Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[markis10]

Cannot help but think all the promotions and resignations are designed for the benefit of super payouts, as in pension payments based on last office held ???

 

[drron]

Need to know what is happening in Eden-Monaro!

The Australian today said that the Libs have sought legal advice which indicates that now an election date has been set, even though the writs aren't called, that the TV has to give equal time play to both Labor and Coalition.

Just remember Bass is very like Eden monaro and who sits in Bass is usually in the government.Bass was the bell that tolled for Whitlam.

 

[medhead]

Interesting facts regarding QLD health:- Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Quote from the article....

Gosh, I thought, 1500 jobs sounds quite a lot. So I decided to find out how many people are employed in Queensland Health. The answer is more than 80,000. Annual natural attrition would account for more than double the proposed job cuts of 1500, which represent a mere 1.9 per cent of total employment.

But here's the rub. A decade ago, employment in Queensland Health stood at 49,000. So in 10 years there has been an increase of more than 32,000 employees - an increase of two-thirds.

But here's a further rub. Whereas the number of nurses in effective full-time terms increased by 65 per cent over the decade, the number of managerial and clerical staff rose by 103 per cent during the same period. There are now nearly 15,000 managers and clerical staff in Queensland Health, a fair proportion of whom hang out in the head office in Brisbane.

Having thought about this a bit more I think I need to revise my earlier position. I think the article is rather limited and one sided because of the numbers it doesn't include and the missing information.

Firstly there some big numbers are included on the number of "pointless" staff. 103% increase and 15000 clerical/managers. But if we break those numbers down we can fill in some of the missing gaps from the article. to get the following:

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]10 years ago[/TD]
[TD]7389[/TD]
[TD]15.1% of total[/TD]
[TD]49000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Now[/TD]
[TD]15000 (+103%)[/TD]
[TD]18.75%[/TD]
[TD]80000[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Now Judith does not criticise the clerical/management ratio was wrong 10 years ago. She also does not say that the increase in frontline/operational staff was unjustified. She only focusses on the 103% increase in management/clerical. So I think that implies that she accepts the increase in operational staff as being acceptable.

If we consider the overall staff increase, there is probably about a 23% increase in population in Queensland over that time. But what about the ageing population dynamic, which Judith completely fails to mention? How many extra staff are required to account for the greater level of care required by the population? Again her silence on this suggests that she believes the operational staff increases are acceptable.

If the same management/clerical ratio was maintained then there should have been about 12038 management/clerical staff now. So there were about 3000 extra management/clerical staff. But how many of those are required to deal with the issues raised by the Patel case. How many of those are required to improve the systems in place to support the operational staff?

So thinking about the article it creates more questions that it answers.

It's interesting that you pick mining as an example. I have experienced first hand the reduction (attempted reduction) in mining red tape in one Australian state in combination with the Commonwealth Government. The biggest impediment to streamlining approvals in that process has been the Commonwealth Government, IME/O.

Amaroo's article doesn't really show that the growth has been ridiculously high. (ignoring that they are actually someone else's figures). What they show is that the health department, not the whole public service, has increased by 66 percent in 10 years. The quoted article refers to queensland population growth, but fails to mention the figure. A quick search suggests the growth was 23% over the last decade. The quoted article also doesn't seem to have mentioned or considered the aging population dynamic. What effect has that had, I wonder. Certainly I'd expect it to impact the Health Department in provision of services.

The other factor that I'm going to talk about in hand waving terms is the need to implement better governance in the health department. I do think that is a very important aspect of current health trends, the need to implement better systems. Remember also the Patel issue, that probably dragged in a heap of management/governance types. I have no idea of what effect this aspect would have, or how to measure it or even what is an appropriate number of management types. Just saying it is a factor that the article seems to have missed.

Then if we look at the figures in more detail.

10 years ago it was just under 7500/49000 so 15.3%. Now it is 18.75%. Is about 3 percent an unreasonable increase to account for the need, IMO, for better governance systems? I don't know. But it is a consideration.

 

[drron]

Well the Morris Inquiry into Bundaberg hospital certainly felt that QLD health was top heavy.On cross examination the DG admitted that 60% of QLD health salaries went on Non-clinical staff.The next day Morris resigned due to a conflict of interest.this itself was controversial.see here-
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/03/31/morris-qc-on-royal-commissions/

Probably because of this-
Morris Inquiry - Breakfast - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Director of Medical services and the CEO of bundaberg hospital initiated legal proceedings re the conflict of evidence.The Beattie Government wouldn't back an appeal so morris resigned.You can read it here and how hospital administration and medical practice can be entirely separate-
Australias Dubious Dr. Jayant Patel — The Morris Inquiry — Crime Library on truTV.com

Then there is my experience in NSW.I began working at a public hospital in 1975.It had 230 beds,179 nurses,3 nursing administrators and 22 in general hospital administration.It usually ran under budget.
I left at the end of 1992.The hospital now had 130 beds,104 nurses,13 nursing administrators and 66 in hospital administration.
On top of that in 1975 the CEO reported directly to Sydney.in 1992 he reported to an area board who reported to a Regional board who reported to Sydney.

Health is top heavy.Unfortunately when politicians decide to make cuts to health the task is given to the administrators and everyone knows what happens then.

 

[medhead]

Well the Morris Inquiry into Bundaberg hospital certainly felt that QLD health was top heavy.On cross examination the DG admitted that 60% of QLD health salaries went on Non-clinical staff.The next day Morris resigned due to a conflict of interest.this itself was controversial.see here-
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/03/31/morris-qc-on-royal-commissions/

Probably because of this-
Morris Inquiry - Breakfast - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Director of Medical services and the CEO of bundaberg hospital initiated legal proceedings re the conflict of evidence.The Beattie Government wouldn't back an appeal so morris resigned.You can read it here and how hospital administration and medical practice can be entirely separate-
Australias Dubious Dr. Jayant Patel — The Morris Inquiry — Crime Library on truTV.com

Then there is my experience in NSW.I began working at a public hospital in 1975.It had 230 beds,179 nurses,3 nursing administrators and 22 in general hospital administration.It usually ran under budget.
I left at the end of 1992.The hospital now had 130 beds,104 nurses,13 nursing administrators and 66 in hospital administration.
On top of that in 1975 the CEO reported directly to Sydney.in 1992 he reported to an area board who reported to a Regional board who reported to Sydney.

Health is top heavy.Unfortunately when politicians decide to make cuts to health the task is given to the administrators and everyone knows what happens then.

Yet Judith Sloan didn't even take issue with the amount of administration 10 years ago. Only with the gross number now. The question remains, what is an appropriate management ratio?

If also ask if you think the current operational system is fine as is or if it needs to be changed?

 

[drron]

Morris thought there was excessive administration in 2005.
The real problem is that QLD is not the worst example.On the contrary it is the best of the 4 states I have worked in.NSW is dysfunctional,SA is the red tape capital and Tasmania is just Tasmania.
And if you read the references given you will see that in Bundaberg the clincal staff and Administration staff were working in parallel universes.

 

[Newk]

Morris thought there was excessive administration in 2005.
The real problem is that QLD is not the worst example.On the contrary it is the best of the 4 states I have worked in.NSW is dysfunctional,SA is the red tape capital and Tasmania is just Tasmania.
And if you read the references given you will see that in Bundaberg the clincal staff and Administration staff were working in parallel universes.

Yep, I have been working on and off at the same hospital since about 1981 and before that was a medical student there. In this stint I have been there for about 15 years. And yet I am still being asked to produce my original degree "for the last time this time"
People transferring from hospital to hospital have to have another police check despite personal communication from the ex health minister that his department had assured him that it was unnecessary. on and on it goes.

edit to add, I am in SA and while I cannot vouch that it is the red tape capital.........

 

[SQ421]

The Australian today said that the Libs have sought legal advice which indicates that now an election date has been set, even though the writs aren't called, that the TV has to give equal time play to both Labor and Coalition.

Does that mean we'll see Tony Abbott front up on 7:30 Report and Q&A and answer actual questions? Or are we set for another 8 months of waffle?

 

[Pushka]

Does that mean we'll see Tony Abbott front up on 7:30 Report and Q&A and answer actual questions? Or are we set for another 8 months of waffle?

Guess he's learnt from the Master of waffle.

 

[browski]

Does that mean we'll see Tony Abbott front up on 7:30 Report and Q&A and answer actual questions? Or are we set for another 8 months of waffle?

Whilst Q&A and Leigh Sales may be too highbrow for Mr Abbott, I suspect he'll get plenty of airtime on Being Lara Bingle and Sunrise.

 

[SQ421]

Guess he's learnt from the Master of waffle.

Well he does put John Howard on a pedestal and described himself as a political lovechild of Howard and Bishop (Bronwyn).

 

[drron]

Leigh Sales highbrow?
Hmmm.When did she get her Rhodes scholarship?

 

[SQ421]

Leigh Sales highbrow?
Hmmm.When did she get her Rhodes scholarship?

She's certainly more articulate than some recepients of the Rhodes Scholarship who can't remember when or if they read a page long memo from BHP re. mine closures.

 

[drron]

Maybe articulate but I have not seen her ask the hard questions of Government Ministers.

 

[SQ421]

And what questions would you like the ministers to answer? (not being facetious, I'm curious!). I'd like to know how many amongst Roxon, Swan and Co were "asked" to let rip at KRudd last year and how much of what they said were their own true feelings.

I know there's a list of questions I'd like to see Tony answer (and most of them are around his "policies" and promises which, for me, fail the sniff test); then again, when he accuses a politician of playing politics, its hard not to crack up and stop taking him seriously.

 

[drron]

And what questions would you like the ministers to answer? (not being facetious, I'm curious!). I'd like to know how many amongst Roxon, Swan and Co were "asked" to let rip at KRudd last year and how much of what they said were their own true feelings.

I know there's a list of questions I'd like to see Tony answer (and most of them are around his "policies" and promises which, for me, fail the sniff test); then again, when he accuses a politician of playing politics, its hard not to crack up and stop taking him seriously.

For example when interviewing Nicola Roxon after her draft bill to curtail Freedom of Speech there was not one question on it.Laughable if it wasn't so serious.

 

[SQ421]

For example when interviewing Nicola Roxon after her draft bill to curtail Freedom of Speech there was not one question on it.Laughable if it wasn't so serious.

I've always found the argument that the particular bill curtails Freedom of Speech to be a bit of a misdirection, especially the way Ackerman, Bolt, Devine and Co go about rallying against it.
An interpretation of the specific text within the bill applied taken as far out of context as possible to create FUD. I read something along the lines that asking someone "how's it going" might be an offence under the new laws.

Not to mention, here, in Australia, there is no enshrined right to free speech.

Here's what Dept. of Immigration defines as "Freedom of Speech" on their page that lists Five Fundamental Freedoms afforded to all Australians.

[h=2]Freedom of speech[/h]Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.

As such,there's already existing restrictions on just how free one can be with their speech. The proposed law, from what I have read, seeks to rationalise the multiple existing laws around this into one.

 

[browski]

I've always found the argument that the particular bill curtails Freedom of Speech to be a bit of a misdirection, especially the way Ackerman, Bolt, Devine and Co go about rallying against it.
An interpretation of the specific text within the bill applied taken as far out of context as possible to create FUD. I read something along the lines that asking someone "how's it going" might be an offence under the new laws.

Not to mention, here, in Australia, there is no enshrined right to free speech.

Here's what Dept. of Immigration defines as "Freedom of Speech" on their page that lists Five Fundamental Freedoms afforded to all Australians.



As such,there's already existing restrictions on just how free one can be with their speech. The proposed law, from what I have read, seeks to rationalise the multiple existing laws around this into one.

Well written.

 

[eastwest101]

As such,there's already existing restrictions on just how free one can be with their speech. The proposed law, from what I have read, seeks to rationalise the multiple existing laws around this into one.

Provided you don't defame someone whom has a bit of money....... (from the SMH 2005)

The former NSW fisheries minister Eddie Obeid is seeking damages over a newspaper story in which he claims he was depicted as a corrupt politician who sought a $1 million bribe for the ALP.

A jury was sworn in at the Supreme Court yesterday to decide whether Mr Obeid was defamed in a front-page article that appeared in the Herald in August 2002 under the headline "ALP push for Oasis cash: Obeid accused". Counsel for Mr Obeid, Bruce McClintock, SC, said the worst thing to say about a politician was that he was corrupt. "If [the allegations] were believed, they'd end the career of any politician because no one is going to vote for a corrupt politician," he said.

Mr Obeid claims the article imputed that he was prepared to assist the Bulldogs Leagues Club with its Oasis development in return for a payment of $1 million to the ALP, and that he lied when he denied to the Herald that he had sought the bribe.

Guy Reynolds, SC, for John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, publisher of the Herald, said the article did not state that Mr Obeid was guilty of the allegations made against him. "It is clear The Sydney Morning Herald did not take sides in this," he said, saying it reported a claim and counter claim

 

[Deleted member]

Cannot help but think all the promotions and resignations are designed for the benefit of super payouts, as in pension payments based on last office held ???

A la Anna Bligh