Nicholas Cowdery has indicated that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is (once more) short of cash to the tune of at least $3 million, and the staffing levels are likewise a bother.
Meanwhile Mr John Hatzistergos the NSW Attorney General deflects the matter by saying something like "it's that time of year" concerning budget allocations. Yes it probably is! And we all know that the purse strings of Treasury are locked tight because the state is broke. We also know that the Attorney General's Department is in a state of acute crisis in all its sections and it agencies. They keep raiding coin-jars to prop up a system that is dead.
Showing posts with label Director Public Prosecutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Director Public Prosecutions. Show all posts
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Greg Smith Defends NSW DPP
Some of the codswallop presented in yesterday's Sun Herald about Nicholas Cowdery and the DPP has been rebutted by the Shadow Attorney General Mr Greg Smith. In the Sydney Morning Herald Smith sees the recent joust about the DPP as part of a systematic vendetta campaign to remove Mr Cowdery from office.
Smith quite rightly says that Mr Hatzistergos has failed to publicly praise the Crown Prosecutors at the DPP, and that his negative remarks in public merely undermines staff morale. How true! Employees right across the NSW Attorney General's Department and its agencies seem to be enduring much.
Methinks Mr Glanfield will warble a different tune when he has Mr Smith as his next boss in 2011 or better still he could be gone from the department before then.
Smith quite rightly says that Mr Hatzistergos has failed to publicly praise the Crown Prosecutors at the DPP, and that his negative remarks in public merely undermines staff morale. How true! Employees right across the NSW Attorney General's Department and its agencies seem to be enduring much.
Methinks Mr Glanfield will warble a different tune when he has Mr Smith as his next boss in 2011 or better still he could be gone from the department before then.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Hatzistergos' argument against Mr Cowdery is pathetic
Cross-posting my article from here.
On four occasions over recent weeks I have drawn attention to the yawning chasm that exists between Mr Nicholas Cowdery the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr John Hatzistergos the NSW Attorney General (one, two, three, four).
Today's article by Lisa Carty in the Sunday Herald shows that things have deteriorated. By anyone's reckoning the strong inference from this article is that Mr Hatzistergos dislikes negative publicity. Well, sir, that's too bad! Here the public has every right to stand beside Mr Cowdery in calling a spade a spade. Your department is in a state of perpetual crisis because:
1. Employees are under-resourced and over-worked and many positions remain vacant
2. Budgetary cuts
3. Extravagant expenditure on corporate consultants ($10,933,326.33 spent from 2000-2008), the blow-out in costs on building the Parramatta Justice Precinct, the blow-out in implementing the JusticeLink computer system, and so on.
4. The administrative policies and decisions to outsource work that ends up increasing costs and impeding services.
5. Both the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Office of the Public Guardian were running in deficits in 2006/07, 2007/08 and in 2008/09.
6. Lawlink is not an efficiently organised website.
Need we go on because the woeful list gets longer?
How much money was spent by the NSW Attorney General's Department in hiring the 200-seat Metcalf Auditorium at the NSW State Library on 1 April 2009 and 5 June 2009 so that Mr Laurie Glanfield and his merger implementation team could speak to less than 30 "stakeholders" in the disability sector?
Mr Hatzistergos is quoted:''The DPP has always argued it should be independent … I think it is fundamental to that independence that they are able to manage their resources. I haven't had this problem with any other agency I have had to deal with where there are these constant demands for additional resources because 'We can't cope'.''
I beg your pardon sir! All of the agencies controlled by your department are in crisis and have not been given the employees and funds they need to serve the public. The man who wields the decision-making power about employee levels is the Director General Mr Glanfield. In various instances he also has the authority to authorise the budgets of some agencies inside the Attorney General's Department. One might infer that it would be far more interesting for the public to have detailed explanations from Mr Glanfield justifying the decisions he has made concerning restrictions on staff, outsourcing, deficiencies in the shared corporate services, and so on.
So before Mr Hatzistergos begins accusing Nick Cowdery of not being competent to run the DPP's budget, he ought to recall that "people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks".
The article incredibly includes this ridiculous bit of mud-slinging:
"Ironically, his [i.e. Cowdery's] performance in relation to proceeds-of-crime cases has been a sore point with Mr Hatzistergos, who says the value of property and cash seized from criminals has fallen despite Mr Cowdery being given a bigger budget."
What an imbecilic bit of mud slinging! Since when does the DPP have control over which criminals are successfully arrested by the NSW Police? Are the NSW Police somehow derelict for failing to bust "rich criminals"? The confiscation of assets gained by criminal activity is a matter that the DPP prosecutes and the proceeds upon conviction are placed in the hands of the NSW Trustee and Guardian (formerly Public Trustee NSW). However the facts of life are these: It is usually the small-time crooks who are busted and successfully prosecuted. That's why the level of value in property and assets seized is usually small. In the cases where rich criminals are under investigation those dudes often have hidden assets overseas and the resources do not exist for either the NSW Police or DPP to pursue. Who do you think you are trying to fool, Mr Hatzistergos?
Mr Hatzistergos has set Mr Laurie Glanfield the task of reporting on the DPP. Good grief!
One can imagine more disinformation about the DPP being distributed in future press releases.
On four occasions over recent weeks I have drawn attention to the yawning chasm that exists between Mr Nicholas Cowdery the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr John Hatzistergos the NSW Attorney General (one, two, three, four).
Today's article by Lisa Carty in the Sunday Herald shows that things have deteriorated. By anyone's reckoning the strong inference from this article is that Mr Hatzistergos dislikes negative publicity. Well, sir, that's too bad! Here the public has every right to stand beside Mr Cowdery in calling a spade a spade. Your department is in a state of perpetual crisis because:
1. Employees are under-resourced and over-worked and many positions remain vacant
2. Budgetary cuts
3. Extravagant expenditure on corporate consultants ($10,933,326.33 spent from 2000-2008), the blow-out in costs on building the Parramatta Justice Precinct, the blow-out in implementing the JusticeLink computer system, and so on.
4. The administrative policies and decisions to outsource work that ends up increasing costs and impeding services.
5. Both the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Office of the Public Guardian were running in deficits in 2006/07, 2007/08 and in 2008/09.
6. Lawlink is not an efficiently organised website.
Need we go on because the woeful list gets longer?
How much money was spent by the NSW Attorney General's Department in hiring the 200-seat Metcalf Auditorium at the NSW State Library on 1 April 2009 and 5 June 2009 so that Mr Laurie Glanfield and his merger implementation team could speak to less than 30 "stakeholders" in the disability sector?
Mr Hatzistergos is quoted:''The DPP has always argued it should be independent … I think it is fundamental to that independence that they are able to manage their resources. I haven't had this problem with any other agency I have had to deal with where there are these constant demands for additional resources because 'We can't cope'.''
I beg your pardon sir! All of the agencies controlled by your department are in crisis and have not been given the employees and funds they need to serve the public. The man who wields the decision-making power about employee levels is the Director General Mr Glanfield. In various instances he also has the authority to authorise the budgets of some agencies inside the Attorney General's Department. One might infer that it would be far more interesting for the public to have detailed explanations from Mr Glanfield justifying the decisions he has made concerning restrictions on staff, outsourcing, deficiencies in the shared corporate services, and so on.
So before Mr Hatzistergos begins accusing Nick Cowdery of not being competent to run the DPP's budget, he ought to recall that "people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks".
The article incredibly includes this ridiculous bit of mud-slinging:
"Ironically, his [i.e. Cowdery's] performance in relation to proceeds-of-crime cases has been a sore point with Mr Hatzistergos, who says the value of property and cash seized from criminals has fallen despite Mr Cowdery being given a bigger budget."
What an imbecilic bit of mud slinging! Since when does the DPP have control over which criminals are successfully arrested by the NSW Police? Are the NSW Police somehow derelict for failing to bust "rich criminals"? The confiscation of assets gained by criminal activity is a matter that the DPP prosecutes and the proceeds upon conviction are placed in the hands of the NSW Trustee and Guardian (formerly Public Trustee NSW). However the facts of life are these: It is usually the small-time crooks who are busted and successfully prosecuted. That's why the level of value in property and assets seized is usually small. In the cases where rich criminals are under investigation those dudes often have hidden assets overseas and the resources do not exist for either the NSW Police or DPP to pursue. Who do you think you are trying to fool, Mr Hatzistergos?
Mr Hatzistergos has set Mr Laurie Glanfield the task of reporting on the DPP. Good grief!
One can imagine more disinformation about the DPP being distributed in future press releases.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
NSW DPP Under The Gun: Right Question, Wrong Target
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is under the gun in a Sydney Morning Herald article. The NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos is apparently unhappy with the DPP. One reason is probably because Nicholas Cowdery speaks his mind and he frequently embarrasses Mr Hatzistergos' administration.
The SMH reports:
"there was great pressure on the Crown prosecutor and the judge to ensure cases were resolved quickly yet this expediency was often at the expense of those affected by the crime."
What the SMH reporter has not followed up on in that observation is where does the "great pressure" emanate from? It is certainly not Mr Cowdery.
The tap-root source of the problem lies in the public administration policy at the Attorney General's Department that has emerged in recent years. It is reflected in the abstract and often fatuous "performance indicators" used to measure "efficiency" throughout the entire Attorney General's Department and all the agencies that have been swallowed up into its Napoleonic belly.Performance indicators are so artificial and usually yield statistics that have no context. Ever heard of the sad case of the statistician who drowned while trying to cross a river that had an average depth of only three feet?
It is reflected in the "shared corporate services" policy where functions have been stripped off agencies and handed over to under-resourced and over-worked small units at the Parramatta Justice Precinct. The "great pressure" can be traced to Senior Executives who have to justify their own existence in having their contracts renewed: so every once in a while some blinding flash of light occurs - presto I have an idea to justify my existence and another layer of red-tape is created.
If the money spent by the Attorney General's Department on corporate consultants each year was applied to employing new staff and supporting infrastructure well things would be much better.
So the "great pressure" to clear up court cases quickly has a lot to do with the public administration policies in the whole department. Who leads and drives the policy is easy to identify: it is the Director General of the department. Pity the SMH journalist failed to chase the Director General Mr Glanfield to question his public administration strategies!
The SMH reports:
"there was great pressure on the Crown prosecutor and the judge to ensure cases were resolved quickly yet this expediency was often at the expense of those affected by the crime."
What the SMH reporter has not followed up on in that observation is where does the "great pressure" emanate from? It is certainly not Mr Cowdery.
The tap-root source of the problem lies in the public administration policy at the Attorney General's Department that has emerged in recent years. It is reflected in the abstract and often fatuous "performance indicators" used to measure "efficiency" throughout the entire Attorney General's Department and all the agencies that have been swallowed up into its Napoleonic belly.Performance indicators are so artificial and usually yield statistics that have no context. Ever heard of the sad case of the statistician who drowned while trying to cross a river that had an average depth of only three feet?
It is reflected in the "shared corporate services" policy where functions have been stripped off agencies and handed over to under-resourced and over-worked small units at the Parramatta Justice Precinct. The "great pressure" can be traced to Senior Executives who have to justify their own existence in having their contracts renewed: so every once in a while some blinding flash of light occurs - presto I have an idea to justify my existence and another layer of red-tape is created.
If the money spent by the Attorney General's Department on corporate consultants each year was applied to employing new staff and supporting infrastructure well things would be much better.
So the "great pressure" to clear up court cases quickly has a lot to do with the public administration policies in the whole department. Who leads and drives the policy is easy to identify: it is the Director General of the department. Pity the SMH journalist failed to chase the Director General Mr Glanfield to question his public administration strategies!
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Director of Public Prosecutions (Again)
Yesterday I drew attention to the problem the Director of Public Prosecutions faces with a shortage of funds and hence of staff.
Today the Sydney Morning Herald has run with the story (click here). The Herald quotes Nicholas Cowdery (DPP) as stating bluntly:
"The Government commonly responds to these crises by shooting the messenger, in this case, me ... Anything to take attention away from the truth: which is that it has not accorded high enough priority in its spendingto this essential function of government ... This is not a Newcastle or Hunter problem, it is statewide."
The Herald article gives space for the usual obfuscating spin from a departmental spokesperson defending the Minister and typecasting the DPP in a bad light. The article states:
"The Government expected the DPP to manage its budget efficiently to maintain services around the state 'at all times.'" The spin also trots out the rubbish details of how the mini budget provided cash so as to employ 14 solicitors. Yesterday I already pointed out the idiocy of the mini-budget as a band-aid solution to a gaping wound.
The rest of this spin is so pathetic it is brimming with weasel words. Of course the DPP manages its budget and does so on the smell of an empty ledger. That of course is precisely the problem highlighted by Nicholas Cowdery. The word "efficiency" simply acts as an in-house cipher that is really referring to dire circumstances: more and more work devolves onto the shoulders of fewer employees. The entire network for the DPP, and thence the whole Attorney General's Department, is so fragile because every specific part that makes up the whole is stretched to the extreme limit. This means that everyone works in crisis conditions, works longer hours than they are actually remunerated for, and they are expected to maintain optimum services. The problem is not so much the structures or work-flow processes at the DPP. The problem does not arise from the staff.
The problem is the idiotic corporate culture that comes from the top-down that spews out meaningless jargon as if it conveys profound meaning. The problem is the public sector is in crisis because of the unrealistic expectations the Government has. The problem reflects on the incompetent mismanagement of NSW over many years. The extravagant and wasteful spending of the public purse by the Government. As the debt is large and the coffers are empty, these calls for "efficiency" are just a bureaucrat's mascara designed to deflect attention away from the real problem.
Today the Sydney Morning Herald has run with the story (click here). The Herald quotes Nicholas Cowdery (DPP) as stating bluntly:
"The Government commonly responds to these crises by shooting the messenger, in this case, me ... Anything to take attention away from the truth: which is that it has not accorded high enough priority in its spendingto this essential function of government ... This is not a Newcastle or Hunter problem, it is statewide."
The Herald article gives space for the usual obfuscating spin from a departmental spokesperson defending the Minister and typecasting the DPP in a bad light. The article states:
"The Government expected the DPP to manage its budget efficiently to maintain services around the state 'at all times.'" The spin also trots out the rubbish details of how the mini budget provided cash so as to employ 14 solicitors. Yesterday I already pointed out the idiocy of the mini-budget as a band-aid solution to a gaping wound.
The rest of this spin is so pathetic it is brimming with weasel words. Of course the DPP manages its budget and does so on the smell of an empty ledger. That of course is precisely the problem highlighted by Nicholas Cowdery. The word "efficiency" simply acts as an in-house cipher that is really referring to dire circumstances: more and more work devolves onto the shoulders of fewer employees. The entire network for the DPP, and thence the whole Attorney General's Department, is so fragile because every specific part that makes up the whole is stretched to the extreme limit. This means that everyone works in crisis conditions, works longer hours than they are actually remunerated for, and they are expected to maintain optimum services. The problem is not so much the structures or work-flow processes at the DPP. The problem does not arise from the staff.
The problem is the idiotic corporate culture that comes from the top-down that spews out meaningless jargon as if it conveys profound meaning. The problem is the public sector is in crisis because of the unrealistic expectations the Government has. The problem reflects on the incompetent mismanagement of NSW over many years. The extravagant and wasteful spending of the public purse by the Government. As the debt is large and the coffers are empty, these calls for "efficiency" are just a bureaucrat's mascara designed to deflect attention away from the real problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
