attrill ( Hope I spelt her name right).
Paula is a BIG CYFS BOSS in the South Island:
A HUGE CASE of cyfs DOUBLE STANDARDS.
" We come in peace, shoot to kill!"
Who ever said anything cyps workers do makes sense....
Their days of CRYING WOLF are numbered!
I can see why the SSC didn’t want to answer you because by doing so they would give you ammo. If the SSC found fault with CFYS then that reflects on them in a way.
It also means they would have to do something about the issues so they lose either way.
But by not answering you they lost as well. I could almost feel sorry for the SSC being caught in the middle, but that’s what they are paid for one would think?
Like you I tried to get answers from the SSC. I have had replies but no answers. How the hell can they advise government when they can’t give advice on what they write as policy and meant to oversee themselves? They always acknowledge and reply to me but avoid answer the questions they don’t like. All they did was quote and Act I already knew then the policy. But know interpretation for how the Act fits the policy? If I understood it, I would not have needed to ask them to explain it to start with. It seems the SSC policy makers write things to keep themselves busy and employed, that does not make since and know one can understand or explain it when asked. Good old Labours idea of accountability is great. They hire more Bureaucrats to improve quality and efficiencies at great expense and we end up with lower standards then before and more people who know less.
Hi Graeme, hope you like this one LOL
Last year a new umbrella group, the Occupational Health & Safety Industry Group [OHSIG] was launched. An initiative the New Zealand Safety Council [NZSC] fully supports and has now joined. This group will act as a national forum for H&S associations to develop and implement initiatives and communicate them to central and local government politicians and bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats, who are they? The shorter Oxford gives us some clues: Bureaucrats are ‘not accountable to the public’. They ‘pursue centralised administrative power and are seen as unimaginative or doctrinaire’. So how do the New Zealand bureaucrats involved in H&S stack-up? The opinion of many of our members is dismally. Bureaucrats, we believe, are the ‘Problem Not the Solution’. We have had problems with ACC, LTNZ, (Rail Crossing Safety initiative); NZ Fire Service (problems with smoke alarms); and NZQA (problems with Auditing); who have all resisted evidence of problems and fresh ideas.
Many use ‘stalling tactics’ and paraphrasing what Tim Shadbolt said recently on TV about bureaucrats/politicians: if we do not want to make a decision we form a committee! Probably hoping the person/group making the suggestion will go away or lose interest.
OHSIG had its official launch function on May 1st, after much work by the original members NZISM, NZOHNA and NZOHS. A dozen or so groups were invited, together with ACC and OSH [whoops, forgot new branding] DOL. Unfortunately nobody turned up from either ACC or DOL, which was extremely frustrating and annoying to all participants who waited 45 minutes for their non-arrival.
This attitude or lack of commitment reflects the experience of many of us in dealing with government departments on H&S matters. These comments are in no way aimed at front line H&S inspectors and technical staff in a range of government departments, whose frustrations we share. We believe the OSH re-branding was a mistake and current re-branding is to many observers a waste of effort. ‘ OSH ’ was a good brand that should have been retained and strengthened.
Our comments are aimed at many senior bureaucrats who say nothing, but talk in platitudes about process, structures, service delivery etc. The comments from the new manager of the DOL Professional & Specialist group in the last Safeguard, support our comments re bureaucrat-speak. Making the link to welfare is a 1950’s approach!
We believe there is a failure of leadership in many government departments and like ‘Sir Humphrey’ in Yes Minister, resistance to new ideas from outside and any challenge to current ‘flawed thinking’, is met by a wall of silence. One beacon of enlightenment in the DOL is Mike Cosman, who has brought a wide knowledge of health and safety issues to New Zealand , gained over 25 years with HSE Executive in the UK . Mike has only been with the DOL for a couple of years but has been very supportive of NZSC and many other groups. Last September, he travelled to Nelson, at short notice, to present five newly Registered Safety Professionals with their Certificates. His support and encouragement was rewarded by NZSC, making Mike an Honorary Member. Unfortunately, this support has not been mirrored by ACC management.
Example: In 2003 NZSC spent many hours on a submission for the NZ Injury Prevention Strategy [NZIPS]. Apart from a letter of receipt and an annual Christmas Card, no feedback has been received.
In our 2003 submission we stated “ In our collective experience government departments do not listen. Constructive suggestions are either received defensively or ignored.
Many of our members have sat on government committees, made submissions and ultimately been left frustrated with inaction”.
NZSC has a large pool of expertise in all aspects of health and safety and we requested involvement in the development of future plans. I met with ACC, at NZSC request, to discuss problems with the WSMP audit program, as raised by members, some of whom were ACC WSMP auditors. All problems were denied and an opportunity for constructive suggestions to be implemented lost.
Also in our 2003 NZIPS submission, we stated: “Since the inception of ACC, many of our H&S Practitioners have observed a lack of cooperation between ACC & OSH, which continues to this day. Many of our members have noted the sometimes, conflicting information coming from ACC and DOL, who appear to many, to be on parallel paths” e.g. Both departments have their own H&S Audit Tool. A joint approach, with ACC recognising the limitations of the WSMP audit Tool and moving to a Risk based audit approach would be an improvement.
Many DOL ‘Codes of Practice’ [CoPs] are outdated. One idea is to move away from CoPs towards industry standards, with the ability to update regularly, with input from a wider range of specialists.
Many ACC injury prevention staff lack H&S industry experience. Similarly, DOL inspectors are poorly paid and at the lower end of the competency curve compared with their UK equivalents. More resources are required to upskill and recruit more qualified staff. DOL need more technical specialists. There is an urgent need to harmonise H&S injury prevention efforts between ACC and DOL. The DOL must be funded sufficiently to carry out its role, especially with regard to Hazardous Substances compliance.
There is a view that ACC are cash rich but do not understand their mandate and OSH understand their mandate but are woefully short of both human and financial resources.
If OHSIG is to work, it will need all government departments to listen to concerns and respond positively. We will await their response with interest!
David Calvert
Executive Director
May 2006
Note: This Editorial is the personal opinion of the Executive Director but reflects concerns expressed to me by many members.
http://www.safetycouncil.org.nz/Editorial/Bureaucrats.html
why are all these comments lined on the one half of the column? It is discrminating on the other half and I am now slightly bent towards the other side. Is that a conflict of interest or what?
Actually, if anyone had seen the take on the Postbank worker and the Privacy Commission, then you'd know something is missing.
Also, Kiro's (Commissioner for children) take on Campbell Live and the BSA's endorsement of her claim sais it all. "She claims that parents have no rights over their own children..."
This is frightening!
The Child Commissioners should by right pay at least half her salary back.
Spends half the day with head up butt, other half talking crap.
Cyfs bosses also talk crap, the connection... The same dept that pays cyfs pays Kiro! Conflict of interest,
nah, conflict of crap.
The Govt depts are run by burrocraps
and overpaid muleheads.
Who in turn, boss around 'middle management' shitheads.
The Rank & file cop the mess
One Dept has an exception: Cyfs.
They take no notice of the above and cause mayhem for parents, kids and themselves, then blame parents.
Foolproof plan. Judges rarely believe parents.
Cyfs really do suck.
Dyson is more blow than suck.
Hughes thinks all parents are suckers.
Bentbum- Pope is a sucking pervert.
Clark is a dragking, should pull her foreskin over her head and suck off to another universe
Hooray suck, to that
C U Square, Fart Simpleton.
The SSC gave me the run around as well; God only knows what they are meat to be doing. Like you they told me to go to the ombudsmen’s office rather then explain anything… Whey do they exist? Given the amount of money they suck up it seem they are not value for money at all.
A comment made to me by a Family Court Judge early this year ; "CYFS are so dysfunctional they are dangerous ."
Well done to Minister Ruth Dyson !!
Are we all forgetting that State Services is only the anagram for the True Department Name ...
Save It's Secret
If this theory (no.5,879,645,201) in the conspiracy theory stakes is anything near correct, then one should not be surprised to discover that State Services Saves the Secret of CYF's incompetence.
OK, it is very frivilous I admit, but it still makes more sense than the claimed "Competency and Correctness" diplayed by both CYF's and the State Services to date.
Environment Minister chief executive Hugh Logan resigned today because he really had to then what happens.
Mark Prebble would consider employing Logan again, despite the mistakes the ministry had made in recent months. "He is still a man of huge ability."
Hung on Hugh Logan come into problem with this last job and now Mark Prebble wants to employ Hugh Logan in the state services Commission? Is that not the organization that oversees Government departments like the one Hugh Logan resigned from?
I tell you what, why not put him in charge of CYFs . After all everyone says they could not get any worse lets see. It seems if you have failings in your job, it does not matter there will always be a place for you within some government agency.
Well that explain why the public service has got so bad lately with this kind of logic..
Another example of the Prebble family genius at work.
Survey of Integrity & Conduct of State servants
Thursday, 11 October 2007, 2:04 pm
Press Release: State Services Commission
Survey of the Integrity and Conduct of State servants released
11 October 2007
The State Services Commissioner, Mark Prebble, today released the results of a survey into the integrity and conduct of New Zealand’s State servants.
The independent survey, conducted by the Ethics Resource Centre, assessed the standards of integrity and conduct among State servants and found that there are some areas that can be improved upon.
"Only last week Transparency International again rated New Zealand equal first place in the global survey of perceptions of corruption in the public sector. We are all proud of that, but it is more important to meet the standards New Zealanders expect. We will not be complacent and we will do everything we can to maintain and improve upon that good record.
This survey, and the others that will follow, is an important step in an ongoing process of monitoring and managing levels of integrity and good conduct in the State Services. These surveys will from time to time highlight issues that we need to address, and we can’t afford to pretend otherwise. What is critical is that we identify the problems and move to fix them," Mark Prebble said.
The survey, of 4,642 State servants from a range of State Services agencies, considered six elements that are essential to support integrity and ethical behaviour. Some areas of concern identified in the survey were:
• 33 per cent of State servants reported observing misconduct in the past year. 6 per cent of respondents believed that these incidents were breaches of the law.
• 36 per cent of respondents reported seeing breaches involving abusive or intimidating behaviour.
• Only 49 per cent of respondents believe their senior managers keep their promises and commitments.
"We know from international studies that we need sound systems in place to support integrity and good conduct. This survey looked at our systems and showed us that we have high understanding, that we have good training but that it can be improved, and that we need to do more work in terms of our reporting, follow up, leadership, and communication.
"We have shone a hard light on this, now we need to move to deal with it. SSC has a specialist team to work with agencies on their integrity and conduct and we will be actively working with chief executives, boards and senior leaders over the coming months to ensure that these issues are adequately addressed.
"The new Code of Conduct launched in June is an important tool for establishing a common standard of behaviour across the State Services and I expect that the standard will be met," Mark Prebble said.
A summary of the findings and the full report are available of the State Services Commission website: www.ssc.govt.nz/survey-report-summary.
ENDS
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00152.htm
Standards of Integrity and Conduct
A code of conduct issued by the State Services Commissioner under section 57 of the State Sector Act 1988
We must be fair, impartial, responsible, and trustworthy
The State Services is made up of many organisations with powers to carry out the work of New Zealand's democratically elected governments.
Whether we work in a department or in a Crown entity, we must act with a spirit of service to the community and meet the same high standards of integrity and conduct in everything we do.
We must comply with the standards of integrity and conduct set out in this code. As part of complying with this code, our organisations must maintain policies and procedures that are consistent with it.
Fair
We must:
treat everyone fairly and with respect
be professional and responsive
work to make government services accessible and effective
strive to make a difference to the well-being of New Zealand and all its people.
Impartial
We must:
maintain the political neutrality required to enable us to work with current and future governments
carry out the functions of our organisation, unaffected by our personal beliefs
support our organisation to provide robust and unbiased advice
respect the authority of the government of the day.
Responsible
We must:
act lawfully and objectively
use our organisation's resources carefully and only for intended purposes
treat information with care and use it only for proper purposes
work to improve the performance and efficiency of our organisation.
Trustworthy
We must:
be honest
work to the best of our abilities
ensure our actions are not affected by our personal interests or relationships
never misuse our position for personal gain
decline gifts or benefits that place us under any obligation or perceived influence
avoid any activities, work or non-work, that may harm the reputation of our organisation or of the State Services.
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?DocID=6320
Dear Graeme
I hope you like the snippets above; someone within CYFS upper told me you will never ever get a position because you are too much of a shit stirrer and know your rights. They fear you.
I think on that alone you have won. They are fools to themselves as you have shown.
Go get them and fight the good fight my friend some of us within the SSC think you are our hero and champion for the good. You are a true man of Integrity and because you raised issues we are having to tighten things up. The SSC has released a number of documents around conduct issues lately as a result of their dealings with you and the bloody webpage I was told...
Great comments. I feel sorry for those who social workers who try hard to do a job in a tough environment.
Such as cyfs, where they are often surrounded by low IQ's, (Not the Clients) and back-stabbers.
An original thought in this lot and you are a person with a problem, as this rare occurance is totally frowned upon and tantamount to traitorous thoughts.
about six months ago a trades person decided to become a social worker worker, now registered as one! So much for years of hard graft and expensive training.
Many so-called Social Workers at Cyfs have no formal training.
Nor does my cat. It is a well known fact, cats are real Social types, never do as they are told and work cheap, plus a higher IQ. Just ideal for the thin ranks at Cyfs. But cats do not
talk? Not a problems many unfortunate clients of cyfs haven't a clue what cyfs workers are talking about! Hedgehogs are a: no no, enough pricks there already.
Dr Prebble was severely criticised by the National Party last year over the Madeleine Setchell employment scandal.Yet he is the bother of Richard Prebble and still kept his job?? go figure..
National on Mark Prebble's resignation
25 January 2008 - 00:38 - Gerry Brownlee
State Services
National Party State Services spokesman Gerry Brownlee says the National Party acknowledges the long career of public service by State Services Commissioner Mark Prebble who announced his resignation today.
"Dr Prebble has many years service as a devoted public servant and we wish him well as he deals with his health issues.
"The last few years have been extremely difficult for the public service as it has come under increasing pressure to run the Labour Party's political agenda.
"This culture has come from the Cabinet, and Dr Prebble has walked a difficult path, but that in no way diminishes his achievements as a loyal and long-time public servant under both National and Labour-led Governments."
State sevices comm, useless seat warmers. Complained to them about a certain cyfs worker who runs FGC's
or as it appears Graeme calls them: Fore Gone Con-clusions. on the West Coast. A nasty piece of work.
Google: youbethejudge,(one word), look for online book in menu on l/hand side of Home Page. Friggin Parent basher who got caught out big time about 10 years ago.
pages 38 - 48 say it all.
As such, how the pluck did this shithead ever pass the critera to register as a Social Worker!
She should have been sacked 10 years ago for her outragious behaviour. This person's FGC's are on par with Vegas, the House always wins. Her track record shows as much. She is a bully and traumatises familys.
Youbethejudge, in in the public domain, Neither Cyfs or this dirtbag have sued the writers, to clear her name.(Check who the writers are!Very interesting).
AS, a non-guilty person would.
Getting a parent basher to run FGC's sorry no' F' CGC Arsholes called cyfs ran the last one I went to was for their; not the Familys benefit.
Pity cyfs keep employing dickheads who wreck the work of honest social workers
Have a complaint with Cyfs, who answers your complaint, same swine you are complaining about.
The child stealing & parent bashing industry is alive & well, thanks state ser comm ,usless pricks!
HONK HONK you dishonest jerks.
Good for people to know.
Hey there SSC,
"22 of 35 departments use variations of the following potentially discriminatory question:"
Is that inept, stupidity or what?
As Graeme asked in his email and published on his site.
"Who admits they ggot it wrong?"
Top bureaucrat falls on sword over loss-making IT network
"Deputy State Services Commissioner Laurence Millar has resigned over how the agency bought and ran a secure computer network connection between Crown agencies."
Now who would of thought that a New Zealand bureaucrat could make a mistake, and be honest enough to admit it?
"Laurence Millar has decided in light of Mr Walter's findings that the ultimate accountability for these issues is his."
Source: NZ Herald
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10564943
What a pity more of those in the senior positions did not have the same sense of honour!
Cheers.
Post a Comment