The Role of our Political Masters

The Minister takes full responsibility for the Agency... Agamedes wonders if this is a serious mis-use of the potential abilities of a politician.

What is the true -- or best-value-for-money -- role for a political minister? With the recent stuff-up of insulation installations there were calls to sack the minister. With the blow-out of Perth Arena project costs, there are calls to direct blame at the minister. Who should really be made to carry the can for failed government projects?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In Saturday's West (20 Mar 2010), Zoltan Kovacs continues the theme of blaming political ministers for the failings of their agencies:

"However, there is a powerful argument that if there were significant failings in the department, these were also the failings of any minister whose job it was to supervise it on behalf of the people. Otherwise, what is the point of having a minister with overriding authority?" (The peril of the buck that will never stop anywhere, The West, 20 Mar 2010)

At first glance, that makes sense. The minister runs the department, the department stuffs up, the minister should have prevented the stuff-up. But is that right?

Politicians -- including ministers -- come and go. They are not selected for their managerial ability, nor even for their knowledge of an agency's area of responsibility. A politician is elected as an indication of support for the policies of a political party. A politician may then be selected to be a minister but the selection pool contains only politicians -- none of whom have been elected on the basis of their ability to manage an agency.

How can we expect a politician to have the ability to manage a government department?!

A politician represents a party which has, or makes, policies. A minister has a department which is managed by career public servants. The minister should set policies and leave departmental management to the paid public servants. If departmental management -- or project management -- is stuffed up -- it is the public service management team which should carry the can.

Of course, that doesn't really work...

A minister sets policy; public servants implement policy. Public service promotion should be based on ability... If a departmental employee stuffs up then the public service promotion process is at fault.

Yet when the minister interferes in the public service selection process -- by parachuting in their own political ally -- the minister is taking responsibility for the work of that ally. If the ministerially-appointed ally stuffs up, the minister is to blame. If a minister appoints an incompetent project manager then that minister should wear the blame.

The minister also has power. A departmental head may upset a minister; that minister may force a change. Is that true? After all -- we've all watched Yes, Minister and seen the public service ignore the minister... We also all know, that mud sticks. If you disagree with the minister, you will lose favour with all of your boot-licking fellow workers. More importantly, your disagreement will be noticed -- and remembered -- by managers. You will be identified as "an independent thinker", " a trouble-maker". Your promotional prospects will be reduced.

It is in the interests of every public servant, to be seen to agree with the minister.

With that sort of boot-licking mentality -- perhaps reinforced by an ignorant and short-tempered minister -- no-one wants to disagree. No-one wants to be the bearer of bad news. Worse yet: no-one wants to be associated with a "bad" decision.

If you are asked to make one hundred decisions, the odds are that at least one will lead to negative consequences. It is best to make no decisions at all. Pass all decisions to someone else. The easiest direction for decisions is up.If the public service wishes to protect all of its members -- every decision must be made by a minister.

So who is to blame for a bad decision? "Definitely not me..." "Not me..." "Not me, either." "My manager..." "My manager's manager..." "The minister agreed..." Aha! The minister "agreed".

Amongst the hundreds of decisions passed up to the minister, the minister failed to see what no-one else will admit to having seen, that this one particular decision could lead to a stuff-up. So sack the minister!

Here's a better answer

Be clear on the relative responsibilities of the minister and the public service. If there were "significant failings" in the department -- talk to the head of that department. Talk to the CEO. That person was selected for their alleged ability to manage a department. If they are incapable -- sack them.

The minister has been elected to implement government policy. Let's look at an example:

The government policy is, to pay for houses to be insulated. (Policy? Tactic? Decision? Wish? Whatever...) This is what the minister says must be done: Pay to have houses insulated.

The role of the public service is, to make it happen. Is it not possible? Say so -- and explain why not. Too expensive? The minister may say, have some more money. Too expensive? The minister may say, restrict the number of houses. Too expensive? The minister may say, okay, don't do it.

If the minister is a total fool, they may simply say, Do it anyway. In which case, yes, the minister is responsible for subsequent stuff-ups.

In a competent world, the minister will set the direction. The public service will suggest limits and caveats. The minister will select a preferred compromise. After that, the public service will make it happen.

Should we expect the minister to say, Don't kill anyone? That should go without saying. Do we expect the minister to specifically say, Only pay people who have actually installed insulation? No, that should go without saying. Must the minister state clearly, in writing, Spend no more than the money that is allocated? Again, that goes without saying.

If the department has no person who understands the points which go without saying -- then they are not competent to manage the project. So hire someone! If a public service manager cannot recognise the limitations of their staff -- then employ more competent public service managers.

Employ public servants to do things. And let the minister take care of the policy.

What is the extent of the minister's authority?

Zoltan Kovacs writes, "what is the point of having a minister with overriding authority?"

If the minister does have "overriding authority" -- does that mean that they can hire and fire, promote and demote? Those are the basic rewards and punishments available to a manager. If the minister can hire & fire, promote & demote -- then the only safe option for a public servant is to agree with the minister. Who will then have no time for "policy".

We must maintain the "independence" of the public service -- separate the powers of the minister and the public service. Allow the minister to set broad directions. Expect the public service to perform, competently.

If the policy is wrong -- blame the minister. If the implementation is wrong -- blame the public service.

A minister is elected on the basis of stated party policies. If the policy is wrong -- change the government at the next election. A public servant is selected on the basis of perceived competency. If the perception is wrong -- remove the incompetent public servant.

Give the minister authority to set policy. Give the public service authority to implement projects to support that policy.

Separate the authority, responsibility and duties. And when it all goes horribly wrong -- point the finger at the correct person.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Who is Really at Risk?

Pacemaker woman banned from boxing ring: Agamedes wonders, Who is really being protected?

Under the headline, Woman boxer banned again, today's West (13 Mar 10) notes that Elisha Buckley has again been banned from competing in boxing trials. Buckley is a champion woman boxer -- with a pacemaker.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

An "independent cardiologist" has said that it is safe for Buckley to compete, to fight against other women in trials for a world amateur boxing championship. So why has AIBA, the Amateur International Boxing Association, reinstated the ban?

I don't really know much about pacemakers but I can read. So I went to that great source of all knowledge -- good and bad -- the internet. Just a quick scan of the first few Google hits on "pacemaker lifestyle impact risk".

For some reason, doctors seem to be concerned about infection... Oh, okay, that may be because the body is cut open to install the pacemaker. And cutting open a body leads to the chance of infection. Heart rate... battery life... aha: lifestyle. This seems to sum it up: "Pacemaker patients can even participate in more strenuous activities such as marathons or scuba diving after consultation with their cardiologists. Any activity restrictions usually result from other medical problems and not from the pacemaker." (Wood & Ellenbogen (*), 2002)

Okay, that's an old (2002) article. But it's the first that I found that covers what I'm interested in: the risk of physical impact on the heart.

Again from Wood & Ellenbogen: "There are some situations, however, that are to be avoided if you have a pacemaker, such as full-contact sports, which may damage the pacemaker." Boxing may not be a "full contact" sport -- but the aim of boxing is to make heavy contact of your fist against your opponent's body. The chest -- containing the heart and the pacemaker -- must be a prime target.

So who is at risk?

Elisha Buckley may want to put herself at risk, to put herself into a situation where an opponent will try to hit her as hard as possible. Buckley is fully entitled to put herself at risk. A cardiologist has evaluated the risk and -- we must assume -- stated that the risk of damage to the pacemaker is low.

What about the opponent? Put yourself in the place of the next person to box against Buckley:

Your opponent is known to have a pacemaker. You can visualise exactly where that pacemaker is hidden. Do you deliberately aim for that pacemaker because it is a point of potential weakness? If you want to win -- of course you do.

Or do you -- as a considerate human being -- avoid punching directly onto the pacemaker? Do you avoid that area of potential weakness -- and set yourself up for losing? Or, can you possibly pretend that you do not know about the pacemaker, and fight your normal fight? No way! You either fight to win, or fight to lose. If you want to win, you learn everything you can about your opponent. Then you avoid strengths -- and attack at points of weakness.

On the other hand... Perhaps that pacemaker really is a point of weakness... Perhaps a severe impact may cause it to fail... and the results could be fatal.

Imagine this: You aim punches at the chest. You know that there is a pacemaker. You bypass Buckley's defence and score a major hit -- right over the pacemaker. The force of your punch moves the pacemaker, it stops working, Buckley is rushed to hospital.

Do you feel really bad? Of course you do. But you fought to win, and won.

Will Buckley's lawyers say, oh well, not your fault, just send flowers and we'll forget the whole thing... Oh, sure, like that'll happen!

Buckley is entitled to take any risk that she likes. (No strictly true. After all, we do live in a nanny state. But true enough.) Buckley may accept risk for herself -- but she is not entitled to change the sport, nor to bring extra risk to others.

By bringing a potential handicap to the sport, Buckley would affect other fighters. Do they hit hard at what they hope is a weakness? Or do they weaken their own chances, by avoiding the risk. Either way, Buckley will change the sport.

It's unfortunate that she needs a pacemaker. The pacemaker does not entitle Buckley to make the sport more risky for other boxers.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

(*) Wood & Ellenbogen, 2002: Cardiac Pacemakers From the Patient’s Perspective, by Mark A Wood MD & Kenneth A Ellenbogen MD, Circulation, American Heart Association, at http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/105/18/2136 as at March 2010

Perth Population Policy: Populate and Perish!

Perth rushes rapidly towards a future full of people and cars. Agamedes does his best to support this growth.

Today, I saved my six buckets of water. As requested by Water Corporation, I did my best. Perth is perpetually short of water. I helped to protect our way of life and to protect our state's future, by saving six buckets of water.

Well, not so much "save". But I did recycle six buckets of grey water.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In today's paper there is an article headed, "Perth in 2050: full of people and cars" (The West, 5 Mar 2010). Our population "will more than double" by the year 2050. Even before that, by 2020, "Cost of traffic congestion in Perth is tipped to increase 65%". That's just ten years from now.

And in the here and now, "Perth residents are the worst in the country when it comes to cutting their water use". Oh dear. What can I do to save water?

The washing machine was running. I pulled the wastewater hose from its drain and let the "grey" wastewater fill the laundry tub. I poured the grey water onto fruit trees around the garden.

I know that six buckets of water were involved. I used a bucket to shift it all from the tub to the garden. Look at all the water that I saved!

But...

All I did was to water the garden with grey water.

For several years, our small number of fruit trees have struggled. We water only on allowed days, for just 20 minutes per reticulation station. The vegetable garden is a lost cause -- no vegetable can survive our summer heat on that small amount of water. Our fruit trees struggled -- less fruit and what there was was dry.

Having used grey water on the garden -- water which would otherwise have run down the drain -- will I reduce the regular reticulation of the garden? No way! That grey water was a bonus. I will do it again, whenever I have the time.

How to really save water

Due to Perth's perpetual water shortage, our garden has suffered. I like to have a green and growing garden.

Apparently, "Perth is the quarter acre block capital of the country, with the lowest proportion of units and apartments". Perhaps the majority of Perth residents would enjoy a green and growing garden...

For whatever reason, people use water.

More people, more water used.

If we want to really "save" water -- reduce the population.

"Perth's population will more than double..." Will more than double? Do we have no choice in that? If we want to save water -- we could constrain population growth.

If we do nothing -- Perth's population will more than double. If we do not want that -- with all the traffic congestion, water shortages, etc, etc that population growth brings -- what can we do to control our population growth?

Sure, I could live in a dust-bowl. I don't really need to wash. The car... well... I'm already saving water by not washing the car.

But if we want to maintain our standard of living -- it's time to do something. Control of rampant population growth is a place to start. It's not easy.

If we do nothing -- if we just accept that population growth is unstoppable -- then we have already lost. Lost our living space. Lost our cheap water. Lost our standard of living.

All we will have, will be a huge polluting population, living cheek by jowl -- unwashed -- in a concrete environment. If we can still afford the concrete.

It's our choice. And it is a choice.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com