President’s Message
Christmas message:
On behalf of the COA Executive and fellow members, I wish one and all, the very best for Christmas and the festive season.
Please be safe for the remainder of the year and make 2007 a time for peace, happiness – and job satisfaction.
1. Do members want the COA to continue or to fold?
2. President Retires from Customs – Does NOT retire from the COA
3. Woodward OUT, with ‘no thanks’ – Carmody IN, with thanks.
4. Arming of Customs Staff?
5. Why are failed Senior Managers protected?
6. ICS – a lost opportunity to make it great.
1. Do members want the COA to continue or to fold?
Well members it is crunch time. The COA is one of Australia ’s oldest federally registered unions and probably the oldest federally registered Public Service Association/Union.
Members now have to make a choice about keeping the Association alive or closing it down.
I have to ask the question now because I have retired from Customs – but I have not resigned from the union. The question is – do other members still want the COA to continue?
My view is that it should keep going - no matter what. I would like to think that members expect an application to be lodged with the Industrial Relations Commission to have the rules changed so as to reactivate the union. If that clearly fails within the next 12 months then I guess it will be time close up shop.
For years members have held on to the hope that the COA could fight its way back to regaining full industrial rights for members and the reinvigorating of membership. The loyalty of members has been ‘to die for’.
The odds against the COA lasting this long has been enormous – but we have made it so far.
Throughout the last 8 years the Association was under sustained attack by the previous Customs administration.
Customs argued during earlier industrial proceedings against the continued registration of the COA . Then Customs management engaged in phone traces of the Association’s office phone and faxes, (the phone is also my home phone) and my work phones and faxes for more than 100 days shortly after we established a confederation with the AFP –it seems to have been a clear attempt to interfere with the COA and AFP confederation. There were more phone traces over later years.
The CEO issued unlawful directions that I should not make public comment in any capacity (including as COA President) on any matter (including COA matters) without his express approval.
That matter took 5 years to be successfully resolved through the Courts. As soon as we won significantly, I was moved, totally against movement policies, from areas of familiar work to work where I was totally unfamiliar and isolated. I describe this as an act of thuggery and sheer bastardry. Customs bureaucrats were in flagrant breach of procedural fairness or due process. When I subsequently became ill, particular managers worked hard to ensure that the causes of my injuries were not resolved. The aim was clearly intended to use their unlimited resources to hobble the COA by forcing us on the defence and to use up our resources in so doing. The malice exercised against me personally and against the COA was palpable.
A gang of specific people (I use the term ‘people’ very loosely) in Woodward’s administration, took action against the COA and me personally. It is my view and the view of virtually all those people outside Customs with whom I had contact about the matter, that the actions of these louts was a deliberate and concerted attack on me and the COA, based on a totally unethical intent. Fighting that fight for 8 years has diverted the COA from its ability to rebuild. Now that Woodward has gone (and very good riddance) we are in a better position to take action to reactivate and rebuild the Union .
I believe we have an obligation to keep the COA alive. Every time a union closes down it is a defeat of workers and a win for those who want to cripple the few rights and privileges that remain for workers. Bureaucrats, this Conservative Government and Employers generally, benefit from the closure of each and every union. And what is ironic – is that the ACTU has been at the forefront of killing off unions – in their attempts to lock all workers into unions under its control. The ACTU and its accomplice, the CPSU, have fought to wipe out independent and non-aligned unions. Unions generally are now in danger of becoming an endangered species thanks to the ACTU and the big dominant unrepresentative unions.
Throughout this last year the COA has represented a number of members publicly and more have been assisted covertly. To ensure that the previous administration’s henchmen/women did not victimise anyone, the COA has assisted a number of members (and a few non members) quietly, without pushing that assistance publicly. We have also supported a number of members in the AAT and with Comcare matters.
The COA (through me) successfully lobbied the Federal Opposition and the Democrats in the Senate to have the Government’s first attempt at a new Regulation 2.1 disallowed. However the Government, with the assistance of the PS Commission and the AGS , have pushed the new Regulation. It was snuck through Parliament recently. Clearly not constitutional or consistent with the Federal Court decision. [See article in this Journal [ Public Service Mandarins….gag on Public Service] on about the problems arising from the current Reg 2.1]
The Options;:
We could still put pressure on Customs Management by lobbying the Government, the Public Service Commission, the Attorney General and if necessary, the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Opposition.
However as membership falls away, our influence would diminish till we became ineffectual.
At present the COA activities taken in the High Court and in the Senate about the ‘Gag’ Regulation and some matters in the AAT have provided us with a platform to pursue some matters on behalf of members. But that will fade shortly and we will need to have another significant success to keep our credentials at a respectable level.
The CPSU and the ACTU , if they run true to form, will fight against the right of Customs Officers to choose which union they want to join. –So much for freedom of association.
Customs management MAY attempt to oppose any application we make. It will depend how much the remnants of the Woodward’s administration are able to con Mr Carmody. The old gang are still there and it is likely that they will be able to mislead Carmody into believing that the COA is and could be a problem. The fact that the ACS is now conforming to a bevy of long held COA policies and is also changing in a way the COA has been advocating for years. If the ACS keeps heading in this direction they may eventually catch up to us.
It is even possible that the Government MAY seek to oppose our application simply because they want all unions crushed. Our previous history of trying to expose bad Government policies and poor Agency administration will not put us in favour with the Government. However the fact that the COA would be willing to assist members with AWA ’s if that is what they want, would be something that the Government would like. So is it possible on that basis they may do nothing and just see which way the IRC is likely to jump.
It may even be leverage for the Government against the IRC, if the IRC blocks our application. It would show that the IRC is more interested in dictating the nature of union/employer relations than conforming to the intent of the Government to have choice in union membership.
However if the COA is to make an application to reactivate the Union then we need more members to take the reins. Executive Officers are willing to maintain the Association but if we make an application to reinvigorate the union then we will need a handful of people to step up to the plate and take over some of the jobs. As for my position – I’ll pull a ‘Howard’, I’ll stay in any capacity as long as that is what the members want.
However if 51% of members want the COA to fold then so be it. How and when that would happen would have to then be decided by members.
What to do?
The Executive intend to ensure that all financial members get the opportunity to vote on which option is preferred. This will not be the final vote on the course that the COA will take. The problem is that there are at least 3 options and maybe more. Unless there is an absolute majority voting in favour of a particular option, it would not be proper to act on the largest vote which may only amount to 35% of members.
So the intention is to ask firstly for members preferences.
After the response of members is received it will be compiled as a report for members. That Report will then be provided to members with advice as to how to progress with the preferred option.
The information above will be reprinted as part of a letter to all financial members. The letter will probably be sent to members before this Journal is published.
Full and further details of the COA status will be provided with the letter. As part of those details, it is hoped that we will be able to provide a statement from an industrial solicitor stating clearly the prospects of having the association’s rules rectified and reinstated.
Members with comments or suggestions (be nice) about what information should be provided to members would be appreciated. Even if those comments or suggestions arrive after the first letter is sent out, we will try to ensure that all members views are canvassed.
To that end, it would be very helpful if members would provide their email addresses (preferably their home email address but if not their work email.)
Now to other business.
2. President Retires from Customs – Does NOT retire from the COA
In late 2005, the Human Rights Commission advised Woodward’s administration that it would make a seriously adverse finding against Customs Management and award some compensation to me. HREOC recommended to Customs that they seek a settlement with me rather than accept the HREOC damages payment.
Against every fibre of my desire to make Woodward accountable and to bring some of his cohorts to account before the courts, I was forced, only by ill health, to come to a settlement. Customs (and Comcare’s) repeated failure to resolve my workplace injuries for 3 years simply took its toll and I was too ill to keep fighting. The settlement included a redundancy package. I accepted a redundancy in late April 2006.
In the past Customs managers attacked the COA and executive office holders as union officials. But under Woodward’s administration they didn’t attack the game, they attacked the individual. This is not unknown in the Public Service but it was the first time I was aware that it became the preferred mode of operation in Customs.
It is really important for all members to be aware how dangerous to life and health are stress/anxiety induced injuries. All stress/anxiety injuries are harmful but the worst type of injuries are those that are inflicted by people with power and responsibility but who are prepared to use that power improperly and who accept no responsibility. These are people who are generally expected to behave professionally, in good conscious, ethically and with integrity. But when some of these people act like malicious thugs and use their unfettered powers improperly against an individual, then the stress and anxiety they engender can be enormous. It would not be so bad if the Public Service Commission and or Comcare were to objectively consider complaints about administrative abuse. Instead they blindly accept that Agency Managers are always right and the victim of administrative abuse is invariably wrong and deserves to be harmed. When the entire system of Public Administration is lined up to ensure that Agency Managers are protected and that no protection will be provided to victimised employees – the anxiety and stress can be unbearable.
Within weeks of leaving Customs, some of the symptoms of the injuries went, others have slowly abated but some linger. Compared to the injuries and discomfort I was suffering earlier, life is now worth living.
The settlement prevents me from making any further claims against the Commonwealth or individuals; however I can talk about what was done to me and how it was done, as long as I don’t seek any further redress. I don’t want any redress of my matter but as a case study of the sort of bullying abuse that can be inflicted on employees it should be compulsory reading.
It is my real regret that the specific people in Woodward’s administration who were culpable of the damages caused to me will never directly be held to account. However in the new year I hope to be setting up a web site which will contain much of the relevant information about the matter including the conduct of those involved. Hopefully that exposure will prompt responsible politicians and bureaucrats who have a real concern about Public Service, to develop workable remedies against the sort of misconduct that was evident in my matter.
3. Woodward OUT, with ‘no thanks’ – Carmody IN, with thanks.
Mr Carmody has replaced Woodward – halleluiah! Every report received from every source has praised Mr Carmody for what appears to be his balanced and inclusive approach as the new CEO. All reports indicate that he is actually trying to fix the multi-mess left by Woodward (including the ICS mess and staffing issues).
The ICS mess seems to be sliding further and further away from the whiz bang, bloody near perfect system that promised to give real and effective control over cargo transactions. It is now heading towards a very compromised copy of the redundant applications that it was meant to supersede and improve.
There are changes to Personnel structures and arrangements and staff feel that there is some give and take developing at executive management levels. This is not the staff ‘give’ and management ‘take’ that prevailed under Woodward’s administrations. Staff are advising that they are now being treated as if they actually have something to contribute. Managers who are not providing staff with opportunities to become involved are already being identified as relics from the Woodward administration era. That taint will, it is hoped, speed their departure to ‘browner’ pastures.
There a few good managers left who survived the staff purges orchestrated under the Woodward administration or they snuck into Customs despite Woodward’s administration propensity to recruit ‘promotional junkies’. These managers, along with willing and committed Officers have managed to do a good job for Customs despite the pitiful and shabby culture that flourished under the previous administration. Clearly much has been done to make Customs work and grow. This is despite Woodward’s administration. But most of the successes have arisen from the workface where committed officers see the need for change and improvement and drive these changes into practice. Of course the ‘promotional junkie’ managers then tell all and sundry that the new system that is working was their initiative. This is not called stealing it is called ‘management rights of appropriation’. What is really funny is that the Senior Executive believes it – because that conforms to their belief that anyone they pick for a job will produce the goods.
There are still the no-hopers that Carmody will have to weed out. That will not be easy but if he would like a list of them, I feel sure members would be only toooooo pleased to provide their lists. One reason it is hard to lay blame on particular senior managers for the messes created, is the previous administration’s practice of waiting till the mess was flowing out of the garbage bin and then shuffling all senior staff to confuse who was responsible. Makes it hard to track who actually made the mess.
Mr Carmody could start with the bunch that kept saying there was nothing wrong with the ICS project as it reeled from disaster to disaster. In particular he could look at those responsible for the testing that was repeatedly mishandled.
After 12 years of the most unworthy, regressive and divisive administration since 1960, Woodward has gone. However, it is now time to look forward. Despite the great pleasure it would give to describe the multitude of failings that have occurred over the last 12 years that would be like looking back at a festering carcass that has been discarded in on a rubbish dump – it stinks and it makes no sense to look back –there is absolutely nothing to be gained. Good-bye and good riddance.
Unfortunately since the early 1970’s almost every successive new administration became progressively worst – the only exceptions being Tom Hayes and the interim C-G Chris Dugan – both tried to be inclusive but were stopped by a few very senior managers who wanted the COA wiped out. Then came Woodward and his cohorts and a hundred years of Customs traditions, camaraderie and espirit de corps were wiped out – that is when Customs really hit the bottom.
One would have to be a really good ‘limbo dancer’ to get under the previous administration’s bar that reflected their quality of management. Mr Carmody doesn’t have to lift his game very much to make a startling improvement over what I believe Customs staff lost under the culture of the previous administration.
4. Arming of Customs Staff?
It is said that Woodward often referred to the Officers who were responsible for the more pro-active Customs law enforcement functions as “Constable Plods”. I believe that some in the Executive management derisively described the law enforcement trained officers as “Jack-boots and Storm-troopers.” I know of Senior Executives and even Ministers poking fun at the COA when we complained about the removal of firearms handling training, the loss of remote patrol training and of the loss of skills that came when they stopping ships searches. The COA was ridiculed when we complained about them abandoning the Diving Team and the Emergency Breathing Apparatus training. And when we argued for officers on Coastal Patrol vessels and at remote locations to be armed we were told that it would never happen. “Customs is a service agency not a regulatory agency and certainly not a law enforcement agency”… how times change.
Note the recent significant seizures of drugs that were attached to the exterior hull of two vessels. Those seizures were detected by NZ Customs but could never have been detected by Australian Customs divers because the previous administration closed down the unit – because that mode of smuggling, on their assessment, did not happen.
It was always inevitable however, that sooner or later, Customs would become the peace-time Border Force, charged with the responsibility to protect the National borders.
The only people who did not see the inevitable were the visionless bureaucrats who were trying to strip away from Customs as many functional responsibilities as they could. This was not done in the public interest – this was done in their interest. The more responsibilities that were palmed off to other agencies – so the Public Service grew bigger – their salaries, power and privileges grew proportionately larger – but most importantly – the harder it would be for the public to identify which SES Officer was responsible for any stuff up.
So now we have about 12 agencies, each duplicating functions that were originally carried out by Customs, with each agency having inconsistent recruitment standards, modes of operations, standards of procedures, legislation, intelligence units, resources, budgets and conflicts of interests (patch protection).
But getting back to Customs. Now Customs Senior management are having to slowly undo the regressive policies that were introduced during the last administration. Now we have a new Search training centre, officers in selected areas are now being trained in weapons handling and we have lots of weapons on Customs Patrol boats.
However there is a fly in the ointment. There are many staff who were recruited under the Woodward administration as general Public Servants – not law enforcement officers. Simply look at the recruitment ads for Customs over the last 12 years. There is virtually no reference to law enforcement matters or the mention of police type functions or arrest, firearms use or handling, no references to aggressive passengers or crew or wharfies. The recruitment ads for Customs under the Woodward administration have not been conducive to recruiting law enforcement officers. Clearly many competent people who are very capable law enforcement officers have joined Customs in the last 12 years but that has not been because they were recruited by the ads promoted by Customs. It is more likely that these appropriate people have joined Customs because they have more direct knowledge of the ‘sharp-end’ functions of Customs.
But the problem is that many people recruited as Public Servants do not want to handle weapons or face threatening passengers or crew. They do not want to arrest anyone and they do not want to give evidence in court. The problem is compounded by the dreaded ‘re-assignment policy’ – where a manager moves a staff member anywhere they like without consultation or consideration of the willingness or capabilities of the officer concerned. Some Officers who simply cannot deal with the stress of confrontation are being placed in that position. Similarly some people are now being told that they may have to undergo firearms training or even carry a weapon. Some staff simply cannot do that - and they are not to blame.
The blame rests squarely on Customs management and the CPSU. They have both consistently fought against particular Customs functions being declared as law enforcement jobs. That would have required the recruitment of particular people to fulfil those particular roles. But both have consistently fought against that long-held COA proposition. Now the fruits are coming home to bear.
The CPSU is already threatening industrial action if officers are forced to become more intimately involved with weapon usage. WHY? Isn’t this the hardest and most critical work of Customs Officers?
Doesn’t an agency recruit so that its workers are capable and willing to do the hardest and most critical work likely to be required? If it doesn’t, and Customs didn’t recruit that way for the last 12 years, then it cannot – repeat – cannot force people to do a more dangerous and onerous function without giving those who were not warned, the option of rejecting that work function. The risk of forcing people to do these duties when they are not willing to undertake these type of duties is a clear breach of the OH&S Act.
The question now is – what will Customs do to fix the problem. SIMPLE – divide Customs into two or three parts; 1) a law enforcement part , 2) a regulatory part, and a general 3) administrative part – and then recruit for each accordingly. Until this is done, there is a real risk of someone inappropriate being armed and this could lead to any number of disastrous outcomes.
5. Why are failed Senior Managers protected????
In my personal experience, I am aware of dozens of examples of Senior Public Service Managers ( SES Levels) who have failed in their duties. They have breached the Public Service Act in a variety of ways. For example Woodward issued unreasonable directions, some Customs staff knowingly failed to comply with procedural fairness in relation to staff movements and others failed to comply with statutory provisions of the Comcare requirements. Others were responsible for abuses of the Telecommunications Act, and it is likely that even today, others have been responsible for abuses of the Interception provisions of related legislation. Others have taken action against other officers on bogus information, harassed Officers and driven them to attempted suicide. Other examples involve proven culpable unjust, unfair or unreasonable use of powers in a way that is contrary to the Public Service Act and perhaps the Crimes Act. The misinformation peddled to the Government about the status of the ICS project must surely rank as a significant abuse of office. And so the list goes on……
A clear example of administerial abuse is when an Agency is found by a Court to have unjustly or unfairly dismissed a person on improper or insufficient grounds. The offenders (and their legal advisors who defended such actions) would, I believe, be clearly in breach of the Public Service Act and related directions. Such action would seem to be an act of bad faith and beyond power. Setting aside the rights and damages of the victim, there is the question of what should happen to those responsible for the administrative abuses. Those responsible for the unjust and unreasonable conduct are never held to account. Nothing happens. They just regroup and try to find new ways to apply administrative power improperly so they don’t get caught out.
The list of abuses inflicted by some SES Officers is beyond comprehension. Yet nothing happens to them. The Ministers remain staggeringly silent about proven administrative abuses or about the subjective misinformation (s)he receives from Agency heads.
An ex-Minister has provided the following explanation; Ministers and Agency Heads have a symbiotic arrangement. The Minister protects the Agency Managers by never making them accountable and the Agency Managers tell the Minister as little as possible to ensure that (s)he can put their hand on heart and swear they knew nothing about the mess in the Agency. The other favour provided by Agency Heads to the Minister is to instil fear in staff to limit disclosures of information about any failure of Government policies.
Senior Bureaucrats also have protection simply because of public helplessness. When they fail or cause harm or loss to the community – there is no clear way to bring those people to account. Given the reluctance of any Minister to act against any Senior Manager, the only option is for a member of the Public to mount Court action against a Ministerial protected, unlimitedly resourced, Agency..
However there are instances where Agency Managers can be held to account. It seldom happens because those affected seldom have the knowledge or resources to bring an action against Senior Bureaucrats.
There is some hope arising from the Australian Wheat Board – Cole Inquiry. At least in the rare occasion where proof of gross misconduct can be proved – there is a slim but potential chance that those responsible will be held to account. However it is interesting to note that the only reason the Cole Inquiry was started is because it appears one of the bureaucrats was honourable enough to “blow the Whistle” of dodgy practices and management misconduct.
Conversely read the way Customs handles “whistleblowers” that it is able to run to ground even after they have left the Service – See the article in this Journal titled - ABSOLUTE DUPLICITY OF THE PRIME MINISTER – concerning ex officer Kessing and SKSA.
6. ICS – a lost opportunity to make it great.
It is hard to pick which mess most exemplifies the previous administration, but probably the ICS (Integrated Cargo System) project is the most spectacular. It is certainly the most public.
However the real mess and loss of effectiveness is not so obviously public. When the ICS project was being developed it was clear that it would ‘consolidate and update’ the existing Cargo transaction applications, eg Exit, AirCargo, SeaCargo, Compile, Trace, etc.
This would help trade, speed clearances, reduce bottlenecks, and keep a better track on revenue and cargo transaction types and volumes. That was going to be a really nice and helpful upgrade even though the existing systems weren’t too bad. Their major problem was that those systems were becoming overloaded and would eventually break under the strain.
But the real benefit to the Nation was that the new system would deter ‘would be’ crooks and catch actual crooks. The system was originally going to run a commercial stream of data applicable to the existing transaction applications. Then there would be a second law enforcement stream of data that would be the “bees knees” system for identifying suspect transactions and bogus or bent imports/exports. The two would run concurrently but separately. Neither stream would interfere with the other. The new law enforcement stream would cross reference names, addresses, phones, ABN / ACN ’s, businesses, carriers, locations, goods, sources, recipients with phone, rates, electricity, property records, census, Immigration, Foreign Money transactions, tax, criminal records and so on –so that when a cargo transaction was reconciled there would be no doubt that the owner and other parties were who they said they were. There would even be an integration of Customs seizure records with the system.
One reason the old system was breaking under the strain was that some importers/exporters and agents were not playing the game. There were tens of thousands of false or duplicated names in use, false addresses and omitted details made the system clunky, Most of these problems were just laziness but others were cover-ups of unlawful conduct. The more the system was abused the worse it worked.
The answer was to clean up the system, put in new hardware and update software – but most importantly make sure that those who used the system were who they said they were, stop lazy practices and to really put effort into catching those who were trying to abuse the system. Hence the birth of ICS and the publicity that the new system would prevent unlawful imports or exports. .
Well there is new hardware. It works when the software works. But the software doesn’t work well and has had hundreds of fixes applied since it was introduced. The system is no faster than the old system, cargo does not move any faster, and there are more costs involved. Not a really good or satisfactory outcome.
Then there is the mess when the system was introduced and it didn’t work. That cost the importers serious unnecessary costs. SO it is fair to add those costs of introducing the new ICS System. Add another couple of million. When you have mucked up the system this badly what is another couple of wasted million.
But wait a minute – what about catching the crooks and acting as a deterrent against sloppy reporting practices. Well catching the crooks now seems to be the last thing on the agenda. The law enforcement stream never materialised and we are stuck with a manual, non integrated cross reference system that is virtually an updated duplicate of the previous Customs intelligence data holding system.
Now as time goes on, all the functionality of the system that was supposed to ensure full and proper identification of transactors is slipping further and further from what was originally touted. So not only has it cost seven times the original, add the losses that the botched introduction caused the nation and then add to that the fact that the system will not ensure full disclosure of transactor details and finally add that the non implementation of the law enforcement stream that would have detected virtually any and all misdescribed or illegal transactions – and you have probably the greatest stuff up in Custom’s history.
Yet no one has actually been held to account and made responsible for this gross example of public maladministration. It makes one wonder, what offence would a very senior bureaucrat have to perpetrate on the Nation before something was actually done to