How does the ACT government ensure that raw political and union loyalties, and deal-making and table-thumping traits, are more than balanced out by higher quality experience, maturity, skills and abilities needed for publicly paid-for staffer positions, asks letter writer SUE DYER, of Downer.

Before heading CIT on a short-term, acting basis and then formally in 2016, the now former CIT CEO was a highly paid deputy director-general in the ACT Education Directorate for some years.

One of her main responsibilities at that level was “governance”. 

That directorate’s current head has also been distracted and squirming in relation to another ongoing Integrity Commission inquiry. 

She recently told it that being new to the ACTPS in 2020, and not having experience in capital procurement, she relied on a lower-level official’s advice when addressing the problematic Campbell Primary School tender. 

Yet she was recruited with very high-level experience from the Victorian public sector, having been a deputy secretary in the Victorian department of education and training, and the department of human services. 

She had also been an executive director in the Victorian department of premier and cabinet. 

Fewer capital works would occur here than in Victoria’s large public school and vocational training sectors, but surely a new director-general, and, presumably, her ACT selection panel, would have been mutually aware of and honest about any major “catch up” training needed to run an ACT portfolio with final accountability for significant procurement projects and processes. 

Any improvements made to the selection of a chief of staff for a deputy chief minister and cabinet minister also warrant some explanation from the ACT government. 

How does it now ensure that raw political and union loyalties, and deal-making and table-thumping traits, are more than balanced out by higher quality experience, maturity, skills and abilities needed for such publicly paid-for staffer positions?

The education minister’s former chief of staff, who is also a pivotal Campbell Primary inquiry participant, would seem to have been rewarded for having stood as a “second rower” ALP candidate for Kurrajong in 2016, and for his strong links to two large unions. 

CPSU officials now want the ACT Labor Party to agree at the upcoming party conference that a trade union member or official be part of the process of appointing or re-engaging senior executives in the ACTPS. 

Such in-house angling for a seat at a table hidden behind closed doors conveniently ignores the current need for more public transparency and information from the government about the soundness of the ACT’s recruitment and selection processes for both its top executives and ministerial staffers. 

Have substantive reviews and reforms taken place because of these ongoing ACT education and skills sector imbroglios? Being honest and more open with voters on these matters is more critical to building public trust in processes linked to future decision-making than addressing a union wish list at a political party gathering. 

Voters also deserve more insights and evidence about how senior ACTPS officials and ministers’ key staffers receive timely training in areas where their knowledge and experience only appears “satisfactory” or “requires more development”, particularly where managing the public purse is involved.

Regular reminders to those in leadership positions about not passing the buck and how their allegiances lie primarily in the realm of the public interest would not go astray either. 

Sue Dyer, Downer

Who’s running the ACT, Labor or the unions?

What gall the local CFMEU boss has to demand greater powers to “investigate and prosecute companies” in breach of the ACT Government Procurement (Secure Local Jobs) Code 2020, and to pursue the right “to oversee the appointment of senior public servants in the territory”, as if the code does not already provide for local unions to determine who gets whatever government contract. 

Great timing too, given the CFMEU disbandment in Victoria and the ACTU and all Labor governments running for cover and hypocritically denying any knowledge of alleged corruption. 

Reading of the Code 2020 shows that no contractor can get to do government work without due certification under the code, which would not happen without union endorsement. The old Memorandum of Understanding between the ACT Government and UnionsACT was bad enough, but has been replaced in law by this procurement Code 2020.

Does anyone wonder who is running the ACT, Labor or the unions?

Max Flint, principal, Australian Logistics Study Centre

Footpaths in Deakin will be expensive

Vi Evans (Letters, CN July 18) protested about the Barr government’s allegedly deliberate delays in its usually profligate spending during the lead-up to the October 19 ACT election, and wrote “this month’s Our CBR is all about “spend, spend, spend”.

The July 2024 edition of Our CBR for inner north, inner south and Civic includes the announcement “Funding received through the 2024-25 ACT Budget will see improvements made to paths across Canberra”.

In the case of Deakin, this will be difficult and expensive. Footpaths are narrow, with abundant cracks, uneven surfaces, and vertical displacements between slabs of up to two or more centimetres – the last being dangerous trip hazards. There are no shared paths or designated cycle paths in Deakin at all.

Perhaps all the “spending” money is being kept for a light rail project that few, if any, residents of Deakin either want or will use.

Dr Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin

The bellissimo tram solution

Found in Perugia, Italy – a mini metro line that would be perfect for Canberra. Goes up hills, wherever it’s required. Driverless cars, every couple of minutes. Bellissimo!

Richard Johnston, Kingston 

Hightail it now to Trump’s America

Nothing else for it, Ian old bean (“Failing to recognise the virtues of Trump”, letters, CN July 11): with Australia likely to remain a liberal democracy for longer than you’re comfortable with, you’d best hightail it to Trump’s America – and quickly, before they shut the door to all foreigners.

John Griffin, via email 

Renewable energy can’t be relied on 

Douglas MacKenzie (Letters, CN July 11) seems to think that the sun is always shining in Australia and can provide our country with 24/7 baseload power. 

Renewables are only effective 20 to 30 per cent of the time and cannot be relied on to keep us warm in winter and cool in summer and provide electricity for our homes and appliances. 

We need constant energy sources that are not reliant on the weather, be it coal, gas or nuclear. 

Interestingly, the last major nuclear meltdown that resulted in multiple deaths from radiation was in 1986 in Chernobyl. This could have been prevented as it was human error from a routine test and the corrupt Soviet government at the time tried to cover it up, which resulted in more fatalities. 

Since then there have been very few, if any, deaths from nuclear radiation accidents. In fact, there have been thousands more deaths from hydro dam accidents and wind turbine fires. 

Australia has safely operated a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights for 60 years for nuclear medicine and we are getting nuclear submarines that are going to house our defence personnel. So why the paranoia regarding nuclear power? 

Douglas states that nuclear power stations have a lifespan of 32 years. Not true. Most last at least 60 years and many in America are extending their life to 80 years. Solar panels and wind turbines on the other hand are lucky to last 20 years.

Ian Pilsner, Weston

Nuclear claims not supported by science

I refer to the letter from Dr Douglas Mackenzie (CN July 11). 

I’m not sure what he is a doctor of, but it certainly isn’t nuclear science. Some, if not all, of his claims and comments could not be supported by any real science data.

In fact I’m surprised you published his letter without first fact checking his claims.

Peter Kenworthy, Amaroo

Three reasons why the doctor got it wrong

Dr Douglas Mackenzie’s case against nuclear power (Letters, CN July 11) is unconvincing for three main reasons.

• He exaggerates the water requirements for cooling nuclear reactors.

• He presumes developments in solar energy and storage.

• He claims that a mature technology (nuclear) is infeasible.

In the first case he quotes the water requirements for once-through cooling nuclear reactors whereas recirculating water systems would be the right choice for non-coastal locations in Australia.

In the second case, the Integrated System Plan (ISP) 2024 recently published by the Australian Energy Market Operator specifies 49 gigawatt capacity of battery and pumped hydro storage, compared to the 3 gigawatt that exists today. Given that it would not be feasible to deliver the implied energy storage with today’s battery technology, and Snowy Hydro 2 with its massive blowout in cost is still only rated at 2.2 gigawatt, the plan is still uncertain.

In the third case, there has been no non-nuclear proposal for our future grid requirements that is strictly net-zero emissions. For example, the ISP 2024 specifies 15 gigawatt of gas plant to be used for times of low renewable output.

While a non-nuclear solution to our future electricity requirements would be preferable, it is yet to be proven economically or environmentally advantageous. The locations and enormous areas that would have to be devoted to wind and solar farms have not yet been appreciated by the population.

John L Smith, Farrer