The following press items have appeared in the wake of the merger:
* Daily Telegraph - Trustee & Guardian Not So Trusty After All
* The Australian - Island Sojourn: Nice Work If You Can Get It
* Business Spectator - Would You Trust NSW?
Now comes the promised Parliamentary Inquiry - only have until 21 August to file a written submission. Beware of a tepid Government response full of weasel words when it makes its reply to the Inquiry (at the latest) come August 2010.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Clutching at Straws
By all means "fair or foul" - that's the level of desperation involved in trying to misinform the public about the merger. There is every reason to be worried about the undisclosed motives of the architects of the merger. Take the latest newspaper article:-
Brian Robins' article in the Sydney Morning Herald (read here) points to questions of security raised by Greg Smith last week. The counter-strike is an attempt to typecast the opposition as prejudiced against the disabled. This is largely a diversion from the issues but also fails to carry some factual context: tight security protocols are in place at the OPC customer service centre at 144 Clarence Street and at the Parramatta Justice Precinct.
Disinformation is a pathetic and manipulative ploy used as last resort tactics.
If the Coalition is allegedly "bad" then the Government cannot claim the moral high ground. It is not lilly-white --- it happily allowed OPC clients to be held "hostage" by a fiscal deficit that affects the delivery of services it is pledged to provide.
What kind of Government and bureaucracy allows an organisation that is supposed to serve the "vulnerable" to be run into deficit, to slash Community Service Obligations funding, and to dither about reforming the OPC for a decade? What kind of entrenched prejudice is there that sanctions a $4.4 million deficit? What kind of government slashes the public purse subsidies to cover the costs of serving the disabled and mentally ill and homeless? What kind of Government maintains until the last minute a virtual embargo on informing the public about the merger - especially the clients of the Public Guardian, Protective Commisisoner and Public Trustee?
It is the kind of Government that apparently is prepared to stoop to gutter tactics. It is the kind of Government that is willing to imply for PR purposes that it is consulting key stakeholders but never once asked the clients or stakeholders or the public about the merger in the first place. It is a government that holds two meetings this year to simply tell stakeholders about what has gone on in preparing for a merger. Not exactly consultation is it?
It is a government that plays expedient games like announcing a branch office in a Labor-held seat.
Fancy implying that a lack of support from the advocacy sector for the Bill is tantamount to undermining the needs and interests of the disabled and mentally ill. The advocacy sector is defending their rights and pleading their cause. It is the disability sector that has repeatedly called for reforms that have fallen on deaf ears until this last minute desperate gimmick of a merger was dreamed up.
What kind of Government officially briefs IPART to review OPC fees and then dodges the major recommendation by IPART: increase the tax-payer subsidies? What kind of Government tries to hold opponents of the merger over a barrel by suggesting that the new fees for OPC won't be possible if the merger Bill is defeated? Does the Government seriously want the public to believe it cannot find $10.6 million dollars for the OPC in 09/10? That's hard to swallow!
Which then prompts the question: Would a desperate Government approve of actions to intimidate anyone who questions its policy? If there are any such incidents then maybe the Ombudsman or some other official watch-dog will be needed in the near future to check things out. Where there's smoke there's fire!
Brian Robins' article in the Sydney Morning Herald (read here) points to questions of security raised by Greg Smith last week. The counter-strike is an attempt to typecast the opposition as prejudiced against the disabled. This is largely a diversion from the issues but also fails to carry some factual context: tight security protocols are in place at the OPC customer service centre at 144 Clarence Street and at the Parramatta Justice Precinct.
Disinformation is a pathetic and manipulative ploy used as last resort tactics.
If the Coalition is allegedly "bad" then the Government cannot claim the moral high ground. It is not lilly-white --- it happily allowed OPC clients to be held "hostage" by a fiscal deficit that affects the delivery of services it is pledged to provide.
What kind of Government and bureaucracy allows an organisation that is supposed to serve the "vulnerable" to be run into deficit, to slash Community Service Obligations funding, and to dither about reforming the OPC for a decade? What kind of entrenched prejudice is there that sanctions a $4.4 million deficit? What kind of government slashes the public purse subsidies to cover the costs of serving the disabled and mentally ill and homeless? What kind of Government maintains until the last minute a virtual embargo on informing the public about the merger - especially the clients of the Public Guardian, Protective Commisisoner and Public Trustee?
It is the kind of Government that apparently is prepared to stoop to gutter tactics. It is the kind of Government that is willing to imply for PR purposes that it is consulting key stakeholders but never once asked the clients or stakeholders or the public about the merger in the first place. It is a government that holds two meetings this year to simply tell stakeholders about what has gone on in preparing for a merger. Not exactly consultation is it?
It is a government that plays expedient games like announcing a branch office in a Labor-held seat.
Fancy implying that a lack of support from the advocacy sector for the Bill is tantamount to undermining the needs and interests of the disabled and mentally ill. The advocacy sector is defending their rights and pleading their cause. It is the disability sector that has repeatedly called for reforms that have fallen on deaf ears until this last minute desperate gimmick of a merger was dreamed up.
What kind of Government officially briefs IPART to review OPC fees and then dodges the major recommendation by IPART: increase the tax-payer subsidies? What kind of Government tries to hold opponents of the merger over a barrel by suggesting that the new fees for OPC won't be possible if the merger Bill is defeated? Does the Government seriously want the public to believe it cannot find $10.6 million dollars for the OPC in 09/10? That's hard to swallow!
Which then prompts the question: Would a desperate Government approve of actions to intimidate anyone who questions its policy? If there are any such incidents then maybe the Ombudsman or some other official watch-dog will be needed in the near future to check things out. Where there's smoke there's fire!
Friday, June 19, 2009
Dumb and Dumber
What a pathetic case the Government has put up in the pro-merger speeches! They are riddled with contradictions, factual omissions, lame-brain irrelevant diversions, and ratbag rebuttals. A six year old child could knock them down while simultaneously playing nintendo games.
Nice to see that the Coalition relied on OPC stakeholders' materials, and also used the 318 page 70,000 word submission from a retired federal trade unionist. Nice to know that some of the Independents had prepared speeches and had used information from multiple submissions.Pity they were deliberately muzzled from participating in the lower house debate last Wednesday. The Government is scared it is on a hiding-to-nothing.
We have heard from Macquarie Street that the Minister's last minute lobbying tactics have been ham-fisted. We hope they have back-fired! Oops! Now that we have said this there'll be some emergency late-night burning of the candle hugger-mugger damage control sessions in Governor Macquarie Tower trying to second guess all the submissions! Yes let's rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic! It'll be a manic Monday flurry of phone calls and briefings and emails. Too late!
The fact is: The Government is out on a limb stubbornly pushing the Bill. Get over it. Nobody - repeat nobody - asked for the merger. It looks more like someone's wet-dreams about power.
The Minister admits that comprehensive law reform is essential, and a public inquiry is needed. So, don't put things back-to-front, and don't waste the public purse. It is inefficient approaching the need for law-making by dreaming up a quickie Bill and to then waste the public purse by re-doing it next year. Why pass a Bill in 2009 only to have to revamp it on a comprehensive basis in 2010? This back-to-front plan must have something to do with a power-grab and to deflect attention from the mess at OPC. Get the Bill right first time. Since the 2009 draft Bill is pathetic it doesn't deserve passage.
Why would anyone push this Bill and then waste the public purse knowing it has to be redone in the near future? The fact they had to fix up an amendment on the spot last Wednesday proves the point: the Bill was hastily slapped together in a mad rush because someone must be obsessed about 1 July.
That slap-dash hastiness and crisis management does not reflect sound governance, sound public policy, sound law making, or properly reasoned and carefully planned risk management.
Why not do the ethical and principled thing: inquiry first, legislation second? Since you admit an inquiry is warranted you really have no leg to stand on to object to a public inquiry before any law is passed.
Dr McDonald's speech came close to finally fessing up that improving services is simply a coded message about fixing up the OPC. Well that could have been done years ago. So too the reform of the Protected Estates Act. It was formally requested in 2004. Why was nothing done? Why was OPC deliberately under-subsidised?
There is no administrative or fiscal reason why this Bill has to pass in June 2009. The Director General of AGD has told OPC stakeholders it will take twelve months before Public Trustee branches can even serve OPC clients. The computer systems have to be amalgamated and it will probably cost we estimate around $10 million and a year of work to achieve that goal. So what's the point of insisting that the merged body commence on 1 July 2009? When the doors open for business all OPC clients still have to go to Parramatta. Who do you think you are fooling?
If the plea is "the merger is needed now so as to fund the entity in 09/10", that's rubbish. The Public Trustee's monies could be applied to help OPC in 09/10 without a legislative merger. There is such a thing as a formal "special dividend" request to give assistance. Anyway, as everyone is saying, Treasury should be funding the OPC. The Auditor General has never intimated that the Public Trustee has been behaving badly in its book-keeping or excessive in expenditure. So this stuff about making the new entity accountable to a bureaucrat who authorises the budget to restrain expenditure is balderdash and poppycock nonsense.
And you guys cannot speak convincingly from both sides of your mouth. You cannot claim that the new body will have "sufficient funds" in one breath, and then in another confess that in 2010 they have to go back to IPART to investigate "sources of funding". OPC is supposed to have a review at IPART in 2010 over fees for privately managed clients. That's fine. But why waste the public purse when in 2008 both OPC and Public Trustee were reviewed by IPART?
They claim they have an actuarial report confirming how much they can use to prop up the entity. Okay, then why must IPART check out "sources of funding" next year? How can anyone believe there are "sufficient funds"? It also makes a mockery of the mini-budget claims about reducing costs. Every Public Trustee in Australia and New Zealand is dishing out heaps of money every year (in some cases shelling out more subsidised money than in NSW and on fewer client numbers) to cover servicing low-income protected estate clients.
And let's not forget the confusing new name. It is called NSW Trustee and Guardian and its CEO holds that title. At the same time the Public Guardian is co-located in the new entity BUT the Public Guardian is NOT one and the same as the NSW Trustee and Guardian. By making the Public Guardian report administratively to the CEO this arrangement creates more bureaucracy than currently exists. At the moment the Public Guardian just reports directly to the Director General of AGD. Maybe the idea is to get this Bill made law so that the bureaucrats can then unleash whatever hidden agenda they have up the sleeve. Maybe there is a hidden agenda about doing things to the Public Guardian - it doesn't look truly independent at all no matter what word-games the Minister plays on Tuesday. And the 09/10 Budget gimmick of 13 super-departments signals that IT and legal services in all government agencies will be under the microscope for cut-slash-and-burn "savings".
Orange is the centre for mental health services in the Central West. According to the newspaper the Western Advocate (29/5/09) a plan to open a Public Trustee office in Orange was suddenly scuttled. Instead Bathurst was announced on 1 April 2009. Yet that press release is contradicted it seems by comments made by Bathurst Labor MP Gerard Martin in the Western Advocate. The press release said 5 or 6 local jobs would be on offer (utter nonsense since no local would have the qualifications), while Mr Martin implied in the newspaper that a mere shopfront service is planned. As we've said before, a shopfront service is no substitute for proper access. Either someone has their wires crossed and not everyone is singing from the same songsheet, or they really are making things up as they go along. Any port in a storm will do!
The OPC should have had the clerks of the local court as their agents years ago and none of this merger stuff would have been needed. There's 144 local court houses that gives far wider access than the Public Trustee branches can ever offer.
And it doesn't hurt to recall that from 10/8/05 until 2/4/07 Mr Hatzistergos was Minister for Health. He announced the $34.3 million redevelopment of the Bloomfield Forensic and Tertiary Mental Health Unit in Orange with 82 specialist beds. He also presided over the refurbishment of Bathurst Hospital and its 10-bed mental health unit. Did he have a lapse in memory about these facts on April Fool's Day 2009? As Attorney General it was suddenly expedient to divert attention on April Fool's Day by announcing Bathurst is the chosen town for a new Trustee and Guardian branch. Bathurst a Labor seat trumps real community needs in Orange. Yep, the Emperor has no clothes!
Of course, from the outset this has been "reactive policy". Every time some spot-on public criticism has been made about the merger the brand of mascara is immediately changed on the dummy-in-the-window.
It's hilarious that all the pro-merger claims were anticipated and knocked down in submissions handed up to the cross-benchers before the Bill was even lodged in Parliament. Nobody knew for sure what the Bill contained. Everything has been anticipated. Everyone was spot on. None of us had access to any insider information.
The Government has been wrong-footed from day one. It has misunderstood the public by arrogantly assuming we are dumb. They assume that a group of people lack the intelligence and skill to piece together the whole gag just by reading annual reports from Government websites. No leaks, no whistleblowers, just plain and simple reading of official publicly-available material. Yes the clients and stakeholders are in the driver's seat, not the bureaucrats.
Nobody was taken in by the propaganda and form-letter. No one believes the speeches. No one supports this Bill. No matter what happens on Tuesday the final joke is on the Minister and his aides for taking the public for granted. While democracy "died" on the floor of the Legislative Assembly last Wednesday night, real democracy has been in action since last December. Everyone will be watching on Tuesday. Anymore shenanigans, any "damage control" manoeuvres in advance of the debate and the journalists will start sniffing out a juicy story - where there's smoke there's fire!
And like that moronic movie Dumb and Dumber there will probably be a tag-team cast of speakers prancing around uttering silly and unconvincing pro-merger speeches that even they deep down don't believe in.
Nice to see that the Coalition relied on OPC stakeholders' materials, and also used the 318 page 70,000 word submission from a retired federal trade unionist. Nice to know that some of the Independents had prepared speeches and had used information from multiple submissions.Pity they were deliberately muzzled from participating in the lower house debate last Wednesday. The Government is scared it is on a hiding-to-nothing.
We have heard from Macquarie Street that the Minister's last minute lobbying tactics have been ham-fisted. We hope they have back-fired! Oops! Now that we have said this there'll be some emergency late-night burning of the candle hugger-mugger damage control sessions in Governor Macquarie Tower trying to second guess all the submissions! Yes let's rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic! It'll be a manic Monday flurry of phone calls and briefings and emails. Too late!
The fact is: The Government is out on a limb stubbornly pushing the Bill. Get over it. Nobody - repeat nobody - asked for the merger. It looks more like someone's wet-dreams about power.
The Minister admits that comprehensive law reform is essential, and a public inquiry is needed. So, don't put things back-to-front, and don't waste the public purse. It is inefficient approaching the need for law-making by dreaming up a quickie Bill and to then waste the public purse by re-doing it next year. Why pass a Bill in 2009 only to have to revamp it on a comprehensive basis in 2010? This back-to-front plan must have something to do with a power-grab and to deflect attention from the mess at OPC. Get the Bill right first time. Since the 2009 draft Bill is pathetic it doesn't deserve passage.
Why would anyone push this Bill and then waste the public purse knowing it has to be redone in the near future? The fact they had to fix up an amendment on the spot last Wednesday proves the point: the Bill was hastily slapped together in a mad rush because someone must be obsessed about 1 July.
That slap-dash hastiness and crisis management does not reflect sound governance, sound public policy, sound law making, or properly reasoned and carefully planned risk management.
Why not do the ethical and principled thing: inquiry first, legislation second? Since you admit an inquiry is warranted you really have no leg to stand on to object to a public inquiry before any law is passed.
Dr McDonald's speech came close to finally fessing up that improving services is simply a coded message about fixing up the OPC. Well that could have been done years ago. So too the reform of the Protected Estates Act. It was formally requested in 2004. Why was nothing done? Why was OPC deliberately under-subsidised?
There is no administrative or fiscal reason why this Bill has to pass in June 2009. The Director General of AGD has told OPC stakeholders it will take twelve months before Public Trustee branches can even serve OPC clients. The computer systems have to be amalgamated and it will probably cost we estimate around $10 million and a year of work to achieve that goal. So what's the point of insisting that the merged body commence on 1 July 2009? When the doors open for business all OPC clients still have to go to Parramatta. Who do you think you are fooling?
If the plea is "the merger is needed now so as to fund the entity in 09/10", that's rubbish. The Public Trustee's monies could be applied to help OPC in 09/10 without a legislative merger. There is such a thing as a formal "special dividend" request to give assistance. Anyway, as everyone is saying, Treasury should be funding the OPC. The Auditor General has never intimated that the Public Trustee has been behaving badly in its book-keeping or excessive in expenditure. So this stuff about making the new entity accountable to a bureaucrat who authorises the budget to restrain expenditure is balderdash and poppycock nonsense.
And you guys cannot speak convincingly from both sides of your mouth. You cannot claim that the new body will have "sufficient funds" in one breath, and then in another confess that in 2010 they have to go back to IPART to investigate "sources of funding". OPC is supposed to have a review at IPART in 2010 over fees for privately managed clients. That's fine. But why waste the public purse when in 2008 both OPC and Public Trustee were reviewed by IPART?
They claim they have an actuarial report confirming how much they can use to prop up the entity. Okay, then why must IPART check out "sources of funding" next year? How can anyone believe there are "sufficient funds"? It also makes a mockery of the mini-budget claims about reducing costs. Every Public Trustee in Australia and New Zealand is dishing out heaps of money every year (in some cases shelling out more subsidised money than in NSW and on fewer client numbers) to cover servicing low-income protected estate clients.
And let's not forget the confusing new name. It is called NSW Trustee and Guardian and its CEO holds that title. At the same time the Public Guardian is co-located in the new entity BUT the Public Guardian is NOT one and the same as the NSW Trustee and Guardian. By making the Public Guardian report administratively to the CEO this arrangement creates more bureaucracy than currently exists. At the moment the Public Guardian just reports directly to the Director General of AGD. Maybe the idea is to get this Bill made law so that the bureaucrats can then unleash whatever hidden agenda they have up the sleeve. Maybe there is a hidden agenda about doing things to the Public Guardian - it doesn't look truly independent at all no matter what word-games the Minister plays on Tuesday. And the 09/10 Budget gimmick of 13 super-departments signals that IT and legal services in all government agencies will be under the microscope for cut-slash-and-burn "savings".
Orange is the centre for mental health services in the Central West. According to the newspaper the Western Advocate (29/5/09) a plan to open a Public Trustee office in Orange was suddenly scuttled. Instead Bathurst was announced on 1 April 2009. Yet that press release is contradicted it seems by comments made by Bathurst Labor MP Gerard Martin in the Western Advocate. The press release said 5 or 6 local jobs would be on offer (utter nonsense since no local would have the qualifications), while Mr Martin implied in the newspaper that a mere shopfront service is planned. As we've said before, a shopfront service is no substitute for proper access. Either someone has their wires crossed and not everyone is singing from the same songsheet, or they really are making things up as they go along. Any port in a storm will do!
The OPC should have had the clerks of the local court as their agents years ago and none of this merger stuff would have been needed. There's 144 local court houses that gives far wider access than the Public Trustee branches can ever offer.
And it doesn't hurt to recall that from 10/8/05 until 2/4/07 Mr Hatzistergos was Minister for Health. He announced the $34.3 million redevelopment of the Bloomfield Forensic and Tertiary Mental Health Unit in Orange with 82 specialist beds. He also presided over the refurbishment of Bathurst Hospital and its 10-bed mental health unit. Did he have a lapse in memory about these facts on April Fool's Day 2009? As Attorney General it was suddenly expedient to divert attention on April Fool's Day by announcing Bathurst is the chosen town for a new Trustee and Guardian branch. Bathurst a Labor seat trumps real community needs in Orange. Yep, the Emperor has no clothes!
Of course, from the outset this has been "reactive policy". Every time some spot-on public criticism has been made about the merger the brand of mascara is immediately changed on the dummy-in-the-window.
It's hilarious that all the pro-merger claims were anticipated and knocked down in submissions handed up to the cross-benchers before the Bill was even lodged in Parliament. Nobody knew for sure what the Bill contained. Everything has been anticipated. Everyone was spot on. None of us had access to any insider information.
The Government has been wrong-footed from day one. It has misunderstood the public by arrogantly assuming we are dumb. They assume that a group of people lack the intelligence and skill to piece together the whole gag just by reading annual reports from Government websites. No leaks, no whistleblowers, just plain and simple reading of official publicly-available material. Yes the clients and stakeholders are in the driver's seat, not the bureaucrats.
Nobody was taken in by the propaganda and form-letter. No one believes the speeches. No one supports this Bill. No matter what happens on Tuesday the final joke is on the Minister and his aides for taking the public for granted. While democracy "died" on the floor of the Legislative Assembly last Wednesday night, real democracy has been in action since last December. Everyone will be watching on Tuesday. Anymore shenanigans, any "damage control" manoeuvres in advance of the debate and the journalists will start sniffing out a juicy story - where there's smoke there's fire!
And like that moronic movie Dumb and Dumber there will probably be a tag-team cast of speakers prancing around uttering silly and unconvincing pro-merger speeches that even they deep down don't believe in.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Political Madness
"Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad," so wrote Virgil.
There's plenty of madness afoot in Macquarie Street. Certainly the smugness of last Wednesday night has vanished. The chameleon can no longer be disguised to fool anyone because nobody believes the Government's speeches. Nobody wants the Bill. They just don't get it.
Hundreds of client letters, emails, and faxes are flooding into Macquarie Street. Stakeholder groups have been repeatedly in to Macquarie Street, and so have several clients. Others are jamming the phones. A huge pile of submissions have been handed in too.
The Minister ought to be worried - he has let the clients and public down.
There's plenty of madness afoot in Macquarie Street. Certainly the smugness of last Wednesday night has vanished. The chameleon can no longer be disguised to fool anyone because nobody believes the Government's speeches. Nobody wants the Bill. They just don't get it.
Hundreds of client letters, emails, and faxes are flooding into Macquarie Street. Stakeholder groups have been repeatedly in to Macquarie Street, and so have several clients. Others are jamming the phones. A huge pile of submissions have been handed in too.
The Minister ought to be worried - he has let the clients and public down.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
16 June NSW Trustee & Guardian Bill debate
According to the Notices of Motion for the Legislative Assembly Tuesday 16 June is currently slated for the second reading of the Bill. Budget day! Does the Government seriously think that it can slip the Bill through under the critical radar screen? Nobody knows the future but the webcast on Tuesday could be a hoot! (And certainly not because of the dreary budget speech by the Treasurer).
Thursday, June 4, 2009
NSWTAG Bill
This morning Barry Collier formally introduced the NSW Trustee and Guardian Bill. He seemed somewhat ill at ease stumbling several times and re-reading passages in the speech, and repeatedly reaching for water (a sign of nervousness - quite curious since the house was almost empty). Perhaps because there are good reasons to be nervous because of hasty and bad decisions. And since the mini-budget never mentioned the Public Guardian and yet here it is, the public have a right to call the politicians and bureaucrats to account.
The Bill as it was announced contains amendments that will partly meet and satisfy some complaints from disability groups. So some of the amendments are fine. However don't get the idea that this douses the flames of anger and of robust disagreement.
An inquiry for reforms representing disability interests will also be convened up to Feb 2010. The scope of that inquiry could well be stage managed to produce pre-determined outcomes that senior bureaucrats want while metaphorically patting clients on the head. What was announced was tilted towards disability stakeholders, while steering clear of everyone else as if no-one else has any concerns or valid interests.
While the speech sounds eminently sensible it masks the real picture, and it does not mean that what is said in a speech translates into reality. Not all will necessarily be well under the merged regime. The OPC lost a lot of experienced staff when forced to move to Parramatta (60 left according to its annual report). It is in disarray after multiple failed reforms based on consultant reports. That must demoralise employees as much as it has annoyed us on the outside with lousy service.
The Public Guardian is still going to exist "functionally separate" and yet it reports to the CEO and the CEO is the NSW Trustee and Guardian. How confusing! No other state or territory has the Public Guardian located inside the Public Trustee/State Trustees. The interstate Public Advocate/Guardians do not report to the CEO of the Public Trustee. So NSW stands in an anomalous position under this draft Bill. Very messy. And there is no real guarantee of independence either functionally or in reality or into the future.
After all the power to authorise budgets which is what affects all employees and all services and all clients - that is vested in the Director General of the Attorney General's Department. A bit of empire building going on and too much centralising of power. Is this appropriate public policy? And how long will it be before more changes have to be introduced as people complain about the "confusion" of names? And will a cosmetic change from "Public Guardian" to "Public Advocate" in the future make any real difference to the lamentable state of affairs that exists under the regime of the Attorney General's Department?
Funny how all of these amendments to the Protected Estates Act could have been done years ago and without the cost and upheaval of a merger. Funny how the announcement all concentrates on Protective Commissioner and nothing about the interests of clients of the Public Trustee. It is twaddle talking about interstate Public Trustees because they are primarily doing the work that in NSW is done by OPC - their will-making services are not particularly extensive. Their budgets are consumed with rising costs of serving the disabled, and the need for government subsidies is rising all the time. That's why the NSW merger must be questioned. Treasury is not footing the expenses. Its past record of low subsidies is inexcusable and the bureaucrats and politicians who agreed to those cuts should be put in the spotlight and condemned.
Collier's speech hints at further reforms which can be used partly to do good. BUT it can also cloak a lot of rubbish that goes under the guise of "reform".
Still have to wait for the pdf text of the Bill on parliament's website.
Yes let's have a public inquiry. But let it be non-discriminatory. Let it be inclusive and very extensive so that clients of the Public Trustee who are real stakeholders are included. And let an inquiry involve close and intense scrutiny of the Attorney General's Department, its performance, its shared corporate services, its expenditure, and making all things about the merger transparent. Let's not have this nonsense "oh we cannot divulge that set of documents or memos because it is privileged information". That is not open government. That does not involve accountability to the voting public.
The Bill as it was announced contains amendments that will partly meet and satisfy some complaints from disability groups. So some of the amendments are fine. However don't get the idea that this douses the flames of anger and of robust disagreement.
An inquiry for reforms representing disability interests will also be convened up to Feb 2010. The scope of that inquiry could well be stage managed to produce pre-determined outcomes that senior bureaucrats want while metaphorically patting clients on the head. What was announced was tilted towards disability stakeholders, while steering clear of everyone else as if no-one else has any concerns or valid interests.
While the speech sounds eminently sensible it masks the real picture, and it does not mean that what is said in a speech translates into reality. Not all will necessarily be well under the merged regime. The OPC lost a lot of experienced staff when forced to move to Parramatta (60 left according to its annual report). It is in disarray after multiple failed reforms based on consultant reports. That must demoralise employees as much as it has annoyed us on the outside with lousy service.
The Public Guardian is still going to exist "functionally separate" and yet it reports to the CEO and the CEO is the NSW Trustee and Guardian. How confusing! No other state or territory has the Public Guardian located inside the Public Trustee/State Trustees. The interstate Public Advocate/Guardians do not report to the CEO of the Public Trustee. So NSW stands in an anomalous position under this draft Bill. Very messy. And there is no real guarantee of independence either functionally or in reality or into the future.
After all the power to authorise budgets which is what affects all employees and all services and all clients - that is vested in the Director General of the Attorney General's Department. A bit of empire building going on and too much centralising of power. Is this appropriate public policy? And how long will it be before more changes have to be introduced as people complain about the "confusion" of names? And will a cosmetic change from "Public Guardian" to "Public Advocate" in the future make any real difference to the lamentable state of affairs that exists under the regime of the Attorney General's Department?
Funny how all of these amendments to the Protected Estates Act could have been done years ago and without the cost and upheaval of a merger. Funny how the announcement all concentrates on Protective Commissioner and nothing about the interests of clients of the Public Trustee. It is twaddle talking about interstate Public Trustees because they are primarily doing the work that in NSW is done by OPC - their will-making services are not particularly extensive. Their budgets are consumed with rising costs of serving the disabled, and the need for government subsidies is rising all the time. That's why the NSW merger must be questioned. Treasury is not footing the expenses. Its past record of low subsidies is inexcusable and the bureaucrats and politicians who agreed to those cuts should be put in the spotlight and condemned.
Collier's speech hints at further reforms which can be used partly to do good. BUT it can also cloak a lot of rubbish that goes under the guise of "reform".
Still have to wait for the pdf text of the Bill on parliament's website.
Yes let's have a public inquiry. But let it be non-discriminatory. Let it be inclusive and very extensive so that clients of the Public Trustee who are real stakeholders are included. And let an inquiry involve close and intense scrutiny of the Attorney General's Department, its performance, its shared corporate services, its expenditure, and making all things about the merger transparent. Let's not have this nonsense "oh we cannot divulge that set of documents or memos because it is privileged information". That is not open government. That does not involve accountability to the voting public.
Protective Commissioner a Business Centre?
Both the Protective Commissioner and Public Guardian report to the Attorney General via the Director General of the Attorney General's Department. So it is astonishing to find that the work undertaken by the OPC and Public Guardian is routinely called "business".
Since when has it become an acceptable community standard to refer to serving people whose capacity is impaired by illness or injury as "business"?
Who dreamed up this diabolical, impersonal, insensitive and offensive nonsense? This is what is said in Annual Reports and other public documents:
"Established under the Protected Estates Act 1983, the OPC is a Business Centre of the NSW Attorney General's Department"
"OPC is a business centre within the NSW Attorney General's Department"
"A number of Business Centres operate with a high degree of independence with much of their budget derived from fees charged to their clients, often in competition with the private sector. They offer registry, trustee and legal services at minimum cost to the community. Others provide quality control to the legal profession at entry level and protective services for the vulnerable in our community."
All of this jargon depersonalises the people who are supposed to be served and supported by the OPC and Public Guardian. Serving people is not about commerce. This ideology has been fostered by individuals who have lost the plot. It creates a work culture and ethos that is driven by management objectives that wastes time and resources on stuff that causes inefficiencies and adds in red-tape. It has nothing to do with serving the public.
The Attorney General's Department is self-described as a "not-for-profit entity as profit is not its principal objective with no cash generating units." It is supposed to be about law and justice not acting as a corporation, a business, a place that pays dividends. Yet the same Department announces: "our financial statements are sound, with considerable investment in our assets, primarily our court buildings where we conduct a significant proportion of our business" and the department also has "new corporate headquarters in Parramatta."
Whoa! The courts are places that conduct "business"???? This is disgraceful thinking.
All this business language doesn't make any sense alongside the OPC's vision statement: "To have a just and inclusive community in which the rights and interests of people with decision-making disabilities are promoted and protected."
In the evasive form letter sent out to everyone who writes to the Attorney General's Department to query the merger it is said: "The Government recognises that both the OPC and the Public Trustee NSW provide important personal and financial planning services."
Oh really? Then why did the Minister and his Director General approve of the subsidy cuts to the OPC's operating budget? Do they think they can deflect attention from their track record by saying that the merger will make everything right?
If they think the OPC ($4.4 m) and Public Guardian ($125,000) must operate as "business centres" then why have they been run into the ground carrying a deficit of at least $4.5 million? Why is OPC being compelled to use up its "retained earnings" (or its equity) to get itself back into the black before the merger? This is what is said in the Government's response to IPART's fee review:
“The Government proposes that the additional funds required to meet the changes to the fee structure pending the merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Public Trustee will be met from the retained earnings of the Office of the Protective Commissioner.”
The Auditor General's 2009 report notes that:
"The impact of the global financial crisis has reduced investment returns and investment asset values. At 31 January 2009, the Fund’s investments had fallen in value by $197 million (unaudited) or 14.7 per cent from $1.3 billion at 30 June 2007.”
So why isn't Treasury fixing up the deficit caused by cuts to subsidies?
Why do the leaders at the Attorney General's Department describe the OPC as a "business centre"?
IPART says something altogether different, which is much closer to community standards:
"OPC is a small organisation operating in an environment that has more welfare than commercial characteristics."
There is so much hollow chatter from the Attorney General's Department and from the Minister about this merger. It is all supposed to be about the delivery of high quality, efficient and cost effective services; it is about creating a "strong new organisation" that will "deliver improved frontline services". Why should anyone believe them when:
* They allowed the OPC to be under-funded?
* They ignored stakeholder pleas to make the Public Guardian completely independent?
* They have since 1999 paid so many external consultants to review the OPC's fees, structures and service delivery and nothing much has improved - where is the value for money out of the public purse?
* They did not bring about reforms to the Protected Estates Act in 2004-05 after stakeholder consultations specifically recommended reforms?
* They have conveyed the impression at stakeholder gatherings that the Public Guardian will remain independent and yet the new Bill names the organisation NSW Trustee and Guardian. What weasel words!
The OPC and Public Guardian have been slowly absorbed into the structures of the Attorney General's Department since 2003 when they came under the spell of the policy of "shared corporate services". The 2004 OPC Annual Report spoke of this new system, and it is no secret that they pay the Attorney General's Department for all these shared services. So, where is the value for money and where are the clear improvements to frontline services since 2003?
As the Attorney General's Department completes its "takeover" in the merger of the OPC, Public Guardian and Public Trustee, why should we believe that things will be radically better under this centralised shared services scheme?
This Department needs to be completely changed at the top. There must be some high-level personnel who have never been made accountable for the bad decisions they have made. Those sorts of personnel should be made accountable since our taxes are used to cover their wages, and our taxes have been unwisely expended on things that have not given us stakeholders - the clients, advocacy groups and the public - a decent service. Yes the public are stakeholders, yes the clients are stakeholders. Any executive bureaucrat or minister of government who thinks otherwise is out of touch with reality.
Since when has it become an acceptable community standard to refer to serving people whose capacity is impaired by illness or injury as "business"?
Who dreamed up this diabolical, impersonal, insensitive and offensive nonsense? This is what is said in Annual Reports and other public documents:
"Established under the Protected Estates Act 1983, the OPC is a Business Centre of the NSW Attorney General's Department"
"OPC is a business centre within the NSW Attorney General's Department"
"A number of Business Centres operate with a high degree of independence with much of their budget derived from fees charged to their clients, often in competition with the private sector. They offer registry, trustee and legal services at minimum cost to the community. Others provide quality control to the legal profession at entry level and protective services for the vulnerable in our community."
All of this jargon depersonalises the people who are supposed to be served and supported by the OPC and Public Guardian. Serving people is not about commerce. This ideology has been fostered by individuals who have lost the plot. It creates a work culture and ethos that is driven by management objectives that wastes time and resources on stuff that causes inefficiencies and adds in red-tape. It has nothing to do with serving the public.
The Attorney General's Department is self-described as a "not-for-profit entity as profit is not its principal objective with no cash generating units." It is supposed to be about law and justice not acting as a corporation, a business, a place that pays dividends. Yet the same Department announces: "our financial statements are sound, with considerable investment in our assets, primarily our court buildings where we conduct a significant proportion of our business" and the department also has "new corporate headquarters in Parramatta."
Whoa! The courts are places that conduct "business"???? This is disgraceful thinking.
All this business language doesn't make any sense alongside the OPC's vision statement: "To have a just and inclusive community in which the rights and interests of people with decision-making disabilities are promoted and protected."
In the evasive form letter sent out to everyone who writes to the Attorney General's Department to query the merger it is said: "The Government recognises that both the OPC and the Public Trustee NSW provide important personal and financial planning services."
Oh really? Then why did the Minister and his Director General approve of the subsidy cuts to the OPC's operating budget? Do they think they can deflect attention from their track record by saying that the merger will make everything right?
If they think the OPC ($4.4 m) and Public Guardian ($125,000) must operate as "business centres" then why have they been run into the ground carrying a deficit of at least $4.5 million? Why is OPC being compelled to use up its "retained earnings" (or its equity) to get itself back into the black before the merger? This is what is said in the Government's response to IPART's fee review:
“The Government proposes that the additional funds required to meet the changes to the fee structure pending the merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Public Trustee will be met from the retained earnings of the Office of the Protective Commissioner.”
The Auditor General's 2009 report notes that:
"The impact of the global financial crisis has reduced investment returns and investment asset values. At 31 January 2009, the Fund’s investments had fallen in value by $197 million (unaudited) or 14.7 per cent from $1.3 billion at 30 June 2007.”
So why isn't Treasury fixing up the deficit caused by cuts to subsidies?
Why do the leaders at the Attorney General's Department describe the OPC as a "business centre"?
IPART says something altogether different, which is much closer to community standards:
"OPC is a small organisation operating in an environment that has more welfare than commercial characteristics."
There is so much hollow chatter from the Attorney General's Department and from the Minister about this merger. It is all supposed to be about the delivery of high quality, efficient and cost effective services; it is about creating a "strong new organisation" that will "deliver improved frontline services". Why should anyone believe them when:
* They allowed the OPC to be under-funded?
* They ignored stakeholder pleas to make the Public Guardian completely independent?
* They have since 1999 paid so many external consultants to review the OPC's fees, structures and service delivery and nothing much has improved - where is the value for money out of the public purse?
* They did not bring about reforms to the Protected Estates Act in 2004-05 after stakeholder consultations specifically recommended reforms?
* They have conveyed the impression at stakeholder gatherings that the Public Guardian will remain independent and yet the new Bill names the organisation NSW Trustee and Guardian. What weasel words!
The OPC and Public Guardian have been slowly absorbed into the structures of the Attorney General's Department since 2003 when they came under the spell of the policy of "shared corporate services". The 2004 OPC Annual Report spoke of this new system, and it is no secret that they pay the Attorney General's Department for all these shared services. So, where is the value for money and where are the clear improvements to frontline services since 2003?
As the Attorney General's Department completes its "takeover" in the merger of the OPC, Public Guardian and Public Trustee, why should we believe that things will be radically better under this centralised shared services scheme?
This Department needs to be completely changed at the top. There must be some high-level personnel who have never been made accountable for the bad decisions they have made. Those sorts of personnel should be made accountable since our taxes are used to cover their wages, and our taxes have been unwisely expended on things that have not given us stakeholders - the clients, advocacy groups and the public - a decent service. Yes the public are stakeholders, yes the clients are stakeholders. Any executive bureaucrat or minister of government who thinks otherwise is out of touch with reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
