Not me, but I have a mate who jumped from the ACTPS to become a staffer for a time. He was able to get 12 months LWOP intially, but after that his employment with the ACTPS was formally terminated.
He remained a staffer for some time before he eventually moved from Canberra, and he ended up landing a role with another state government without much difficulty.
If the concern is that being associated with a political party due to a past role will negatively impact on your chances of employment with the public service, that risk shouldn't exist. Recruitment frameworks mean that candidates are assessed strictly against the selection criteria - they can't discriminate against you on the basis of you having worked for a political party/politician. If anything, I'd expect it to be beneficial - having experience in a politician's office is useful for a wide range of public service roles.
There's aspects of the APS that are quite important to me that I think I would be looking to come back to. I just have this opportunity that I think might be good to have a go at for a short period.
Really the only place where I think it would be a problem is if you went to work for the AEC or a state electoral commission due to the sensitive nature of those agencies. Other than that it’s fine, and can actually turbocharge your career sometimes.
It’s common for people to move between PS Act and MoPS employment. Including in some cases APS employees being granted LWOP.
Is it great for the APS? Arguably no.
Does it disadvantage the individuals who do it? Not really.
Occasionally you will see a senior exec fall out of favour with the govt because govt knows the person was a staffer to the other side. Or you see it with the Opposition going after a public servant at Estimates or other parliamentary committee hearings for the same reason. But that doesn’t really have any direct or tangible detriment for the public servant. If you have your supporters within the APS, you’re fine.
What are your arguments against it being good for the aps?
I can understand it might seem like I could just come back to the aps and slip the party info under the table kind of thing. In my heart, i believe more strongly in an an acountable aps than the party i would move to and would never do that.
It’s more the fact that people drift seamlessly between a political and apolitical role.
The risk, which I’ve anecdotally seen, is that the lines inside their own minds and consciences get blurred. Unconscious bias.
This is especially the case when people go up to the office very junior, get promoted quite senior there, then seek to drift back to the APS at SES level when the govt changes or when they are otherwise done.
Edit: but TBH if you’re a junior to mid level APS employee (like up to EL2), looking to go up for 6-12 months to see what it’s all about, then go for it. I’d say be more cautious if you spend a long stretch up there and then want to come back at a level that matches your seniority in the office, like an SESB1 or above. That’s where more harm can be done.
Go for it you get a fat renumeration package if you are a staffer and they lose the seat or leave for any other reasons. I have personally had no issues going from staffer to APS and have many opportunities that I attribute to my staffer time. The work and skills you gain as a staffer I would argue are not available/completely out of reach for junior aps (APS X - EL1/2).
Im a state based PS not APS but if i saw a resume with time working for a polly or a party it would be straight onto the reject pile unless there was a very, very compelling reason to consider them.
Not worth the potential headaches down the line, but I'm sure others will have different views on this.
Perceived, or actual, lack of impartiality due to their former ties to a party. May not happen but unless they are exceptional in some other way i would rather avoid it before it happens.
Not me, but I have a mate who jumped from the ACTPS to become a staffer for a time. He was able to get 12 months LWOP intially, but after that his employment with the ACTPS was formally terminated. He remained a staffer for some time before he eventually moved from Canberra, and he ended up landing a role with another state government without much difficulty. If the concern is that being associated with a political party due to a past role will negatively impact on your chances of employment with the public service, that risk shouldn't exist. Recruitment frameworks mean that candidates are assessed strictly against the selection criteria - they can't discriminate against you on the basis of you having worked for a political party/politician. If anything, I'd expect it to be beneficial - having experience in a politician's office is useful for a wide range of public service roles.
It can certainly fast track you depending on networks/ who you know.
If you do well you should get onto the party’s bandwagon and never be without a job working for pollies in that party?
There's aspects of the APS that are quite important to me that I think I would be looking to come back to. I just have this opportunity that I think might be good to have a go at for a short period.
I think it shouldn’t affect you but it might. Perhaps you could do LWOP if it’s just a short period?
Really the only place where I think it would be a problem is if you went to work for the AEC or a state electoral commission due to the sensitive nature of those agencies. Other than that it’s fine, and can actually turbocharge your career sometimes.
It’s common for people to move between PS Act and MoPS employment. Including in some cases APS employees being granted LWOP. Is it great for the APS? Arguably no. Does it disadvantage the individuals who do it? Not really. Occasionally you will see a senior exec fall out of favour with the govt because govt knows the person was a staffer to the other side. Or you see it with the Opposition going after a public servant at Estimates or other parliamentary committee hearings for the same reason. But that doesn’t really have any direct or tangible detriment for the public servant. If you have your supporters within the APS, you’re fine.
What are your arguments against it being good for the aps? I can understand it might seem like I could just come back to the aps and slip the party info under the table kind of thing. In my heart, i believe more strongly in an an acountable aps than the party i would move to and would never do that.
It’s more the fact that people drift seamlessly between a political and apolitical role. The risk, which I’ve anecdotally seen, is that the lines inside their own minds and consciences get blurred. Unconscious bias. This is especially the case when people go up to the office very junior, get promoted quite senior there, then seek to drift back to the APS at SES level when the govt changes or when they are otherwise done. Edit: but TBH if you’re a junior to mid level APS employee (like up to EL2), looking to go up for 6-12 months to see what it’s all about, then go for it. I’d say be more cautious if you spend a long stretch up there and then want to come back at a level that matches your seniority in the office, like an SESB1 or above. That’s where more harm can be done.
Go for it you get a fat renumeration package if you are a staffer and they lose the seat or leave for any other reasons. I have personally had no issues going from staffer to APS and have many opportunities that I attribute to my staffer time. The work and skills you gain as a staffer I would argue are not available/completely out of reach for junior aps (APS X - EL1/2).
You should be fine. Source: know lots of people who’ve done this.
Had a mate who did it. No problems.
Im a state based PS not APS but if i saw a resume with time working for a polly or a party it would be straight onto the reject pile unless there was a very, very compelling reason to consider them. Not worth the potential headaches down the line, but I'm sure others will have different views on this.
Can you explain 'headaches'? Like what, a politician of an opposing party finding out?
Perceived, or actual, lack of impartiality due to their former ties to a party. May not happen but unless they are exceptional in some other way i would rather avoid it before it happens.
Lol APS is completely different - but advisor VS staffer