Stop The OPC & PT Merger

Bad Press in wake of Merger

2009-08-03T17:55:00.000-07:00

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.

Clutching at Straws

2009-06-22T14:24:00.000-07:00

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!

Dumb and Dumber

2009-06-19T19:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Political Madness

2009-06-18T23:59:00.001-07:00

"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.

16 June NSW Trustee & Guardian Bill debate

2009-06-09T22:33:00.000-07:00

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).

NSWTAG Bill

2009-06-04T18:14:00.000-07:00

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.

Protective Commissioner a Business Centre?

2009-06-04T15:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Legislative Assembly Business Paper

2009-06-03T23:04:00.000-07:00

The Legislative Assembly's business paper has the NSW Trustee and Guardian Bill 2009 listed as the first item. It has not been introduced by a ministerial speech and so the text of the bill is not on the Parliamentary website for the public to read. After the ministerial speech to introduce the Bill then the text of it will be loaded up as a pdf.

The item can remain on the business paper without being shifted for a period of 12 months.
No doubt some behind the scenes lobbying will occur as the Attorney General's Department aims to influence political opinion in favour the Bill.

Whatever is going on in privileged circles, everyone has to wait for the fan dance to be finished, and time is ticking away with only 8 days of sitting left from 16 June onwards. Friday is a solo session for the lower house to sit but usually it does not have new Bills being discussed.

Bill in Parliament

2009-06-03T15:20:00.000-07:00

It appears that the Bill is part of the agenda for business in the legislative assembly for Thursday 4 June. It will probably have the ministerial speech delivered by proxy by Mr Campbell. Maybe the second reading will be called for on Thursday. If not then that might happen on Budget day 16 June - nothing like trying to slip through a Bill on the assumption that nobody will notice or protest.

And then some reassuring spiel is coming this Friday at our stakeholder's meeting in the Metcalf Auditorium, State Library. Must cost a bit hiring this 200-seating capacity room for the sake of talking to a handful of representatives. Amazing it can be paid for when the OPC is strapped for cash.

Should we attend? No doubt there will be an all-out effort to schmooze us into liking the Bill. What amazing word-games will there be in redefining "independence"? A "claytons" definition - the independence of the Public Guardian that you have when you have an independently named NSW Trustee and Guardian. And why have we never seen any Public Trustee clients - they are so conspicuous by their absence. Maybe the new organisation should be known as the NSW Protective Guardian Office.

Yesterday the Premier stated in question time: "We have no higher priority than supporting jobs." So will all current employees still have their jobs and how many new and extra people will be recruited? Or are jobs being taken away?

How will OPC clients receive improved access and service at what are now Public Trustee branches? If they are providing shopfront service all that means is they take your name, number and details and then hand it on to Parramatta for attention. Maybe its a quicker way of getting into the queue than waiting 20 minutes on the phone. Maybe that's what improved frontline services is all about!

NSW TRUSTEE AND GUARDIAN

2009-06-02T15:00:00.000-07:00

Well folks no more secrets from the Attorney General's Department! The new Bill is entering the Legislative Assembly. A Notice of Motion from Mr David Campbell to "constitute the NSW Trustee and Guardian" which involves repealing "the Public Trustee Act 1913 and the Protected Estates Act 1983". Click here for the Notice of Motion.

Now we know officially that the Public Guardian is part of the merger. So much for the sales talk from the bureaucrats to the disability groups giving them mother's milk that all will be well.

Now comes the fun in Parliament!

Auditor General on Protective Commissioner

2009-06-01T19:49:00.001-07:00

The Auditor General has recently handed over to Parliament Volume Two of its 2009 report and the Common Fund of the Protective Commissioner is examined. The Auditor General's report can be downloaded as a pdf by clicking here.

A couple of major difficulties have been reported:
“serious control weaknesses relating to the payment of client expenses were identified in 2007 ... The weaknesses included inappropriate segregation of duties, ineffective client budgets, insufficient access controls within the Office’s Client Information System (CIS) and inadequate policies and procedures over the processing of client payments.”

The Auditor General commented in deference to the Protective Commissioner's plight that some auditing recommendations have been implemented but “some actions are still incomplete or have only been partially completed.”

The global financial crisis has also hit the Protective Commissioner:

“Investment performance subsequent to 30 June 2007 has varied considerably. 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.”

That report card confirms the long standing concern that we clients have held.

This merger is all about giving the Protective Commissioner a cosmetic makeover, improving the Government's image and centralising power for departmental executives.

Nobody disputes that the Protective Commissioner needs a thorough-going makeover. The Protective Commissioner should have been properly funded from 2003-2009. It should have been given funds to open regional offices years ago. The Protected Estates Act needs a huge overhaul, and it should have been fixed up in 2005 because the previous Protective Commissioner Mr Gabb wrote:

"During 2003-2004 OPC reviewed the Protected Estates Act in consultation with a wide cross section of stakeholders. Recommendations for reform were forwarded to the Attorney General's Department in June 2004 for consideration. I am hopeful our efforts and the efforts of those who helped us will bear fruit in 2004-2005 with an improved legislative framework within which to provide our services." (OPC Annual Report 2004 page 5). Mr Gabb retired in 2007 and nothing had changed when he left.

The hasty merger package is not going to come good on that 2004 plea for genuine legislative reform. Opening a branch in Bathurst to save a mate's seat has nothing to do with improving the problem at Parramatta. IPART's clear and fair recommendation that tax-payer funding be increased to $10.6 million per annum until June 2012 has been ignored. All the warning signs of rising costs have been ignored.

The whole proposal has the same whiff to it that goes with the Iron Cove Bridge - behind the scenes decisions made as if in cement and then after signing on the dotted line there is a pretense at conferring with the public.

It is like let's thump a bikie law - a hasty reaction to an appalling public fracas leads to a panic. Mother's milk is fed to the public (yes we are tough on gangsters and we can protect you). The criminal code was already robust enough to lock-up thugs without creating the "thump a bikie" legislation.

All of this is just stage-managed spin-doctor politics -- it is about creating PR perceptions. It is using cosmetics to mask the awful reality beneath the surface. It has no form or substance to it, just mere surface appearances that soon fade in the sunlight.

Yesterday we linked to the Western Advocate article about the new Public Trustee/OPC office that will open in Bathurst. In it the local Labor MP rabbited on about a "shopfront" service model (which contradicts the impressions of the April Fool's Day press release).

That shopfront model just creates more inefficiencies. It is only slightly better than ringing some call centre in India. The people in the shopfront take your details and then pass it on to the HQ. Well gee how wonderful is that - you could already do that yourself by dialling up some 1300 number or sending a letter or e-mail. That model just introduces more red-tape.

Executive bureaucrats do not live in the real world and they never meet the public or clients. They live in a silly artificial world of statistical reports, meaningless corporate-speak, and build castles in the air that have no foundations.

No wonder People With Disability have lobbied for an extensive public inquiry. Please bring it on so we can all find out:

* If the Government really believes that the Protective Commissioner plays an important part in providing financial management for people with impaired capacities, then why has it crippled it by under-funding the Protective Commissioner?

* Who approved the deficits in the operating budgets of the Protective Commissioner and Public Guardian? (Easy look up on the OPC website the 2008 Annual Report and read pages 33 and 34).

* Since the calls for reforms in correspondence, submissions and in various conferences have been made to fix up and improve the Protective Commissioner - why have the departmental leaders at the Attorney General's Department failed to act long ago? Why has the Department failed to improve the service delivery of the Protective Commissioner since its 2003 take-over?

* Why is the Public Trustee being forced to prop up the Protective Commissioner? The problem was caused by the Government failing to fund and failing to make actual reforms. So much money has been spent on external consultants reports (about fifteen since 1999 so the OPC annual reports seem to give the tally) and all the OPC annual reports keep on saying they fiddled with this or that model of handling clients. They set up one thing, and then pulled it apart because it didn't work. What else can you expect when consultants are asked to set up some artificial solution on paper? When the rules are pre-set by the official brief to give the outcome a bureaucrat wants and insists on getting? When the consultants do not sit on the frontline serving clients?

Some bureaucrats have to be made accountable for the mess at the OPC and the persistent failure to reform. Someone has to be hauled before a full public inquiry to explain why they chose to slash the subsidies for the OPC.

http://www.mycareer.com.au/ is the place to trawl for a new job: some politicians and bureaucrats may find it worthwhile surfing that site today.

Bathurst Office and Merger

2009-05-31T15:32:00.000-07:00

The first bit of independent press coverage about the merger has finally surfaced!

Friday May 29 2009 marks a little bit of history as the Western Advocate has drawn attention to the proposed new office in Bathurst.

The local Labor MP Gerard Martin is denying any knowledge (sounds like Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes) about there having been some apparent proposal to have had an Office in Orange - none of us are quite sure what that means. What proposed office in Orange? When? Why? Unfortunately the article gives no background explanation but it looks like the journalist has ferreted out some hidden details.

The local MP chatters vaguely about some "shop-front" service on offer. This seems to be implying something different from the April Fool's Day press release - a press release that no newspaper ever picked up. That press release had said that about five or six jobs were going to be advertised offering local employment opportunities. Bit hard to know how anyone living locally would have the qualifications needed to serve clients of the Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner. A shop-front sounds like something much smaller. Sounds like these politicians and bureaucrats are making things up as they go along!

The newspaper article says that Mr Martin "was not aware or concerned about reports the relocation of departments of Public Guardian - or Public Trustee or Protective Commissioner - had been intended for Orange, where the office may have been better suited." Funny how the Public Guardian is also mentioned in this article. Maybe the on-line letter by People With Disability Australia has sparked off some investigation? (See their letter by clicking here). It's all very mysterious.

And we have the typical MP obstinancy: "The offices are coming to Bathurst ... The decision has been made, I know nothing about the suitability of Orange."

Yes a decision was made about Bathurst just to bolster ALP votes for 2011. It has nothing to do with serving the community or choosing this place because of high needs in the town. Mr Martin we urge you to take a good look at what you have just said: don't be arrogant and presumptuous. Nobody knows what the future holds and nobody should assume the Bill to merge will be guaranteed to pass or to fail when it is lodged in Parliament. An arrogant and out-of-touch government always bears these hallmarks of stubborn and dismissive and evasive comments when it is crumbling from within - remember the last year of Howard's reign. Any government that talks down to the people is one that is clueless, talentless, and foolish. You had your chance to start a conversation with the public. That means a two-way conversation, not a top-down one-way speech that is long on spin and short on facts. Howard dismissed and ignored the people. The same fate awaits this state government in 2011 as they continue treating the public this way.

Check out the whole article by clicking the link below:

Judicial offices come and go - Local News - News - General - Western Advocate

Sometime in June?

2009-05-15T20:09:00.000-07:00

As Parliament has entered a temporary recess until 2 June everyone has to wait a bit more before the draft Bill finally appears. It should prove interesting especially as June is also the time of the state budget (16 June). Will everyone be distracted by the budget chatter and not notice the Bill? Time will tell. Nobody can presume the outcome. Nobody knows what the future holds. Nobody knows for sure how the parties line up on this matter and anyone who says otherwise is being arrogant and reckless. The Bill could pass; the Bill could be delayed; the Bill could be defeated. None of us knows and only control freaks will try to claim the upper hand in advance of the events.

Office of Public Guardian and Trustee (Canada)

2009-05-05T19:51:00.000-07:00

In a few Canadian provinces there exists as a sole body the Office of Public Guardian and Trustee (like in Yukon, and Saskatchewan).

In NSW the statutory offices of Protective Commissioner and Public Guardian are held as a dual appointment by the same person. What will happen to the Public Guardian in the merger? Will it exist as a very small agency with its own head of department and its own budget and produce its own annual reports?

Will the Minister's statement of 11 November 2008 be upheld as truthful or exposed as falsehood next week? "These mini budget initiatives relating to the Attorney General's Department are important reforms aimed at reducing red tape and bringing NSW into line with best practice in other jurisdictions..."

Which state or territory in Australia has the Public Guardian and Public Trustee joined?

Public Advocate of the ACT
Office of the Public Guardian NT
Office of the Adult Guardian QLD
Office of the Public Advocate SA
Office of the Public Guardian TAS
Office of the Public Advocate VIC
Office of the Public Advocate WA

Apparently every state and territory has the Public Guardian separate from the Public Trustee. So the only place where the Office of Public Guardian and Trustee are amalgamated is in some provinces in Canada.

When the new Bill enters the Legislative Assembly next week the public will finally see how the new organisation is structured. Next week everyone will finally know if the new organisation includes or excludes the Public Guardian. One way or the other everyone will then know how honest the Government has been in its statements to Parliament and in its letters of reply to inquiries on that matter.

People with Disability Australia and other advocacy groups are concerned about the Public Guardian's role and if it is included in the proposed merger (see their letter 31 March 2009). Next week they'll know if they were told the truth or if they were treated to a dose of slippery semantics about the Public Guardian's independence and exclusion from the merged body.
Truth or dare - what a wonderful game!

Check Back in May

2009-04-07T20:41:00.000-07:00

OK networkers, Parliament is in recess until Tuesday May 5.

Check back here in May for news on the Notice of Motion for the Bill in the Legislative Assembly.

Truly Amazing

2009-04-02T13:38:00.000-07:00

There's nothing quite like a politically expedient announcement to save a mate's vulnerable electoral prospects. The Attorney General has announced that the Public Trustee will be opening a new office in Bathurst (see the press release here). Mr Gerard Martin is the ALP sitting member for Bathurst. No doubt the party strategists have read the tea-leaves about the 2011 election and are looking for ways to forestall the inevitable loss of power.

The opening of a new branch in Bathurst will be a financial miracle since we are in a time of belt-tightening. It is amazing since the mini budget deficit has been blown to bits. So the Public Trustee is expected to pick up the tab for the merger costs, cover the Protective Commissioner's budgetary needs, and now will pay for the new office too.

Sorry but the public sees through the "smoke and mirrors". The public can see that there is a hasty short-term politically expedient decision on the merger, and now another quick-fix announcement of the new branch office is just one last trick to improve public perception.

No business so far

2009-04-02T00:25:00.000-07:00

The NSW Legislative Council has adjourned until Tuesday May 5.

Friday 3 April is the last day of business for the Legislative Assembly. After this Friday afternoon the Legislative Assembly will adjourn until May 5. Presumably the NSW Cabinet will sign off on this legislation proceeding before the end of April.

The Notice of Motion for the merger legislation presumably will surface in May.

Notices Postponed

2009-03-26T17:14:00.000-07:00

Notices of Motion for bills have been postponed in the Legislative Assembly during the day's session for Friday 27 March.

Once the Minister's advisors are ready and the cabinet memo is finalised then a Notice of Motion should be given. Perhaps Friday 3 April is the earliest feasible time? If not then certainly on Tuesday 5 May.

Pre-holiday Parliamentary Business

2009-03-23T21:44:00.000-07:00

NSW Parliament meets on Tuesday 24 March to Friday 27 March, and again on Tuesday 31 March until Friday 3 April. School holidays, Easter and ANZAC Day create a major break for the month of April.

Parliament does not resume formal meetings of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council until Tuesday 5 May.

So far no Notice of Motion has been given in the Legislative Assembly for the merger legislation.

Update

2009-03-12T12:43:00.000-07:00

In the first fortnight of business 5 notices of motion for new Bills have been delivered in the Legislative Assembly. None for the merger Bill. Both Houses rise on Friday 13 for a week's intermission. That leaves a further 28 sitting days remaining until Parliament goes into recess.

No Notice of Motion (Yet)

2009-03-09T15:11:00.000-07:00

The Notices of Motion Number 107 for the business proceedings of the Legislative Assembly Tuesday March 10 do NOT include any reference to a new draft bill regarding the merger. Ditto goes for the "Daily Program" published by the Clerk of Parliament.

The Who & vSpyvSpy's blasts from the past

2009-03-06T21:41:00.000-08:00

What goes around comes around is a cliche but it seems uncannily true when we look at the merger and recall the old corporatisation game of the 1990s.

Won't Get Fooled Again from The Who seems like an anthem! "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" ... As the Labor Left Caucus kick up a fuss about prison privatisation and the Premier faces back-bench unrest ... it feels like deja vu.

So perhaps its worth digging back even further to recall the social justice messages from vSpyvSpy the pub band hailing from Newcastle. Craig Bloxom was the bass player and he has loaded up a variety of the band's clip's at youtube. One of them, "Credit Cards", remains as timely today as it was back in the 1980s. As they said :"people aren't currency". Pity that message has not gotten through to the Labor Government as it portrays everything it does in the state as a business enterprise.

Too many chiefs not enough Indians

2009-03-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

The corporate virus that has spread through the whole of government reduces serving the public down to the category of business. Everything and everyone become mathematical units measured by commercial criteria. People who need the services of the OPC and PT are redefined in commercial language. Services are redefined as a market activity.

Ms Sylvia Hale of the Greens captured the essence of this when introducing the CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT (PRIVATE CONTRACTORS) BILL 2009. Hale stated in the Legislative Council:

"The Greens do not think that running a prison is a business. The Greens do not think that incarceration of offenders is a market activity."

So with a deferential bow to Dean Martin here are some alternative lyrics with a timely message:

"Wagon train of corporate fads
Raises the number of executive lads
Pollies say its all just business
But drop us all into a big mess

There's too many chiefs and not enough Indians around this State
We're tired of this game to promote your mates"

The Government must go back to the basics: serve the public.

Policy

2009-03-04T02:43:00.000-08:00

In what way might the merger of the OPC and PTNSW be a reflection of policy directions on several fronts towards the incapacitated, elderly and disabled? Who knows where community services will head? Who knows where the money is coming from?

Check out the power-point presentation of Mike Steer from the Strength2Strength Conference of February 16-17 on milestones for the disabled and mental health and that lovely slide mentioning the OPC: "merger?"

A few other cherries that need to be digested:

Jacqueline Youssef and Frank Deane, "Factors Influencing Mental Health Help-Seeking in Arabic-Speaking Communities in Sydney, Australia," Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 9 (2006) 43-66.

"Community awareness of the availability of mental-health services needs to be more widely promoted to allow ethnic minorities greater access to services" (p 43).

On the USA scene:

Lawrence Schonfeld and Deborah Hedgecook, "State Initiatives to Improve the Access of Older Adults to Behavioral Health Services," Generations 32 (2008) 40-46.
Anita Silvers, "Rights Are Still Right: The Case for Disability Rights," Hastings Center Report November-December 2004 39-40.
Robert Woolfolk and John Doris, "Rationing Mental Health Care: Parity, Disparity and Justice," Bioethics, 16 (2002) 469-485.

And so far no "Notice of Motion" has appeared concerning the merger legislation at NSW Parliament.

Vale: Matt Laffan

2009-03-03T01:17:00.001-08:00

So sad to hear of the passing of Matt Laffan the wonderful solicitor and activist for disabled persons. He was greatly admired both where he worked on the Board at the Disability Council NSW and by those who met him. See Matt's personal website (here) and the unofficial memorial site (here). He will be remembered fondly by many and he will be sorely missed.

References

2009-03-02T19:07:00.000-08:00

Hey folks:
Here are the titles of the reference works and specialist studies that you all wanted to follow up on:-

Eugene Sheehy ed. Guide to Reference Books, Chicago: American Library Association. (The librarian's "bible").

K.D.C.Vernon ed. Information Sources in Management and Business, London/Boston: Butterworths, 1984.

Christopher Newell, "Disability, Bioethics and Rejected Knowledge," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 31 (2006): 269-283.

T.C.Jones & D. Dugdale, "The ABC Bandwagon and the Juggernaut of Modernity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27 (2002): 121-163.

Nigel Thrift, " 'Think and act like revolutionaries': episodes from the global triumph of management discourse" Critical Quarterly, 44, 3 (2002): 19-26.

D. T. Rowland, Ageing in Australia, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1991.

Paul Hague & Paul Harris, Sampling and Statistics, London: Kogan Page, 1991.

Andre Spicer, "Moving Management: Theorizing Struggles Against the Hegemony of Management," Organization Studies, 28 (2007): 1667-1698.

T. Clark & R. Fincham ed. Critical Consulting, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.

Patrick McNeill, Research Methods, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1990.

Don E. Schultz, Stanley I. Tannenbaum, Robert F. Lauterborn, The New Marketing Paradigm, Lincolnwood: NTC Business, 1994.

And if you missed it, the Government's response paper re the IPART final report can be obtained from:
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/legislation_policy/ll_lpd.nsf/vwFiles/IPART_Protective_Comissioner_Goverment_Response.pdf/$file/IPART_Protective_Comissioner_Goverment_Response.pdf

Update

2009-03-01T17:13:00.000-08:00

A short wrap-up on recent gatherings/news:

Thanks to Dave Moss for making the trip from the central coast. His informal chat about his experiences with people who had severe psychiatric problems at Long Bay gaol, and for his impressions as a retired corrective services officer about the proposed privatisation of prisons. Dave will probably chat about this again in the not-too-distant future to folks in either Charlestown or Eleebana.

Thanks to the Payne clan for their in-put on past professional experiences in dealing with alcohol and drug-affected people, and social justice/welfare problems. Thanks also to May for her reflections on being a psychologist and confronting the behavioural problems of low-income people with disorders.

Those of you who have met the twin-sister pensioners, Jean and Beryl, should note that due to Beryl's immediate health alarm that they won't be free to chat on the mid-north coast. However, they have repeatedly indicated that they were very happy with the way the Public Trustee administered their brother's estate but probably would not make Wills in the event of the merger. The impression is that other relatives of theirs are contemplating cancelling their power of attorney and wills.

Brad's wife Emma has had fruitful contact with Mr Maguire the Opposition Whip and Member for Wagga Wagga.

Dave Williams attended the recent CDP meeting and he has received a lengthy reply from Rev Moyes about the merger.

Watch this space for news on the Bill in Parliament.

Plenty of letters but not many answers

2009-02-26T02:14:00.000-08:00

Just over two months ago our network began sending letters to the Premier and to the Attorney General. Maybe they were surprised to see that the public was objecting to the merger. But this is a democracy and we have read many tedious documents on the web that worry us.

The Minister can assert that the public was mistaken about the Government's response to IPART's review of the OPC fees.

Of course we did expect for a while that Treasury would seize the Public Trustee's surplus funds because that is what they wanted in 1998. But we were correct all along that the plan is about making the Public Trustee finance the OPC and we indicated this long before IPART's final report appeared on the web.

The evidence from the Auditor General's on-line reports for 2007 and 2008 shows that Treasury was hankering for the Public Trustee's surplus monies. The hot-off-the-press Government response to IPART makes us think that they did a quick back-flip so as to cut-off further criticism. Maybe our letters prompted the back-flip? Who knows? We will probably never know.

As we said yesterday, the Government's response to IPART is a whitewash of the fact that the Cabinet and Treasury created the original funding mess. That is a basic point that no-one should forget. It tells us a lot about the boys and gals in Macquarie Tower who pull the purse strings.

All we have to show for our trouble so far in writing to the minister is a silly standard vague reply from the Community Relations Unit of the Attorney General's office: "The matters you raise have been noted and are presently receiving attention. A response will be provided in due course." The poor sod in the Community Relations Unit must have had a terrible time wading through the pile!

A retired couple put this to the Premier:

"This Treasury policy has thus made it difficult for the OPC to meet its community service obligations to those on low-incomes. The OPC has thus been forced into a deficit by the bean-counter approach of the Treasury. Instead of forcing a merger so the Public Trustee picks up the OPC’s debt, the Treasury should be compelled to refinance the OPC in light of the recommendations of IPART’s deliberations on the need for substantial public funding of the OPC. We do not accept that staff should lose their jobs so that the Labor Government can then pretend it is prudent in economic management. The loss of expert staff will retard the new organization from properly serving the public and will also result in an unnecessary rise in costs to clients ... Your colleagues in the Government have forgotten the public’s opposition in 1998 to the proposed corporatisation of the Public Trustee and that the Legislative Council defeated that Bill. In our opinion the Labor Government is arrogantly ignoring the existing clients of the OPC and Public Trustee – they have not been consulted to establish if they approve of the merger."

One pensioner is a former staunch Labor voter. Last month he and his wife wrote to their local MP who also happens to be one of the parliamentary secretaries:

"We further believe that the merger will be a financial and organizational disaster. The current financial problem of the Protective Commissioner is being kept fairly quiet. However the 2008 Annual Report of the Protective Commissioner clearly shows that in 2008-2009 it is in deficit to the sum of $4,401,000, and follows on from a prior deficit in 2007-2008 of $754,000. The same report shows that when the Protective Commissioner moved to Parramatta that it lost many staff and that some 60 staff positions have been filled by employing temporary workers through an agency. It needs to be noted that Treasury has been deliberately underfunding the Protective Commissioner, having cut funding from $9 million in 2003-2004 down to $2.8 million in 2007-2008. It is not difficult to connect this decline in funding with the Audit Office recommendation about the Public Trustee’s monies, and with the announced merger."

A month ago another pensioner wrote:

"I am astonished to discover that the NSW Attorney General has said next-to-nothing that properly explains to the public the merger of the Protective Commissioner and Public Trustee ... It is galling that Treasury can readily find money for all kinds of expensive projects but cannot subsidise the Protective Commissioner for half the price of the subsidised school bus passes."

Needless to say we are all counting the days for the next "form" letter that will come from the Attorney General that praises the merger and dodges our questions. It should arrive in the post just within a cat's whisker of the Bill appearing in the Legislative Assembly.

As always, send off your emails to your local state MP because at least you will receive a quick reply even though she/he won't be able to say much of substance:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentMembers

Merger Whitewash by AGD

2009-02-25T03:40:00.000-08:00

After much criticism the NSW Government held a small roundtable chat with various representatives of disability groups that had participated in the IPART review. The chat was about the 2008 IPART review of OPC fees. The Government has released IPART's September 2008 Final Report as well as the Government's response. This move by the Attorney General's Department (AGD) is so conspicuous it is "embarrassing" to watch!

As we predicted, the Government has engaged in clever PR to hose down the burning complaints about ignoring IPART's report. It has adopted the fee model suggested by IPART BUT it is NOT accepting IPART's call for $10.6 million in Treasury funding for the OPC. Instead, as previously intimated here, the Government is going to apply the Public Trustee's surplus funds to cover the deficit for this 08-09 year, and then thereafter all community service obligations will become the burden of the Public Trustee as it merges with OPC in July.

Treasury was ready to take the Public Trustee's Interest Suspense Account BUT as our letters of protest began pouring in the Government has been forced into a somersault. Treasury appears to have banked on reaping $68 million without anyone noticing. At least it won't be rewarded with that money. While the funds from the Public Trustee will help the OPC in the very short term do not lose sight of the fact that the Public Trustee is being made to pay for the debts caused by Treasury's lack of finance.

The disability groups have been sweet-talked now into believing how wonderful is the proposal for the merger with reassurances that services will be supported, improved and funded. On paper the Government's response to the IPART Report will look persuasive to anyone who trusts what the Government is saying.

Don't be fooled by the propaganda that indulges in boundary-maintenance and fends off "unpleasant" thoughts that contradict the artificial reality the Government would have us all believing in. The fact remains that the emperor still has no clothes on. The merger resembles a plot from the BBC show "Hustle" - the Government is playing a game that purports to give something to punters when in reality it is giving nothing.

All the sugar-coated assurances are an attempt to deflect attention from the Government's policy that originally caused the problem: it has fostered the marginalisation of the vulnerable clients of the OPC. The Cabinet of this Government deliberately chose to under-fund the OPC and it is legitimate to infer from the data that the AGD has been complicit in this by approving of the OPC going into $4.4 million deficit. This funding mess was created by this Government and now it is wriggling out from its responsibilities by dumping the problem on another agency (the Public Trustee).

The AGD did not stand up on behalf of the OPC in 2006-07 or 07-08 to support it against the Uncle Scrooge machinations of Treasury. Treasury's track-record on this point does not bode well for the future. Once the Public Trustee's surplus fund is exhausted (as it will be in just a few short years) how will the merged body fare when it goes cap in hand to Treasury seeking millions of dollars each financial year to meet its community service obligations? How can anyone trust Treasury after what it has done to the OPC? How can anyone trust the AGD to do the right thing by the merged organisation via the policy of shared corporate services?

Some Public Trustee clients have also had a "surprise" customer satisfaction survey just conducted by a phone poll company. The poll, which we hinted at recently, covered the usual sorts of client feedback questions but also included a little question to test client reactions to a possible name change of the Public Trustee. Nobody briefed us about this marketing ploy but one does not have to be Einstein to know what goes on in the public sector and in marketing generally. It is the risk the Government has taken thinking that the random list of clients chosen for the survey would not be talking among themselves and passing on the word. The question about a name change was posed without any forewarning or advice that the Government is indeed going to merge the OPC and Public Trustee. That is a neat sleight of hand trick designed to scoop up a statistic that can be manipulated by the Government in its pro-merger answers to Dorothy Dix questions in Parliament's question time sessions and when the Bill is read in its pro-merger arguments in the Legislative Assembly.

The greater percentage of Public Trustee clients have not been told about the merger. As they are unlikely to be surfing the web on a daily basis to check the Public Trustee's site or that of Lawlink, very few have had the courtesy of being formally advised. A power-point based presentation of the pro-merger case in a small meeting or series of meetings in March or April does not correspond to a full public disclosure campaign to the 47,000 clients of the Public Trustee.

As we've warned before, this is like a re-run of 1998. The merger is a politically expedient and hastily hatched scheme that will give the illusion of a short-term boost and improvement for OPC clients. BUT the reality is there is no gravy train to catch in this merger. When the next state election comes around in March 2011 the Coalition will have to fix up a colossal mess caused by the merger.

Next Tuesday is 3 March and it is opening day for State Parliament. Keep your eyes wide open for the introduction of the Bill. In the interim email your local MP and explain to her/him why the Government's response to IPART's report is a whitewash. Let your MP know that you are outraged by the Government's policy that created the mess and its shabby scheme to cover up the mess.

Don't be fooled by the Government when it implies that the IPART Report has been fully accepted. It is a half-truth in regards to a fee model. The Government is not doing what IPART said it must do about providing increased taxpayer funds to the tune of $10.6 million in this financial year, and then maintaining much the same figure in the ensuing years. Find your local MP's contact details here:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentMembers

Protective Commissioner & Public Trustee: Labor's Forgotten Legacy

2009-02-24T12:38:00.000-08:00

It is interesting to see people who are supporters (or members) of the ALP and Shooters Party writing to Parliamentarians and venting objections to the merger. Most people who are opposed to it are uncommitted voters, while a few are supporters of the Coalition and/or of the parties from which the other cross-bench members of Parliament belong.

The current state Labor Government seems to suffer from amnesia concerning its own political legacy. It was under the Labor Premier Holman (1913-20) that the Public Trust Office was created in 1913 and opened to serve the community in January 1914. It was modelled on both England's and New Zealand's Public Trustees.

In 1942 Premier McKell's (1941-47) Labor Government amended the Public Trustee Act. In that amendment the Labor Government empowered the Public Trustee to become financially independent. The Interest Suspense Account was established so that surplus earnings could be retained for the future economic stability and organisational development of the Public Trustee. McKell's work meant that the Public Trustee would never need to rely on taxpayer funding, and that it would be able to self-fund in times of need. Its "future fund" was there as a reserve and it could be used to write off expenses for services rendered on behalf of very low-income clients. The future fund was there to enable the Public Trustee to meet its community service obligations toward the poor of NSW.

In 1983 Premier Wran's (1976-86) Labor Government created the Protected Estates Act. Under that Act the Office of the Protective Commissioner was established as a successor to what had previously been known as the Protective division of the Supreme Court and even earlier as the Master in Lunacy. Although the Protected Estates Act has been the subject of much valid criticism from mental health and disability groups, the Act of 1983 was a great improvement on what had gone before.

Of course the Richmond Report on mental health has been the great and much needed formal catalyst for highlighting the need for a complete overhaul of attitudes and administration and politics in this area. David Richmond has highlighted what work he undertook. While some improvements have occurred the NSW Government knows full well that much more is desperately needed concerning those marginalised from society due to brain-injury, mental illness and all kinds of disabilities. While vital reforms are needed to provide better services to the clients of the Protective Commissioner, and the Protected Estates Act needs an overhaul, the solution to these problems will not come through the merger Bill.

The age-old perception has been that the ALP always stood on behalf of the working class, advocated welfare for the poor and so on. In NSW history the ALP did something worthwhile in creating the Public Trustee, and in enabling its self-funding status since 1942. It did these things precisely because it had a social conscience and a social justice aspect to its political ethos.

However, the ALP has lost its way in the 1990s and beyond. It has become suckered by the pervasive juggernaut of economic rationalism, and has "dropped the ball" in its social conscience and social justice agenda.

It was Premier Carr's (1995-2005) Labor Government that picked up the idea of corporatisation from the previous Liberal-National state government. So in 1997-98 it attempted to corporatise the Public Trustee based on an economic rationalist policy and advice presumably from both the NSW Treasury and the NSW Attorney General's Department. In that move the Labor Government introduced the Public Trustee Corporation Bill in 1997 without first having consulted the public and specifically the clients of the Public Trust Office. It took deliberations in the Legislative Council to compel the Labor Government to produce a Green Paper for public comment. The Green Paper was a piece of pro-corporatisation propaganda, as was pointed out in May 1998 in the Legislative Council.

It is ironic then that the Coalition in NSW allied itself with the cross-bench members of Parliament in 1998 to defeat the Corporation Bill. The irony being that the Coalition can be perceived as being less oriented around social welfare policies and being more oriented around capitalism, big and small businesses. It is ironic that the Coalition picked up the social justice ball in 1998 to preserve the Public Trustee. It is very ironic that the ALP that set up the Public Trustee is now going to radically alter the organisation, and that it will disturb and dismantle the future fund set up in 1942 (see the 2008 Auditor General's remarks on the Interest Suspense Account). Holman and McKell would disown today's state ALP.

Premier Rees' Labor Government is pushing for the merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner and Public Trustee based again on economic rationalist principles and advice presumably stemming from both the NSW Treasury and the Attorney General's Department. The Rees Cabinet presumably thinks it can avoid a controversy if it can buff up the merger proposal by putting some distance between it and the criticisms made by clients in correspondence since December 2008. It thinks that it can slip a notice on a web-site and in the obscure "public notices" column of the Sydney newspapers about consulting the public and "stakeholders" on the merger just a couple of weeks before the Bill enters Parliament. Then it will state in Parliament with hand on heart claiming "we did confer with the public" before lodging this Bill.

One cannot look to the state Labor Government for a holistic social justice agenda concerning the poor, homeless, brain-injured and disabled. Indeed it has permitted NSW Treasury to under-fund the Protective Commissioner dropping from $9 million in 2003-04 to just $2.825 million in 2007-08. That action is indefensible. And the public will not swallow the truncated and repetitious remarks of the Premier trotted out everytime something blows up - "oh we are sorry, it was a mistake, we got it wrong but we are fixing it up now" (e.g. the spin over aborting Robertson's office refurbishment).

There has also been enough of an uproar concerning DADHC over the lack of funds and poor services provided to the disabled community. Recent news items about DADHC reinforce the concerns. Letters to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald have sustained the critical uproar (scroll these pages for the letters by Nerryl Brown, Stuart Neal and others, and Perce Butterworth).

When Parliament sits to vote on the merger in May-June, will the ALP members follow the herd mentality in supporting this Bill? Or will ALP members rediscover the party's legacy and regain some sanity by opposing this Bill?

Let your local MP know what you think and send an email to her/him (find their contact details here): http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentMembers

IPART Report on OPC Fees

2009-02-23T00:45:00.000-08:00

On several occasions we have drawn attention to the importance of the 2008 IPART Review of the OPC fees (see here and here and here).

We believe that the moguls behind the merger will have nutted out what they want implemented regarding the fees for protected estates clients. The new fees will commence from 1 July.

In view of the deluge of public criticism the NSW Cabinet knows that the public knows about the 2008 IPART Report. The Cabinet also knows that the public does not swallow spin easily, and the decision to let the OPC slide into deficit in 08/09 and for Treaury under-cutting its subsidy is indefensible. That is why the Cabinet has no choice other than to act now before Parliament resumes. It will try to squirm its way out from an anticipated deluge of criticism in the press and in Parliament. It will be dreaming up "answers" to all the criticisms raised in correspondence, and watch out for "shoot the messenger" put-downs or aspersions cast on critics.

It will release its reaction to the Report and say (hand on heart) we are following IPART's recommendations on the structure of fees -- "we are not ignoring IPART at all".

BUT the Government will sidestep some central issues. It won't admit that the merger was dreamed up after Cabinet had a hissy fit over the recommendation that Treasury cough up money for the OPC. It won't be admitted that in October 2008 the decision to merge was hastily made in reaction to IPART's report. It won't be admitted that the Government's bureaucracy was trying to keep the merger out of the public domain (e.g. no press releases issued on 11/11/08 for the merger, yet the Attorney General released press statements on all other mini-budget provisions). It won't admit to Treasury's original scheme to run off with the PT's funds, until the public caught them out. It won't admit that the scheme involves concentrating power in the hands of a few individuals in the Attorney General's Department.

It won't question the "logic" behind the merger. It won't reflexively admit that it is over-reaching in its over-rationalised and over-managed style to public administration. It won't question its own assumptions and expectations about audits, consultants, and its conveyor-belt approach to work processes that stultifies creativity.

So the Government will gloss over these critical problems by saying the merger is the best preferred option, leading to best business, best service, cuts-costs, reduces duplication of services, blah blah blah. It will be said that it has always had the public in mind (gee is any democratic government going to say it couldn't give a toss about the public???). In a flurry of spin it will try to sweep under the rug the inconvenient truths that citizens in their letters have exposed over the past 10 weeks.

We surmise that Cabinet will approve a recommendation about management fees based on the best option presented in the 2008 IPART Review. What they choose as a model for new fees to apply after 1 July will probably be decent and not much different from what happens in other states. Our outrage and our bugbear is this:

1. Neither Cabinet nor Treasury will be hauled over the coals for its handling of the OPC's financial needs.
2. Treasury will weasle its way out of being obligated to fund the OPC.
3. The PT's Interest Suspense Account will be used to save the OPC from its $4.4 million deficit, and then the PT will be expected to carry the financial burden thereafter (instead of Treasury taking responsibility).
4. The merger will be presented to the public and in Parliament in a sugar-coated manner that tries to deflect attention from the dubious decisions made to sidestep IPART's recommendation for increased Treasury funding.
5. The financial solution for the OPC could be achieved without going through the merger in the first place.
6. Cabinet has unilaterally decided on the merger BEFORE even asking clients and the public and is arrogantly pushing ahead with the scheme. The public never gave the Government a mandate to do this.
7. The dangerous and negative impact on the new organisation that will come through the loss of employees, and the gratuitous hiccups that will come because no transition will be smooth running.

The big issue is not the fairness of the fees (assuming that a fair model is actually chosen) BUT rather the grave difficulties associated mid to long term in keeping the merged organisation viable. So keep a discerning eye on the propaganda to come!

Lastly, for the benefit of readers, let us restate: This electronic forum carries forward the collective worries of various citizens and clients who are voicing their objections to the merger. We are worried by this Government. It has indulged in too much monologue and insufficient dialogue, and talks too much about the disabled rather than talking to the disabled and listening directly to them.

We have no idea about what employees do or do not know about the merger. We are, however, concerned that the merger will eliminate employees. We do not trust glib words uttered by bureaucrats because experience shows us that too many assurances are given and very few are ever kept. So we have made comments about the need to save jobs and hope that our little contribution to the public debate is helpful. We feel, just as NCOSS has noted, that the loss of employees always impacts on services. We hope that people who visit here will take the time to read every post and to read things in context. Not everyone will like what we say but we are citizens who have our opinions.

It is rather unfortunate these days that some people run while they read and react to web sites and emails almost like Pavlov's dogs responding to conditioned cues. It does no good to react in the absence of careful digestion and reflection on information found on websites. Lamentably, our messages will be misunderstood by some "stakeholders". The cure? Read slowly and carefully, and read every post in context from the start up to the present.

People with Disability vs Merger of OPC

2009-02-22T00:18:00.000-08:00

People With Disability Australia began querying the proposed merger of the Office of Protective Commissioner and Public Trustee in early December 2008. Since then various other advocacy groups have been submitting letters of concern. One of the points made by People with Disability Australia deserves repeating here:

"We call on the NSW Government to refer the proposed merger of the OPC and PT to the Social Issues Committee for Inquiry. This would ensure that Parliamentarians, government and non-government agencies and people with disability have a clear understanding of the issues at stake in relation to the proposed merger, and that there is a stronger possibility that government will undertake comprehensive and necessary reforms in this area." (Click here for original Rich Text Format document on-line).

Email your local state MP today and let her/him know about your concerns. You might be more successful in receiving a prompt reply from your local MP.

Maybe some efficient service delivery will happen if
(A). the Minister publicly accepts responsibility for making the hasty decision to ignore IPART's Report (or so it seems fair on its face to the discerning public)
(B). for accepting the advice he was given to rush through the organisational fiasco that is sanitised by the word "merger" (assuming someone suggested the idea rather than the Minister himself dreaming it up)
(C). and quickly finds a new job outside of Parliament.

If a Parliamentary inquiry can investigate this matter then maybe some bureaucratic heads will be held accountable.

Find your local MP's email details here:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentMembers

Merger of Public Trustee - Deja Vu from 1998 to 2009

2009-02-21T15:52:00.000-08:00

In 1997-1998 the NSW Carr Labor Government attempted to corporatise the Public Trustee (then called more familiarly the Public Trust Office). In 2009 some aspects of the planned merger echo the issues of 1997-98.

On 27 May 1998 the Legislative Council had its final debate on corporatisation, and a few words from that debate are worth reviving for today's debate about the merger:

The Hon. R.S.L. Jones remarked:

"In October 1997 the Attorney General's Department published a paper entitled 'Public Trustee Corporatisation Bill 1997'. Unfortunately, that paper proved to be merely a sales pitch for the corporatisation of the Public Trustee - and not a very good one at that. Not only did that paper put only one side of the story - the argument for corporatisation - it did so in bureaucratic language with no clear and concise summary, and made virtually no allusion to the drawbacks of corporatisation. As a consequence, ordinary clients of the Public Trustee could hardy be expected to understand the propositions put forward in the green paper; nor could they be called upon to make a proper judgment on the advisability of corporatisation ... While there could be lengthy debate about the rights and wrongs of Treasury being able to transfer surplus funds from the Public Trust Office to consolidated revenue, the Government will argue that the proposed corporatisation of the Public Trustee is intended to do more than that and will enure that the Office is transformed into a more efficient and effective organisation ... While all improvement comes from change, all change is not necessarily improvement."

The Hon. Franca Arena:
"The New South Wales public, especially the Labor voting public, did not give the Labor Party a mandate to corporatise or privatise, which is the first step, everything in the State so that eventually nothing will be left for future generations."

The Hon. John Hannaford:
"... this proposed corporatisation is about extracting millions of dollars from the Common Fund ... No-one was ever able to satisfy me that Treasury would gratuitously make millions of dollars available to the Public Trustee in order that he could maintain services for the poor. In discussions with me Treasury pointed out that the office of the Public Trustee as a corporatised organisation would be required to contribute a dividend ... It was indicated that once the dividend was taken by Treasury the same amount would most probably be paid back to the Public Trustee. At that time I took the view that this was male bovine excreta, and my view has not changed since."

That was then, this is now:

* The NSW public (including the Labor voting public) did NOT bestow a mandate on the Government in 2007 to proceed with the merger. The idea was not part of their announced policy during the election of that year as a stated objective for this term of office scheduled to expire in 2011.

* The present Attorney General has used bureaucratic language ("spin") about efficiency as a motive for the desirability of the merger in his remarks in Hansard in November 2008.

* The 2008 Auditor General's Report to Parliament highlights Treasury's claim on the Public Trustee's monies (just the same as it did in 1998).

* So far all indicators are that any communication to the public about the merger before the June vote will be a one-sided monologue - merely selling the merger as a wonderful opportunity to improve services and cut the "fat" in budgets.

* The assumption that the merger is a risk-free good thing is not open for the public to challenge or debate. The Government's assumption is that changes means improvements BUT as Jones said "all change is not necessarily improvement."

* As Treasury has under-cut its subsidy of the OPC, can there be any guarantee that in the short, mid or long-range future that Treasury will prop up the faltering budget of the new merged organisation? Treasury's track-record suggests it will walk away to let the merged body sink or swim because it imagines that the Public Trustee can bear the burden of propping up the under-subsidised OPC. Once the Public Trustee's reserves are taken by Treasury in the 09-10 financial year (after the merger legislation passes in June 2009) there is no assurance that the Public Trustee will be in a position to prop up the OPC in the merged body.

* There is no assurance of the government guarantee on funds being maintained after the merger because that guarantee depended on the existence of the PT's future fund. BUT Treasury is helping itself to that future fund.

Feels a lot like deja vu. That weird uncanny sensation that we are having is of a re-run of 1998 in 2009. So the public is fully justified in rejecting the proposed merger. The merger is NOT a good thing. The government's self-talk is just a form of propaganda. It is designed to distract our attention from concentrating on the basic facts that some very dubious back-office decisions have been made. These revolve around the hasty reaction to the IPART review of the OPC which called for Treasury to cough up money, and of Treasury's persistent scheme to run away with the PT's future fund.

There is also the uncanny feeling that perhaps certain bureaucrats maybe consolidating their jobs while others lose theirs. We can be justifiably cynical if after 1 July certain executives have upgraded jobs and higher salaries. Though how that can be justified when belts must tightened is hard to figure!

There is also the weird feeling that maybe there is a little empire being built. A lot of administrative operations and jobs are being stripped off units like OPC and Public Trustee (and other agencies like Births Deaths & Marriages, Crown Solicitors Office etc). Those jobs and their duties are being reassigned to people working outside these agencies. That this not idle speculation can be shown by studying the November 2008 organisational chart of the Attorney General's Depatment (see here) and comparing it to the chart in the Department's 2007-08 Annual Report (page 72 scroll the document from here).

See how easy it is to find this information on the web and to make accurate inferences based on events from just over ten years ago.

But will confiscating jobs from these offices and depositing them in some units inside the Attorney General's Department give us members of the public any improved services and value for money? Are the rights of the disabled really high on the agenda in this merger? Are we the people of NSW going to be whacked with a whole new regime of fees and charges that we never signed up for?

Let your local member of state parliament know what you feel about this merger.
Find your MP here: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/members.nsf/V3ListCurrentMembers

And in the spirit of Bill Clinton's first election campaign slogan: "It's no merger, stupid!"

Knee Jerk Retrenchment is not savvy

2009-02-20T15:52:00.000-08:00

In Late January 2009 Serge Sardo of the Australian Human Resources Institute wrote a telling piece for the Canberra Times. Sardo has cautioned against an over-reaction to the Global Crisis in the economy where retrenchment becomes the "silver bullet" to solve all problems. Sardo draws attention to the meticulous research of Colorado University professor Wayne Cascio concerning knee-jerk reactions that lead to decisions to cut staff:

"In 18 years of research on the subject, Cascio has amassed considerable data and useful case studies from the S & P [i.e. the notorious Standard & Poors] 500 companies. They demonstrate the benefits for business, where possible, of exercising restraint in sacking staff, and the folly of engaging in knee-jerk lay-offs. A key Cascio question for business is: 'Can you shrink your way to prosperity?' ... Cascio's research provides options. It also reveals that more than 80 per cent of companies that engage in major lay-offs during downturns are profitanle at the time. Many do not remain so."

Since the NSW Government obsessively regards the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Public Trustee as business centres, we wonder if Cascio's research even registers on the radar screen of the minds of those engineering the merger.

NCOSS stated in its response to the mini-budget:

"Previous experience suggests that identified cost savings of this type [i.e. reduce inefficiency and eliminate duplication of service] turn out to be illusory and/or short term due to unintended consequences of cutting staff, offices, 'back room functions' - which in many cases are vital to ensuring 'front line staff' can do their jobs effectively ... reducing the number of staff who are performing administrative support roles often means that front line workers will be required to do more of their own paperwork taking them away from the work they should be doing. Any cost savings from such initiatives are mostly illusory."

Watch and see how jobs will be lost under sanitised terms like "efficiency", and "redeployment of services". After 1 July watch and see how new positions will be advertised as 586 existing employees (230 permanent in OPC plus 60 temporary, and 296 in Public Trustee) fight one another for a total number of vacancies that will be well below 586.

Funny about the State's Money

2009-02-19T14:54:00.000-08:00

Why is it so hard for Treasury to provide proper funding for the Office of the Protective Commissioner? Why was the merger decided just after IPART handed in its recommendations on 30 September 2008 that urged increased public funding of the OPC?

We shake our heads in disbelief that the merger will save the OPC from financial trouble, especially when the Public Trustee is expected to continue making profits and subsidise the OPC instead of Treasury.

Public disbelief is justified when we keep just 2 examples in mind:

1. The November 2008 mini-budget originally stipulated that the free school bus travel passes were to be axed. Four weeks later the Premier reversed the decision. The budget allows some $30 million for the travel passes.

2. The furore over the estimated refurbishment costs for Mr John Robertson's ministerial office (up to $500,000). Although the outcry is now leading the Premier to insist on a less expensive office refit, the willingness to allow the half-a-million dollars in the first place is what beggars belief.

The Premier's cry "NSW is strapped for cash" becomes about as believable as the false cries of the boy who cried "wolf".

The Mini-Budget estimates that the merger is supposed to yield savings of $100,000 p.a. from now until June 2012. Why not simply transfer the $500,000 that might have been spent on Mr Robertson's office and put that into consolidated revenue? There you have the 4 years of estimated savings from the merger achieved in one hit, and with spare change to boot! (Of course the public no longer believes the mini-budget figure of savings in the merger).

As it was easy to axe and then reinstate $30 million for travel passes, then why is it so hard for Treasury to pay the OPC the bare minimum of $7 million needed in the 08-09 financial year?
Is the merger really premised on saving money? Or is there some other agenda driven by bureaucrats who stand to gain an increase in salary after 1 July 2009 as new executive positions are created in the merged body and in the Attorney General's Department?

Drop the minister a note and ask him to explain: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Fees and the Merger

2009-02-18T15:06:00.000-08:00

The legislative merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) and Public Trustee will involve organisational changes in the way the merged body is administered, and some kind of new fee system must be introduced.

The Public Trustee has its charges divided into a sliding scale of commission levied on the value of a deceased estate's assets, on the value of a trust, and in a client's power of attorney. It also has regulatory fees to cover other kinds of expenses. In April 2008 the Public Trustee submitted a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) to IPART so that its fees could be reviewed and that its RIS recommendations could be formally approved. That RIS is freely available on-line to peruse (click here). IPART approved the increased fees for the Public Trustee and they took effect on 1 September 2008.

We wonder if those recently approved fees will remain in place after the merger occurs.

Similarly, the OPC sought a review of its entire fee system at IPART during 2008. It had in 2003 been to IPART for a review, and it was stipulated that the fee system approved in 2003 would remain in place for 5 years. So in April 2008 Premier Iemma instructed IPART to review the OPC fees and to report back by 30 September 2008. The OPC made its submission to IPART, as did some advocacy groups and individual members of the public who act as carers. IPART brought the consultants Ernst & Young in to assist the Tribunal. A roundtable meeting was held on 7 August 2008 and a transcript of that meeting is freely available on-line.

As the merger was announced shortly after IPART handed in its report to the Government, the unresolved suspicion for the public is that the Government has quickly dreamed up the merger because IPART's recommendations are unpalatable. After all Treasury was from 2003 onwards supposed to subsidise the OPC in its community service obligations. It started out okay in 2003-04 with $9 million but somehow an Uncle Scrooge mentality crept in so that in 2007-08 Treasury was only providing $2.825 million.

The relocation of the OPC from the City to Parramatta involved the breaking of its long-term lease on the premises in the Piccadilly Tower. The pay-out on the unused part of the lease, the cost of restoring the premises to pre-lease conditions, and the relocation costs (called administrative charges levied by the Attorney General's Department that the OPC is supposed to repay) was noted in the 2008 Auditor General's Report:

"The Office incurred a deficit of $754,000 compared to a surplus of $5.3 million in the prior year ... Current liabilities increased due to additional accrued expenses for amounts owed to the Attorney General's Department this year, including eight months rent and fees for administrative services provided. These charges were revised following the Office's move to new premises at Parramatta."

On page 67 of the OPC's 2006-07 Annual Report it was stated:

"The OPC is obliged under its long term lease agreements to restore lease premises to original condition upon termination of the lease. It is estimated that the cost of above will be $240,000. This obligation will be met by the Attorney General's Department. Presently there is no certainty as to whether the OPC will terminate any of these lease agreements as the decision to terminate depends upon future decisions by the Attorney General's Department."

That Annual Report was published after 30 June 2007 and before 1 November 2007. It was in November 2007 that the OPC relocated to Parramatta.

In the OPC's 2007-08 Annual Report we read the following admissions:

"The OPC successfully moved to the Parramatta Justice Precinct in November 2007 ... OPC also experienced a significant loss of experienced staff with the relocation to the Parramatta Justice precinct." (Page 10).

"The Director General of the Attorney General's Department approves the OPC operating budget. The amount of government funding for services in 2007-2008 reporting period is $2.825 million." (Page 33)

Again on Page 33 the budget for 08-09 is set out in a column alongside the 07-08 budget. It states that in 08-09 the deficit is $4,401,000 and in 07-08 it was a deficit of 687,000.

On page 45 its table regarding employees indicates that at 30 June 2008 it had 230 permanent staff, and a footnote to that figure states: "This figure excludes 60 temporary staff employed by employment agencies to fill vacancies on a short term basis."

Those figures indicate that the OPC has some considerable financial and employee level problems that are destabilising it. As the merger seems to be over-riding IPART's recommendations that Treasury increase its subsidy to at least $7 million in 08-09, the financial problem is being dumped on the Public Trustee.

What will be the new system of fees in the merged body? When will the clients of the OPC and PT be informed about them? Will they be told before or after June 30th? Will the merged body have to submit a model of new fees to IPART for approval? Won't that involve expenditure? What about the expenses involved in the 2008 IPART reviews of both the OPC and Public Trustee?

Since the government keeps moaning it is cash-poor and has to protect its AAA rating, we cannot help but wonder why so much money has already been wasted investigating and reviewing fees. Looks like more money will be spent in this merger. The claim that the merger is going to save the taxpayer money is laughable. It used to be laughable in regards to the Public Trustee because it has been self-funding since 1942. BUT once the legislation passes the Treasury will swoop down on the PT's reserves worth some $68.4 million (see the 2008 Auditor General's Report).

Finding the Sources re Merger; NSW Parliament's calendar

2009-02-17T08:52:00.000-08:00

Welcome if this is your first visit here. As members of the public who are exercising our democratic right to freedom of expression and the right of dissent, we have been presenting our various individual and collective critical concerns about the merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner and Public Trustee.

There are many citizens who are disturbed by the planned merger, and lots of letters of concern have been posted to the NSW Attorney General. Elsewhere on the web disability advocacy groups are having their own say (see below).

Those of us who are expressing our concerns here and in other forums do so because we are either in relationships with disabled and mentally ill people, or know people who are clients of the OPC, while some of us are clients of the Public Trustee. We are outsiders trying to peer through a heavy bureaucratic veil that has so far involved much silence and kept a lot of detailed information away from public scrutiny.

We are people from all walks of life and we have discovered background information that enables us to reach some understanding about the proposed merger in the absence of any transparent disclosures from the Government. All of the details derive from freely accessible documents on the Internet.

We do wonder about the role of the trade union in this matter but none of us are privy to what objections the Public Service Association has on the merger. We share long memories of the aborted attempt to corporatise the Public Trustee in 1997-98 and the Hansard record of the debate that defeated that Bill is freely available. The PSA did play a critical part in that debate but none of us are connected to the union or work for the Government in any capacity. That Hansard record of the debate is valuable as a background brief on the current merger as clearly some of the exact same issues are on the agenda today that were raised over a decade ago. As some of us have bluntly and correctly said in letters to the minister "one does not have to be Einstein" to figure things out. If our inferences are wrong then the problem can be rectified by the Government opening up a completely transparent discussion and answering questions.

As a quick ready-reckoner for new readers who will need some basic orientation on the matter here are some of the web-links to the sources we have relied on and from which we have made our inferences and drawn our conclusions about the merger. The information is a jigsaw puzzle but it can be pieced together.

All the Annual Reports of the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC), Public Trustee and Attorney General's Department are loaded up on their respective websites. Just read through them to discover the financial problems of the OPC (i.e. $4.4 million in deficit), the modest Public Trustee profits, the funds related to their community service obligations, their technology, marketing, staff reports, and the use of external consultants. The new proposed organisational chart for the Attorney General's Department dated November 2008 is available as a pdf. IPART has thoughtfully loaded up on its website many relevant documents concerning its 2008 review of the OPC including a transcript of a roundtable meeting on 7 August 2008 that lets the cat out of the bag about Treasury cutting the subsidies for the OPC. The Premier's April 2008 terms of reference for IPART's review of the OPC is found here.

The Auditor-General's Report to Parliament on the Public Trustee and on the OPC are likewise on the Internet, and of course at the NSW Parliament website one can freely peruse Hansard for the Attorney General's spin on the merger and his response to a question in Parliament. Letters of concern (see here, here and here) from disability groups are likewise on the Internet and some of those documents have been available on-line since the start of December 2008. NCOSS' general critical review of the mini-budget (which includes criticism of the merger) was released last November. One can use google's map service to gain both a satellite photo and a street-level view of the size of the buildings where the OPC and Public Trustee are situated. One can also look on-line at the websites for other Public Trustee organisations outside NSW as a basis for documentary comparisons about services, performance, etc.

One can learn about shared corporate services by searching for explanatory papers from NSW Biz-Link and from the Central Corporate Services Unit.

There are many published academic journal articles that discuss and evaluate the concept of shared corporate services; outsourcing; the problems associated with using and misperceiving the role of external consultants; the processes and conflicts in government caused by peformance audits; basic marketing procedures; and philosophical analyses of Government departmental "mission statements". All of this information is generally accessible for free (with some exceptions) on the Internet for the keen researcher who uses the services of the National Library of Australia, and University libraries, and using sites like Questia (and many others like it). We share our collective wisdom and experience by pooling together our understanding and criticisms of the proposed merger. The Government has its avenues for promoting its views and the public has a right to question the Government and to use whatever forums exist to put forward its concerns.

This material stands out in the open for all to peruse and evaluate, which is somewhat in contrast to the apparent reluctance on the part of the Government and its bureaucrats to date to provide clear, unbiased information about the merger plan for the benefit of the public. Presumably if a series of public meetings are held in either March or April then matters about the pro-merger cause may become clearer but that will not necessarily mean the anti-merger debate is over. One must also keep an eye on the school holidays in April playing havoc with the ability of people to attend any hypothetical series of meetings. Until there is a clear disclosure to the public either by way of letters, brochures, newsletters or public meetings, then clients and citizens have every right to express their concerns in the public domain (last time we checked NSW was not a totalitarian state).

The Howard Government tried to suppress dissent and to control the flow of information. There has also been much dissent over the manner in which the NSW Government manipulates Freedom of Information rules to frustrate the efforts of members of the public and of journalists to obtain information. When state and federal governments treat the citizens like idiots, or handle matters in a paternalist manner and then dictate replies to the public in terms of a monologue, they end up biting the hand that feeds them. The nation decided in late 2007 that enough was enough on federal spin doctors disseminating conservative propaganda and on the cloak-and-dagger efforts to silence and discredit criticism of their policies and legislation. The same fate awaits the current NSW Government for mirroring these tactics and for under-estimating the critical capacities of the public to ferret out information in the absence of whistleblowers. The Government's efforts to keep the merger out of the public spotlight has simply goaded the public to question "why".

The merger will come about through a new piece of legislation that will be introduced into Parliament. Members of the public can arrange to be in the public gallery when Parliament is in session, and new Bills also become available for the public to peruse on-line.

So the NSW Parliament calendar of sitting days is available on the Internet (click here).

There are a total of 35 days from March 3 until the end of June when the NSW Parliament will be in session.

Both houses are seated on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday as follows:

March 3-5, 10-12, 24-26 & 31;
April 1-2;
May 5-7 & 12-14;
June 2-4, 16-18 & 23-25.

Fridays are set aside for the lower house (Legislative Assembly) to be in session on its own. Those Friday dates include March 13 & 27, April 3, May 8 & 15, June 5, 19 & 26.

The big "gap" in April is because of the school holidays and Easter. The first term of school ends on Thursday April 9, and resumes on Tuesday April 28.

To learn about the basic procedures on how a Bill is introduced into the Legislative Assembly click here. To learn about the same procedures for the Legislative Council click here.

The exact date when the merger Bill will be introduced into Parliament is not yet known. An educated guess is that during March the relevant Cabinet memo about the Bill will be drafted and distributed for the benefit of members of parliament. One can keep an eye on the website of the Parliament and of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office for details about the legislation. Since April is knocked out by holidays, the Legislative Assembly will probably have the Bill formally introduced and voted on during the two sitting weeks of May, which will then be followed by the Legislative Council's deliberations during June.

Will Merger of OPC and Public Trustee NSW Save Money?

2009-02-16T12:31:00.000-08:00

The November 2008 mini-budget paper listed the merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) and the Public Trustee NSW and it specified the sum of $100,000 p.a. as the estimated savings in costs from now until June 2012.

People who have written to the NSW Attorney General questioning the merger have expressed scepticism over the sum of $100,000. Thus the Mental Health Coordinating Council stated in its letter of 19 December 2008:

"The savings estimated of $100,000 seem a somewhat small inducement for a merger. We suggest that possibly the recommendation for OPC core funding enhancement to the tune of $7 million under the IPART recommendation (to be made public) could be pre-empted by the merger."

The stark reality is that NSW Treasury has underfunded the OPC. The OPC now has a $4.4 million deficit. The real intention behind the merger is to put the financial burden on the existing Public Trustee so that Treasury is free from having to provide subsidies. Even if the problems that are flowing on from the global meltdown in economics were of no concern, the unavoidable question remains: can the Public Trustee fund the OPC? The answer is "no". The Public Trustee's annual profits are small. Its after-tax profit for 2007-08 was $3.54 million. Note that the OPC is $4.4 million in the red. Do the maths. A profit of $3.54 million would not bring the OPC's budget into the black, let alone into profit. One could hardly expect cost-cuttings of $100,000 to make any great improvement to that budgetary mess!

Shortly after the mini-budget was released the NSW Premier - under community pressure - buckled from the protests about abolishing free school bus passes. It was stated that $30 million (the sum needed to subsidise the bus passes) represents only 1% of the state's GDP and so the state could after all afford to continue with that subsidy. Marvellous how the money could disappear and then reappear!

The OPC has a financial crisis. At the bare minimum it needs $7 million to cover itself for the 08-09 year. That sum is not even half of what it costs to subsidise school bus passes. So what's up with Treasury? Why has it deliberately under-funded the OPC? How can the Public Trustee, whose annual profits are below $7 million, be expected to carry the burden? If the Public Trustee is merged with OPC then surely there will be a financial collapse in the not too distant future. Even after the razor-gang slashes staff, the Public Trustee will not suddenly become more profitable.

The figure of $100,000 in the mini-budget cannot be taken seriously. It is a sham token figure. So why should the public believe anything else stated by the Government and the Attorney General's Department concerning the merger and its allegedly efficient forecasted outcomes? Email the minister today and point out that the arithmetic does not add up office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

"When You're on a Good Thing, Stick With it"

2009-02-15T16:50:00.000-08:00

Years ago the fly-spray Mortein was kept in public consciousness by an advertising campaign that re-emphasised the brand's established name and product reputation. The campaign slogan was a consumer reminder, "when you're on a good thing, stick with it."

The NSW Government's moguls that are pushing through the merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) and the Public Trustee could ponder that Mortein slogan. The Public Trustee NSW has been around since 1914 and served the public for some 95 years. In the past two decades the Public Trustee has endeavoured to raise its service profile and to increase community awareness about powers of attorney, trusts and probate work. It has established its place in the world of advertising and been using various communications systems to retain existing clients (brand loyalty) and to attract new clients in the community.

So it is very odd indeed that the name of the Public Trustee (PT) is apparently destined for the dustbin. The new legislation that will merge the two agencies of OPC and PT will result in a new organisation and a new name. It is curious that the moguls behind the merger are so keen to create a new "brand" name that they are overlooking some rather pertinent points that will impact negatively on "business".

The new organisation is going to have to spend a lot of money creating a new advertising campaign to advise the community, to reassure existing clients, and to appeal to new clients. It will also involve the destruction of a large stock of existing brochures made defunct by the merger; and new brochures must be devised and printed and distributed. It will also require a massive print-run on new office stationery. BUT since the mini-budget warrants cost-cutting, then "please explain" why the change in brand name is necessary. Is the sum of $100,000 inserted in the mini-budget to be construed as a serious estimate or was it dreamed up as a token figure for the sake of appearances? If the latter, then why should we believe anything else that is stated about the importance of "savings" being created in the mini-budget?
Learn the lessons from Victoria. The Public Trustee in Victoria was corporatised (and it has within it the role of the protective commissioner too) some years ago. It is now known as the State Trustees of Victoria. The change in brand name (not to mention the metamorphosis into a corporation) did not radically improve the business operations of the organisation. The switch in brand names did not improve its status or improve its niche position in community consciousness. Indeed it might be argued that the switch led to some decline in brand loyalty.
In a fortnight from now the NSW Parliament re-opens for its official business. In order for the merger legislation to be passed and proclaimed before 30 June the Bill has to be lodged in early March so that there will be time for it to be read twice in the Legislative Assembly and again twice in the Legislative Council. It is normal and prudent business practice in the private sector to take careful soundings in the marketplace beforehand. If sound planning is involved in the Government's merger, then by now a "control/focus group" should have been established to test the public perception, awareness and receptivity to the proposal. A control/focus group would be created in partnership between the Public Trustee's marketing division, its advertising agency, and a professional marketing organisation. The control/focus group would be created by bringing together a valid statistical sample of the population comprising an even proportion of women and men, a fair range of younger to older aged groups, people of different cultural backgrounds, those who are existing clients of the PT and those who are not clients. Any obstacles or problems created by a switch in brand names would have been thoroughly assessed BEFORE drafting the legislation.

It is highly unlikely that a client control/focus group has even been thought of, let alone set up in advance to "test" the existing brand name versus the proposed new brand name. The moguls are so scared that they are treating the merger as if they are guarding the secret formula for the H-bomb. Since the balance of probability points in the direction of no control/focus group in marketing, the moguls behind the merger are sawing off the branch upon which they are seated. What is basic business procedure has been overlooked in the rush to push the merger through. The adage holds true: if you fail to plan you are planning to fail. Suppose most clients don't like the change in brand names? What then? Maybe the Mortein slogan applies here and now: "when you are on a good Public Trustee thing, stick with it".

Email the NSW Attorney General and let him know what you think of this merger office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

2009-02-13T15:32:00.000-08:00

In July 2008 Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This requires amendments to various Australian laws so that the rights conferred in the UN Convention are included in domestic law.

The proposed merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) and the Public Trustee (PT) NSW involves a new piece of legislation to bring that about. The OPC is set up by the Protected Estates Act 1983 and the PT by the Public Trustee Act 1913. The merger legislation will affect those two pieces of existing legislation. So we wonder if Article 12 of the UN Convention that specifies the rights of the disabled will be included.

As the draft Bill is still a "secret" and won't be made available for the public to read until it enters Parliament in March 2009, the clients of both the OPC and PT are left in the dark with troubling conjectures.

The biggest worry (apart from the validity and viability of the merger itself) is the exclusion of the UN Convention from the new legislation. The reason to be concerned is fairly simple because the NSW Attorney General delivered a speech in April 2008 arguing against a charter of rights/bill of rights. As the NSW Attorney General holds to Parliamentary sovereignty (rather than Parliament being held in check by the courts supervising human rights legislation), clients of the OPC can legitimately ponder if that political-juridical bias will obstruct the inclusion of Article 12.

If the Attorney General's Department ever deigns to hold some kind of public meeting to explain the merger, one could ask about Article 12 and its inclusion/exclusion from the new Bill. If, as we suspect, Article 12 has been excluded, be prepared to face some "legal spin" pouring cold water on the idea or some vague waffle about the spirit of the UN Convention will be reflected in the merger (or that some other legislation will be amended to include the rights).

Email the NSW Attorney General today and ask about the status of the new Bill and if it includes the UN Convention: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Will there be any public discussion?

2009-02-12T01:53:00.000-08:00

Since disability groups and concerned citizens and clients have been calling for consultation on the merger since last December, it remains to be seen if any public discussion will happen before the legislation enters Parliament. Just remember that the first fortnight of March is the most likely time when the legislation for the merger will be introduced to the Legislative Assembly.

The parliamentary calendar of formal business days (when the houses are seated) are fairly limited from March 3 until the end of June (almost none in April). A Bill must go through two readings in the Legislative Assembly and then two more readings in the Legislative Council. If it is to be passed before 30 June then the first two weeks in March are the most likely period for the entry of the Bill into Parliamentary business.

So the timing of any possible public discussion before then becomes critical. What we do not want is an exercise in PR on the part of the Government. We do not want a token gesture at trying to inform a small group of interested parties that is designed to stave off possible media criticism or difficult parliamentary questions about the lack of due process.

Will there be a public event or a series of meetings convened where any critical discussion on the merits and demerits of the merger or the legislation can be discussed?

Obviously the powers that be have so far been presuming that the merger is a "done deal" and that the Bill will merrily pass through both houses of state parliament. The powers that be have so far shown a paternalist attitude toward clients and advocacy groups. There has been a monologue. BUT the public has asked for a transparent dialogue where the proposed merger is subject to critical scrutiny, evaluation, and potential amendment or even rejection. The matter has been kept from the public in a "hush-hush" veil of bogus secrecy as if the nation's security somehow depended on it. The "hush-hush" atmosphere is reminiscent of the fictional British politician Francis Urquhart (played by the late Ian Richardson) in the tele-series House of Cards.

What the public do not want is a stage-managed event involving some sort of panegyric about the great merger. Instead there should be a meeting where both pro and anti-merger views are given equal and fair treatment. We should expect to be told how the proposed new organisation will operate. Will it mean that the state network of Public Trustee branches will become access points for OPC clients?

In the interim, email the Minister and tell him about your concerns and objections to the merger: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Can the Public Trustee Fund the OPC?

2009-02-11T13:41:00.000-08:00

The Public Trustee NSW has been since 1942 a self-funding body, which means that it has not been supported by taxpayer funding. Since 2003-04 the Public Trustee has been obliged to pay an annual dividend out of its after-tax profit to the NSW Treasury. In one of the most odd-ball pieces of accountancy procedures this is what happens:

* Public Trustee makes a budget estimate of what money it needs to fulfil its community service obligations - reducing or waiving some costs for work done on behalf of people who have very low-incomes.
* Public Trustee pays the NSW Treasury an after-tax profit dividend.
* Then the Treasury repays the Public Trustee what it needs to meet its community service obligations (CSO).

Looks like a lot of ridiculous red-tape designed to show that Treasury has robust revenue. If one were to believe the Attorney General's rhetoric over the merger about cutting red-tape, then one could reasonably expect that this silly procedure would stop. If we leave that procedure to one side, we need to look at the arithmetic associated with the dividends and the CSOs. Here are the Public Trustee's figures from 2003-04 up to 2007-08:

2003-04 $3.67 million (dividend); $1.73 million in CSO

2004-05 $1.97 million (dividend); $1.73 million in CSO

2005-06 $2.44 million (dividend); $2.39 million in CSO

2006-07 $4.46 million (dividend); $2.48 million in CSO

2007-08 $3.54 million (dividend); $2.48 million in CSO

You will notice that the difference between the dividend and the CSO is often very narrow.

Now take into consideration that the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) is carrying in 2008-09 a $4.4 million deficit, and that it needs funds to cover its CSO. In fact the reason why the OPC is in deficit is because Treasury has slashed its funding of the OPC's CSO.

Suppose the merger of the Public Trustee and OPC occurs as the Government intends by 30 June 2009. How can the Public Trustee's modest dividend enable the OPC to come out of its deficit? As the Public Trustee's 2007-08 dividend was less than the OPC's deficit it is hard to believe that this merger is going to represent any kind of marvellous financial solution.

Does anyone really believe that in light of the modest dividend that the Public Trustee NSW pays Treasury, that the Public Trustee can miraculously refinance the Protective Commissioner? It does look absurd. The Minister has so far not publicly disclosed any substantial details about the procedures, models and methods for the merger. So until some proper detailed information is released the public has a right to be suspicious and worried about the proposed merger. What assurance does the public have that Treasury will financially support the newly merged organisation when it has been progressively slashing its support for the OPC since 2003-04? How can the OPC's finances be brought into "the black" when the Public Trustee's dividend is smaller than the OPC's debt?

Put those questions to the Minister. So far the silence from his office on this whole matter has been deafening. office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Serving the public = "enterprise"

2009-02-10T13:02:00.000-08:00

How do you feel when economic terms are used to refer to you instead of referring to your essential humanity? In the past two decades a new dialect has developed in the NSW Government and its departments. The language that dominates is shaped by business jargon and to a slightly lesser extent the peculiar jargon of Information Technology.

A small but simple example is found on page 1 of the 2008 Annual Report of the Office of the Protective Commissioner:

"OPC is a business centre within the NSW Attorney General's Department."

So the emphasis subtly shifts from one that used to be centred in serving individual human beings and is changed into one that refers to the work done by the OPC in terms of business. In February 2003 David Braue wrote in CIO magazine about the concept of "shared services" in government. He quoted Warwick Watkins who was the director general of the NSW Department of Information Technology and Management:

"It's important to view government as a range of enterprises."

When we passively accept such jargon we let ourselves become lulled into a bizarre way of thinking. Instead of human dignity being put at the centre of public service the reductionist view that all things can be measured in terms of financial cost/benefit takes centre stage. People who need services are reclassified as "units" in an ever-increasingly centralised system of commercial processes.

Such language is then also used in other contexts to depersonalise human dignity of employees. Instead of candidly stating that employees will be sacked impersonal phrases are used: "We are releasing resources into the marketplace".

Do people with disabilities and mental health problems want to be served and treated with equal dignity as the rest of the population? Undoubtedly! Many employees at the OPC show wonderful caring behaviour towards those members of the community that they serve. They work hard to care and to understand people who have tremendous needs and face challenges in life. It takes a sensitive and carefully trained person to work among people in the community whose needs are so great that the OPC is needed to assist them.

So we must ask why leaders in government beyond the OPC have made a top-down move to compel the use of economic reductionist jargon. Why has the OPC been compelled to call itself a "business centre"? Since when did serving the needs of people become a business enterprise? Think about it. The infusion of this jargon, and the thinking that informs it, subtly and horribly reshapes attitudes in a way that denudes human dignity. Individuals are reduced to insensitive and impersonal economic classifications.

As the moguls behind the merger of the OPC and Public Trustee persist in their scheme to cut-costs, the public has a right to critically evaluate the whole proposal. The economic juggernaut that these people have unleashed needs to be stopped. Service is not about commercial transactions but rather is about putting the needs of human beings first and treating individuals with dignity and respect. The economic jargon used by government departments contradicts the vacuous "mission statements" that hang in public reception areas about being the best possible efficient service provider. Departmental executives must reform their own attitudes and start by rejecting this impersonal jargon. The emperor has no clothes on (government and departments) and we are long overdue in loudly and honestly stating this obvious point.

If we do not challenge the merger then the public will be much worse off in this economic reductionist culture. Tell the Attorney General how you feel about being regarded as a commercial entity rather than as a person of dignity and worth. Tell the Attorney General to open up a conversation instead of the top-down monologue that tries to squash dissent and criticism. Let the Minister know that you dislike being treated in a paternalist manner as his department pushes the merger along and excludes you altogether: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Merger and Public Trustee Branch Offices

2009-02-09T12:37:00.000-08:00

Since before Christmas 2008 various clients of the Public Trustee and alarmed citizens have written letters of concern to the Attorney General and to the Director General of the Attorney General's Department. So far only a few individuals have had their letters acknowledged with a "form letter" reply:

"The matters you raise have been noted and are presently receiving attention. A response will be provided in due course".

What several people involved in the "stop-the-merger" protest have been indicating is that the branch office network of the Public Trustee is vulnerable to unnecessary cuts in employees. A loss in staff always affects the delivery of services to the public.

Among the critical observations made by citizens and clients to the Minister:

As the Protective Commissioner (OPC) was shifted to the Parramatta Justice Precinct in late 2007, it is highly unlikely that the Public Trustee's branch office in Macquarie St Parramatta would survive the merger.
That the claims about achieving operational efficiencies was mere bureaucratic propaganda and that under the jargon of "shared corporate services" that employees would forfeit their jobs (which impacts on public services).
That the rural-regional network of Public Trustee branches would be expected to take on the added duties of the case files of clients of the OPC.

Since the decision to merge was hastily conceived after the Minister read the recommendations of IPART's report - a report that called for incresed funding by Treasury for the OPC - the Attorney General's Department had to suddenly swing into a mad rush to implement the merger. In the mad rush the Department has failed to devise a "staff impact plan" (which it is obliged to do in assessing how employee positions will topple) and to have a properly costed budgetary plan.

It has been pointed out that the private sector concept of shared corporate services is being misapplied and deliberately misconstrued in the public sector as a way of rationalising the elimination of jobs. In the private sector the emphasis has been on freeing up staff from duties that can be undertaken by another service provider (like payrolls) while deploying employees back into customer service. This private sector logic is NOT being applied in the Attorney General's Department. It is just a paper-thin veil for eliminating employees rather than deploying staff into serving the clients and strengthening the organisation's capacity to support staff with good technical services.

As the Parramatta Justice Precinct is rather "full" at the moment it is difficult to see how the employees of the Public Trustee in Macquarie St can be accommodated at the Precinct. So presumably it means that (a). some of the 60 temporary staff employed by hiring firms in the existing OPC will be dismissed (b). that a few Public Trustee employees will be continuing in their work but relocated to the Precinct (c). other Public Trustee employees will either be demoted or be faced with the prospect of having to quit altogether. It means then that fewer employees will be expected to do the work currently undertaken by many employees. That sort of outcome never leads to efficient public service and never improves staff morale.

In the rural-regional Public Trustee branch offices it is not feasible in the current arrangements for those small branches to accommodate extra new staff. The offices in Port Macquarie and Lismore, for example, would have to be closed and re-opened in other premises if employees from the OPC were to be redeployed to serve their clients. That involves considerable expenditure in cancelling leases, starting fresh leases, refurbishing premises with security-reception areas, and the costs involved in computer services of client case files. It will take more than $100,000 in expenditure to outfit a new Lismore and a new Port Macquarie office if they are given extra staff. If no OPC staff are to be transferred to these rural-regional offices, then how can the existing Public Trustee staff be expected to assume the burdens and duties of serving OPC clients? The existing offices would have to be refurbished in secure-reception areas, and the employees would have to be trained in protected estates work (taking 3 years minimum), and the problem of incompatible computer software and data retrieval has to be solved (a highly costly exercise).

The whole idea of the merger does not have the best interest of the public at heart nor does it have staff morale at heart. It does not reflect best business orlegal practice. Outside NSW wherever the Protective Commissioner and Public Trustee are amalgamated the services spiral downwards, the "performance indicators" of corporate culture that supposedly measure efficiency decline, citizens who want probate services find it very disconcerting to encounter OPC clients who have serious behavioural problems (it tends to turn clients/potential clients away). The employees of the interstate Public Trustees all regret that they have the protected estate matters because they are labour intensive and the costs associated with such matters are never reflected in the fees levied.

Let the Minister know why you disagree with the merger: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Courage Under Fire Nicholas Cowdery

2009-02-08T13:36:00.000-08:00

Three cheers for the Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery.

He has delivered some stinging criticism of the Government's obsession with corporate culture in the DPP's 2008 Annual Report. His comments could apply across the whole of Government. What Cowdery candidly states could easily be restated in reference to the difficulties faced by the Office of the Protective Commissioner and the Public Trustee. Both of these agencies have been drawn into the vortex of an administrative nightmare that is superintended by the Director-General of the Attorney General's Department. Let Cowdery speak for himself:

“Budget cuts, in bureaucratic language, are described as ‘efficiency improvement dividends’ and therein lies a clue to the way they are to be addressed ... As a demand-driven agency working to capacity the Office has no ‘fat’ to cut when requirements of this kind are made ... in June 2007 the Treasurer requested the Auditor-General to conduct a performance audit of the Office. The objective was to determine whether it operated efficiently. Presumably, if it did not, then by becoming more efficient it could do the same work for less money and return funds to the Government ... Importantly, the Auditor-General did not find that the Office is inefficient.” DPP 2008 Annual Report {copyright (c) Office of Director of Public Prosecutions}available at: http://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/annual%20reports/ODPP%20Final%2007-08.pdf

No doubt Cowdery's candour has left a bitter taste in the Minister's mouth. What Cowdery says needs to be echoed in the rising tide of protest to the NSW Attorney General against the merger of the NSW Public Trustee and Office of Protective Commissioner. Email the Minister with your criticisms: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

MERGER OF OPC LIKE MAKEOVER TV

2009-02-06T14:19:00.000-08:00

The agenda to merge the OPC and PT could be compared to TV shows of home and garden makeovers that are done in a weekend:

Set an absurd deadline that pits the implementation team against the clock (or in this case calendar - 30 June 2009).
Emphasise the urgency to complete the task on time.
Parade before the audience various "quick-fix" experts suggesting ways in which one can cut corners and save costs because there is an urgent deadline.
Repeat the sub-text that time, money and other resources are stretched to breaking point.
Imply that any sceptic of the project is ill-informed and envious of "success".

Finally, spend a lot of money while claiming to make essential cut-backs (like reducing staff) and create a monstrous mess. The outcome will be an organisation that is more dysfunctional than ever before. Meanwhile those who devised the merger and are employed as the most senior departmental executive officers will tick boxes on their contractual annual performance reports claiming they led the reforms and it must be a massive success just because they say so.

The rush to merge the OPC and PT by 30 June 2009 fits the script perfectly. The sense of urgency surrounding the implementation project is sheer propaganda. The cutting of corners to produce a result in a short space of time is bereft of mature wise thinking and planning. The rush is farcical when one understands that Senior Public Servants want an entirely new outfit that involves massive changes being implemented by the "urgent" deadline.

A project of this scale, if it was to be done thoroughly and properly with an eye on ensuring no gaps or mistakes are made, should involve careful consultation with clients. It should be followed by a sensible timeline that would allow a bare minimum of a year for planning and preparations before changing internal structures and pushing legislation through Parliament.

Let the Attorney General know that he is supervising a monumental disaster in this project: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

MERGER WON'T SAVE OPC FROM DISASTER

2009-02-05T21:18:00.000-08:00

The Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) desperately needs community support because the current NSW Government is not doing the right thing by the OPC. If the Government really cared it would abandon its current legislation to merge the OPC and Public Trustee.

The OPC is in serious financial deficit - a deficit caused by the decisions of those in positions of power outside the OPC. The problem has not been created by the employees who work in the OPC. The problem is not the fault of Ms Imelda Dodds who holds the statutory office as Protective Commissioner.

The fault lies elsewhere in the Budget Committee of Cabinet, among some executive officers in Treasury, and the Attorney General.

The merger cannot solve the financial crisis because the Public Trustee does not make enough of a profit to bring the OPC out of debt nor can it cover the salaries of people who work at the OPC. If the two organisations were to be merged then a painstaking and careful process would have to be initiated that would take a couple of years of work. The current rush to pass a Bill in Parliament before 30 June 2009 is utter madness. It is based on politically expedient ideas and not on supporting and serving the community (or supporting the employees for that matter).

So many cries for the reform of the OPC have been raised by advocacy groups and carers over the last two decades. While Ms Dodds cannot be faulted - she has been listening and she understands - it is her masters who seem inflexible and lack wisdom, vision and deep understanding.

Why has the Minister not released the IPART 2008 Report into the OPC's fees? Why was the decision to merge made just after IPART submitted its report? The terms of reference for IPART (April 2008) never mentioned the merger. It was never mentioned in any documents submitted to IPART. The idea was never raised on 7 August 2008 at the IPART roundtable gathering. So the idea had to come from someone in a senior position in Government, such as a minister, and/or from the director of the Attorney General's Department. The fact that the IPART report has been sidesteppedshows that the Government is desperate to find money and to improve its public image. The rush to push the Bill into Parliament reeks of expediency, haste, and no serious planning for the future. It is all quite contrary to the Government's community service obligations and to the provisions of its Towards 2030 planning document.

Its time the Minister answered the public's demand for an open and transparent inquiry into the proposed merger. It is time that the OPC received a substantial injection of taxpayer funds. It is time to shove the 15 reports (dated from 1999-2008) about the OPCs fees, staff and structures in the dustbin. It is time that the Government listened and then heeded the voice of the public. Let the Attorney General know enough is enough. Fix the OPC and stop the merger as the band-aid solution: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Disability Groups Misunderstand

2009-02-04T16:47:00.000-08:00

The Government has not revealed many details about the merger of the Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) and the Public Trustee. So it is not surprising to hear that disability and carer groups in regional parts of NSW have been "celebrating" the announcement of the merger. In the eyes of these groups the merger will mean that they receive better access to services because the existing Public Trustee has a network state-wide of branches including Armidale, Broken Hill, Gosford, Lismore, Newcastle, Port Macquarie and Wollongong, plus the clerk of the local court house is an agent for the Public Trustee.

Sorry folks but your euphoria is illusory.

First, be aware of the fact that Treasury has cut subsidies to the OPC that has run it into $4.4 million debt. Second, the OPC has unstable staff levels because 60 employees resigned in 2007 rather than be forced to work in Parramatta. Third, it takes between three to five years to train employees to a satisfactory level of competence in handling protected estates (the client case files of the OPC). The Public Trustee staff have no background knowledge, expertise or training in handling protected estates.

If you imagine that the OPC will simply transfer some of their employees out to the existing Public Trustee branches - then think again. It is not a simple exercise of just transferring a handful people to places like Armidale, Lismore and Port Macquarie.

Here are a few points to digest:

The Mini-Budget opens the way for the Attorney General's Department to slash jobs - it won't be increasing staff levels.
The Mini-Budget is supposed to cut budgets so that $100,000 p.a. can be saved in this merger.

In light of 1 & 2 then see how "impossible" the task becomes to assist rural and regional clients of the OPC via the merger using the Public Trustee's branch offices:

The computer systems of the OPC and Public Trustee are incompatible and the Public Trustee has a software programme for probate and trusts that is unique in the world. There is no "simple" solution to amalgamating the OPCs computer records of case files, financial records and so on. It will require millions of dollars in expenditure to upgrade and integrate the 2 offices' computer networks.
Even if the computer systems could be merged it would still require trained OPC staff to be transferred to the Public Trustee's branches. However that cannot happen in a time of budgetary slashing because enormous sums of money will be needed to do the following:

The Public Trustee's branch office premises in Armidale, Broken Hill, Lismore and Port Macquarie are too small to accomodate extra staff. So the Attorney General's Department, which has taken control of the Public Trustee's assets (such as office buildings, cars etc) under its shared corporate services scheme will have to find new and larger premises.
The Attorney General's Department will then cancel leases on existing rural/regional buildings and pay out the unused leases
It will have to pay to refurbish new offices (which includes building special security reception areas to interview in safety those clients who have serious behavioural problems).
All the costs of arranging this will then be converted into "administrative charges" that the new merged organisation will have to reimburse the Attorney General's Department.

The amount of money needed to follow those 4 basic steps to create a new larger office in just the city of Lismore will exceed the Mini-Budget estimate of saving $100,000.

In other words, the announced merger is not based on any careful planning, any meticulous budget estimates or costing inquiry into transferring staff, training existing staff in the Public Trustee and vice verse, etc.

The whole exercise is just PR so the Government can be seen to be cutting costs by reducing staff. It also means that the new merged organisation (which is to have a new name as yet unannounced) will create a new system of fees and it will produce higher charges passed on to clients. This is therefore not about improving services to the public. All it is doing is enabling Treasury to grab $68 million off the Public Trustee and to dump the $4.4 million deficit on the new merged organisation with no provision for boosted funding. If you think the OPC is in a mess just wait till the merger happens - you'll reckon that the Keystone Cops could do a better job of running the Attorney General's Department.

So let Mr Hatzistergos know what you think of his grand plan to merge: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

No Consultation on Public Trustee NSW Merger

2009-02-03T15:39:00.000-08:00

So far the NSW Government has failed to consult the clients of the OPC and Public Trustee about the merger. The OPC website does refer to the announced merger whereas the Public Trustee website is curiously silent. The plan to merge was obviously hatched in October 2008 and the mini-budget was released in November 2008. The Attorney General has had four months to prepare an explanatory brochure or letter. One could succeed at extracting blood from a stone since the Attorney general has failed to issue any clear and explicit information.

The merger affects more than 58,000 clients. It is appalling then that legislation can be hurriedly drafted so that it can be introduced into Parliament in the first fortnight of March 2009 and there has been no explanatory letter distributed to clients. In 1998 the Public Trustee Corporation Bill was subject to public review. Advertisements were published in newspapers and the entire branch network of the Public Trustee had notices up in the public reception areas to notify clients.

Advocacy groups representing the disabled and mentally ill have uniformly objected to the lack of consultation. People With Disability Australia issued a position paper in early December 2008 stating:

" The proposed merger has been initiated without consultation with key stakeholder groups within government or outside it. "

The Mental Health Coordinating Council of NSW likewise stated in December 2008:
"[we] are uncomfortable with the absence of a transparent broad stakeholder consultative process."

The Disability Council of NSW:
"few details have emerged (to date) about the processes, mechanisms and consultative frameworks to be deployed as the merger becomes real."

Why is the Director General of the Attorney General's Department deflecting inquiries with vague replies on this matter? Why is he apparently implying that stakeholders will have to wait until after the merger processes have been implemented and presumably after the Bill passes? Does the Attorney General prefer a monologue to a community-based dialogue? Is the Attorney General hyper-sensitive to scrutiny and reflective criticism of this proposed merger? Is there something being hidden from the public? Clients and concerned citizens have been sending in correspondence since before Christmas and are merely treated to a bureaucratic side-step answer:

"The matters you raise have been noted and are presently receiving attention. A response wil be provided in due course."

Time the Minister was pinned down for explicit "no-spin" information and answers to direct questions: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Budget Committee in Cabinet

2009-02-02T12:15:00.000-08:00

Last time we pointed out that the Protective Commissioner has a $4.4 million deficit. It exists because the NSW Treasury has been deliberately under-funding the Office. The Protective Commissioner needs Treasury subsidies to meet its community service obligations towards the disabled and mentally ill people of NSW.

Some parts of the Government have squeezed the Protective Commissioner dry. The problem has been orchestrated so that Treasury can quietly dump the mess on the Public Trustee all the while facing the public with the message "the merger is a great solution".

But who is responsible for deciding what funds are allocated to the Protective Commissioner? Staff at the Office of the Protective Commissioner obviously draw up an operating budget. However the staff do not hold the purse strings. In 2004 Mr Greg Pearce of the General Purpose Standing Committee in Parliament posed this question to the then Attorney General Bob Debus:

"Why has there been a decrease in the budget for the Office of the Protective
Commissioner from $5 m in 2002-2003 to $3 m in 2003-2004?"

Debus replied:

"Treasury provided interim funding of $5 million in 2002-2003 while a review of the
OPC's fee structure was carried out by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory
Tribunal (IPART).
Pending the outcome of the IPART review, an interim budget allocation of $3
million was made for 2003-2004. This was to ensure continued operation of the
OPC until the introduction of the new fee structure.
A number of options have now been considered and a new fee structure
endorsed. Recently the Budget Committee of Cabinet agreed to increase the
allocation to OPC in 2003-2004 to $9 million as part of a new OPC fee structure.
The new fee structure commenced on 1 October 2003.
The structure provides for OPC to receive minimum fees for each client, to be
met partly from fees levied on the client and partly from public funding. The
injection of public funds relieves the burden on small estates."

So who belongs to the Budget Committee in Cabinet? Labor MLC Ian West provides the answer on his website:

"Budget Committee of NSW Cabinet is comprised of 4 Ministers, those being the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Treasurer, and the Special Minister. The NSW Budget Committee approves Agency (Department) budget proposals for the upcoming year as well as forward estimates in revenue and spending."

Before Nathan Rees became the Premier the members of the Budget Committe in Cabinet were: Morris Iemma, John Watkins, Michael Costa and John Della Bosca. After Iemma's resignation on 5 September 2008 the Budget Committee members became: Nathan Rees, Carmel Tebbutt, Eric Roozendaal and John Della Bosca. (John Robertson has just replaced Della Bosca as Special Minister of State).

What part did the Budget Committee members play in deciding to push the merger and to shelve IPART's recommendations for increased Treasury funding? Who came up with the idea of the merger as the way of sweeping the mess under the rug? Go ahead and ask the Attorney General: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

IPART & PROTECTIVE COMMISSIONER MERGER

2009-02-01T12:35:00.000-08:00

Last year the Protective Commissioner applied for a review of its fees at the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). The fee review was authorised by Premier Iemma.

IPART received submissions and invited the consultants Ernst & Young to assist in the analysis of the Protective Commissioner's financial records.

IPART also held a roundtable meeting of interested parties on 7 August 2008. It was noted that the Protective Commissioner would need a minimum of $6.8 million from Treasury in the 2008-09 financial year. Treasury has under-cut its subsidy from $9 million in 2003-04 down to $2.825 million in 2006-07.

At the meeting the Chairman said:
“We see as our job to come up with a fair structure of charges we want to be able to defend as being fair and transparent ... That may well involve a bigger subsidy than the present fee structure ... there will have to be a bigger public subsidy ... the nature of this inquiry is that we furnish our report to the Government. When we do a determination we make it public. When it is under section 9, as this report is, of our act, it is a report which makes recommendations. So it is for the government to determine if and when it is released. I would be extraordinarily surprised if the government didn’t release it.” (Read the transcript here).

Well the Chairman is destined to be surprised because shortly after he handed his report to the Government (30 September 2008), the merger was announced in the mini-budget. IPART's advice has been shelved because it requires Treasury to increase its funding. Treasury apparently cannot afford to fund the Protective Commissioner for a fraction of the cost it does in subsidising school bus passes (around $30 million). Instead the Government is hiding behind its claims of being cash poor and is dumping the problem on to the Public Trustee. In other words Treasury wants to force another Government agency to pay for a Bill that Treasury is refusing to cover!

It is even messier and dirtier than just a sweep of dust under the rug. The Protective Commissioner is carrying in 2008-09 a deficit of $4.4 million, and so the Public Trustee is also being expected to bring the Protective Commissioner out of the red. Basically the Public Trustee is being asked to come up with around $11 million this year to fix up the mess created by Treasury.

Contact the Attorney General today and tell him what you think of this grubby little scheme:office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT PUBLIC TRUSTEE MERGER

2009-01-31T12:39:00.000-08:00

The NSW Government is hiding its real reasons behind the merger of the Public Trustee and Protective Commissioner. Remember the merger was announced in November 2008.

According to the Public Trustee's 2008 Annual Report its future is controlled by 3 "stakeholders" in the Government:

The NSW Attorney General

The Director General of the Attorney General's Department

NSW Treasury

These stakeholders are probably the key players behind the decision to merge.

NSW Treasury needs the law to be changed so that it can grab the Public Trustee's "future fund". The Auditor General's 2008 Report to Parliament (Volume 5) states:

We recommend the Trustee and the Treasury review and, if necessary, amend the
legisation governing the Interest Suspense Account maintained by the Trustee to
resolve concerns over the Trustee's rights and obligations relating to funds
held in the Account. Funds of $68.4 million ($69.3 million in 2006-07) have
accumulated in the Interest Suspense Account of the Common Fund, which is held
by the Trustee under the Public Trustee Act 1913. There has been debate for a
number of years regarding the Trustee's rights and obligations relating to these
funds and it may require legislative amendments to resolve this issue.

This "debate" is just a re-run of the failed Public Trustee Corporation Bill of 1997-98. Treasury wanted the funds and so pushed the case to corporatise. Treasury was told "no!" The big "no" came when the Legislative Council voted against the Bill. Read the Parliamentary debate and what Hon. John Hannaford had to say about Treasury's schemes and plots. Treasury did not like that set-back and they are trying it on again. Treasury cannot accept the umpire's decision.

It's time the public told Treasury where to get off on this "debate". Hands off the Public Trustee. You were told by Parliament in 1998 to pull your head in. You are not entitled to the money. You don't deserve the money either. Treasury has deliberately cut its subsidies and left the Protective Commissioner with a $4.4 million deficit. What a rip-off! Cut the funds to one agency, help yourself to $68 million and then shove the mess into what is supposed to become a new efficient organisation. What a shonky bit of spin doctor propaganda. Tell the Attorney General what you think of this grubby scheme which was conveniently announced in the same month that the Auditor General wrote his report. Email the Attorney General at: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

Protective Commissioner Merger

2009-01-30T13:51:00.000-08:00

The Office of the Protective Commissioner (OPC) is to be merged with the NSW Public Trustee through a Bill about to be introduced into parliament.

The NSW Government has received several submissions from disability and mental health advocacy groups such as:

People with Disability Australia
Disability Council NSW
Mental Health Co-ordinating Council

CommunityNet has also pointed people living in Sydney's Greater Western region to the submission from the Disability Council NSW. CommunityNet offers citizens the opportunity of discussing the matter on their website.

One point in common raised by these groups is about the need to include in the new legislation the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. StoptheMerger believes that the NSW Attorney General will NOT include any list of the rights or even any reference to the UN Convention. Why? All you need do is read his speech published 11 April 2008 where he rejects a charter of rights and human rights jurisprudence. He believes that Parliament is sovereign and dislikes the idea of bills of rights being overseen by the courts.

The blogger Peak Energy has published his own notes under the blunt title "Hatzistergos the Horrible" (read it here).

You should email Mr Hatzistergos and protest about the merger legislation. Ask him is he setting aside his personal philosophy about human rights and including the UN Convention concerning the rights of people with disabilities in the new legislation. Since Australia ratified the convention on 17 July 2008 our nation is obliged to amend relevant legislation to reflect those rights. Is the NSW Attorney General going to reflect best legal practice and bring NSW into line with international law? Or will he choose instead to make NSW look legally eccentric in the eyes of the world? Let him know what you think especially in connection with the legislation that will merge the OPC and Public Trustee. The OPC manages the financial affairs of many persons with disabilities. Email him at: office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au

NSW PUBLIC TRUSTEE MERGER

2009-01-29T17:58:00.000-08:00

On 11 November 2008 the NSW Government issued its mini-budget . In it was the announcement that the Public Trustee and Office of the Protective Commissioner are to be merged.

That kind of an announcement sounds about as exciting as watching paint dry. Not this time around, folks! We are watching the old hustle in the game of three shells and a pea.

We have all heard the spin doctor script about saving money, being efficient, reducing red tape, and improving service delivery. What else would we expect when the 3 shells are being moved around the table? But what are they hiding under one of the shells? What are the real reasons behind this merger?

How about these juicy tid-bits for starters:

Treasury wants to grab $68 million from the Public Trustee's "future fund"
The Protective Commissioner has a $4.4 million deficit because Treasury is playing Uncle Scrooge in its funding obligations
The Government is keeping under wraps the September 2008 IPART report that recommends Treasury pay $7 - $9 million to fix up the Protective Commissioner's debt. IPART's "inconvenient truth" causes some officials to go bonkers, and the "get out of jail" card is merge the two organisations.

The evidence is not hard to find. Check it out for yourself on-line:
1. On the $68 million future fund see the Auditor General's Nov 2008 Report to Parliament.
2. Back-track to Hansard of 27 May 1998 - Treasury wanted that future fund and Parliament said "no!"
3. The Protective Commissioner's deficit is found on page 33 of its 2008 Annual Report.
4. IPART Roundtable chat of 7 August 2008 on why Treasury should increase its funding of the Protective Commissioner.

In the first parliamentary session of 2009 a new Bill is going to be introduced that will create the merger. So it's not too late to start sending your letters of protest to your local member of parliament and to the NSW Attorney General. Ask him to explain why the decision to merge came so soon after IPART handed in its report. Ask him why Treasury is after the future fund of the Public Trustee. Ask him why he has allowed Treasury to under-fund the Protective Commissioner so that it is unable to meet its community service obligations to the disabled and mentally incapacitated people of NSW.

Email the Attorney General to let him know why you disagree with the decision to merge at office@hatzistergos.minister.nsw.gov.au