Janet Albrechtsen, an activist judge, snarling surly public servants and hello Patty and Selma

Seriously disturbing news.

It seems Janet Albrechtsen might be in favor of activist judges, of the kind that speak out for public rights and an open justice system, not to mention the rights of the media and the rights of the people.

Not much open justice and even less public service is the header, as Albrechtsen suddenly finds the sound of a chirruping judge very tuneful. Here's the intro:

The call late last week by West Australia’s Chief Justice Wayne Martin for greater access to court documents and a more open system of justice reminded me of my introduction to our less than open justice system a few years ago.

What follows is an exceptionally long, slightly tedious and self-indulgent recounting of how poor hapless Albrechtsen, confronted by the dinosaurs of the public service, failed to hand over documents as requested in a timely, seemly, ingratiating and pleasant way.

Self centred and imagining the world revolves around Albrechtsen and her needs, the tone of her narrative is conjured up by the use of adjectives like sour tone and snarls. One wonders what adjectives might have best described Albrechtsen's behavior as she sought her information? Who knows?

Having been a public servant, there are ways to achieve a semblance of service, and I also know the unwritten rule - anybody gives you hard time, and then the rules apply in triplicate, with as much boxing and foxing as can be managed without involving a supervisor. So it goes.

So it seems, it went for Albrechtsen:

I go back to my table and read and write down the pages I want photocopied. I dread going back to the counter but like a boxer in a ring, I return. And I wait. Another woman with scraggly shoulder length hair looks over at me and then slowly wanders by. Then the bearded man looks over. Neither come over. The bearded man takes another look. And another. He ambles towards a filing cabinet, and then glances back towards me at the counter. He doesn’t do anything at the filing cabinet. I’m still waiting. And the public servants are still watching. And mooching around. Finally the scraggly haired woman comes over and seems surprised that I have not been attended to. I mention that woman around the corner told me I could get some pages photocopied. Oh, you had better wait for Bernadette then. Oh, I say.

Oh it seems they were a tight lipped, snarling, surly, sluggish, scraggly haired bunch of ne'er do wells and nasties, simply put there to torture the innocent, long suffering Albrechtsen, who in her column regularly makes butter melt in her mouth (rather than curdle the whey).

The result of this harrowing experience?

It ends up being $7.90 per page for open justice from our snarling, sluggish public service. It’s hard to work out which is the biggest misnomer. A system of open justice that makes getting a transcript near impossible. Or a public service full of disdain for both the public and service.

For the moment, at least, it’s a case of one down – maybe – and one to go. Chief Justice Wayne Martin has exposed our less than open justice system. When the media has greater and timely access to public documents, justice will be more open and more accountable. Presumably that means no more archaic faxes, endless forms, ridiculous charges and timely delays. And after that could someone then please remind elements of the public service that they are in the business of providing service to the public?

I hesitate to suggest a solution to the access demanded by this fiendish activist judge and his desire to placate the needs of the public, the media and Janet Albrechtsen.

A charter of access! A bill of rights for frustrated tormented customers, clients, call them what you will.

Not just specifying charges, but specifying time involved to placate the impatient, the demanding, the pushy and the time deprived, together with a definition of what's a sufficient quotient of smiles from serving public servants, along with a cheerful and fast moving demeanour, and a refusal to clock watch. All with a ten per cent reduction in salary.

Oops, there's just one problem. Not only is Albrechtsen opposed to activist judges, she's dead set opposed to charters of rights for consumers, clients, or the republic (should we ever become such a thing).

Oh well, I guess the public will just have to get the access they pay for, organised and administered by the politicians they vote for, and yes, back in the days of John Howard, the public service could be just as truculent and difficult as it is in these end days of a socialist regime that will shortly see us all swept up into the rapture of a filing cabinet, manila folder packaging only available at extra cost.

One cheeky sod even tried it on with Albrechtsen:

We do need a more open justice system and accountability by the public service. The freeing up of FOI, in the public interest, and a much needed Bill of Rights may well assist in reducing the frustration encountered by yourself and others with regards access to documents.

Cheeky devil, enough of that sauciness. Another seemed to think it might all be the fault of John Howard, and optimistically hoped that Albrechtsen might experience other Howard inspired areas of public service:

As a last piece of pure joy, get yourself into a detention centre, or be mistaken for an alien, that will really make your day… (If you ever get out it will...)

Naughty man, wash out your mouth with soap. The public service was put on earth to service Chairman Rupert and his minions, and service it shall provide, or be damned to hell.

Oh dear, is it wrong for me to yearn to be a public servant in a system in which Albrechtsen approaches for help, a kind word, and extremely prompt service? By golly, I'd teach her a thing or two about obfuscation and delay, especially if I'd been made grumpy that day by reading one of her tetchy columns.

As always, that font of modern civilization, The Simpsons, has covered everything that Albrechtsen complains about, by way of the tyranny that Patty and Selma exercise in the DMV, as they torture hapless applicants and make the most of the power they have in their miniature fiefdom.

It's the only revenge the disempowered, the regularly abused, the under paid, the ritually humiliated and the often treated with disdainful contempt can muster.

But what can be done, since you actually find this kind of problem in the private as well as the public sector? Don't believe me? Try getting service from a bank, or seeking advice from a call centre on a problem from one of your suppliers. Or try replacing a lemon with a working product.

I look forward to Albrechtsen's harrowing stories of her interactions with the private sector, where service is often promised with a smile and delivered with a boot. And if she can't manage it, I'm sure there are thousands who could oblige. You might call it an equal opportunity whinge about the so called private sector and that wretched misnomer the public service.

I guess there's only two options: either we all start whining every day about every denial of service we've experienced - what a chorus of voices there'd be - or enough with this hooting and hollering of activist judges, who should sit quietly on the bench instead of promoting the notion of public good and an open justice system responsive to the needs of all, which only gets the likes of Albrechtsen excited, activist and interventionist.

As for the rest of us? Grin and bear it, and hope you catch Patty or Selma on a good day.