The Trouble with WACOT

Agamedes bypasses the waffle and goes straight for the throat of just one problem.

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 West Australian (29 Sep 10), Bethany Hiatt describes some of the current problems with WACOT. According to its website, "The WA College of Teaching registers all K-12 school teachers in Western Australia and aims to raise the status of teaching by recognising, promoting and regulating the teaching profession." Hiatt's report follows the release of a government report on the WACOT Act.

Now don't get me wrong! I'm as disinterested in the government report as the next person! But I did think that I should at least look at it...

At least, I thought, I should look at the section on "the relationship of the College with the Minister" and "the appropriateness of the organisation’s governance arrangements". This should be interesting, I thought. A report to a minister as to whether or not a group should be under the control of that minister... A report written by one of that minister's underlings. I can see where this one is going, I thought!

Actually, I may have been wrong...

As far as I can tell, the report is going nowhere at all.

The report writers decided to base their analysis on a report by someone called Uhrig, a commonwealth government report into the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. And on an equally fascinating model from Webbe and Weller, a "Public Interest Map for Government Bodies".

At this point I was beginning to see several major problems with the WACOT review:

1. It assumes that a professional registration body must be managed by government. This ignores the examples of, for example, doctors and engineers.
   
2. It is not a review of the Act. It starts from scratch and tries to determine what should have been done.
   
3. The WACOT review reaches no practical conclusions.
   
4. Then, on a more practical level: However the report is stored -- it is not searchable. So -- without reading the entire report -- I could not search to find why Uhrig and Webbe and Weller were selected as the ultimate authorities.
   

As a past academic I have seen plenty of waffly reports. I understand the need to justify lack of original ideas with plenty of references. Still, it would be nice to have found a one-page overview of recommendations. Or even, some recommendations to do something.

Okay, I just skimmed the report. There may be actual gems hidden behind the academic research smokescreen.

Having now exhausted my interest in the actual WACOT report, I'll move on to my own solution for one of WACOT's outstanding problems.

Registration of teachers

Why should a teacher be registered? Here are some possible reasons:

• to ensure they are suitable qualified
  
• to ensure that convicted paedophiles do not become practising teachers
  
• to ensure that teachers are able to communicate in English
  

Those are paraphrased from a WACOT Membership Policy publication.

What happens if a teacher is charged with being a paedophile?

Some people would say, Get them away from children -- immediately! Others would say, Even teachers are innocent until proven guilty! What does WACOT say? Nothing, as far as I can tell from the website...

WACOT needs a registration status of "under review". No need to say why, just "under review". This could be a teacher whose new qualifications are being checked... whose record of Professional Learning is being confirmed... who has been accused of abusing children...

The WACOT site allows principals to check the current status of a teacher. Is the teacher Registered, Provisionally Registered, Limited or Associate. To each category add a status, "confirmed" or "under review".

A principal finds that a potential new teacher is "Registered" but "under review". What do they do? They contact WACOT and discuss the reason for the teacher status being under review. In a private and confidential discussion the principal can then -- with all available information -- decide whether or not to employ the teacher.

The essential WACOT registration will be quick: here is my application, here is my supporting paperwork, here is your "under review" registration. Or, just as effective, Yes you are a registered teacher but the new situation has put you "under review".

The "under review" status flags a possibly relevant situation -- without presupposing guilt or innocence; without waiting for final checking of paperwork. Whatever the situation is, it is flagged: people who need to know, can then find out.

Many situations are shades of grey. WACOT needs to recognise this, and allow for a shade of grey in its teacher registrations.

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

Representative Democracy... what is it ?

There's only one person that Agamedes would trust as a politician and that's Agamedes.

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

It would seem that Australia does not operate under a representative democracy. Not in the sense expected by media reports and letters, anyway.

"I voted for so-and-so yet they do not support my views!" is the cry of the masses.

Tough!

Representative democracy comprises a form of democracy wherein voters choose representatives to act in their interests, but NOT as their proxies - i.e., not necessarily as directed but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances, much like a power of attorney. That's from Kids.Net.au, a short and simple explanation.

Note that it is not necessarily as directed. Our politicians are our representatives, not our puppets.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your viewpoint.

Politicians are our representatives -- on a wide range of matters. Do our elected representatives match our views on every single issue? Not likely! So how are our representatives selected?

Politicians get together and choose a range of issues and stated opinions. Each politician may begin with a general preference for each decision that may need to be made. The final platform for an election is selected to support the election of a candidate.

Does the platform -- the political hopeful's stated view on various issues -- match the view of each elector? Of course not! If the political view matched the elector view -- there would be no need for an advertising campaign: Just tell us your view, if we agree then we will vote for you...

Politicians are elected on a range of issues. Each elector votes for the politician with whom they mostly agree. Our representatives are then free to represent us but not necessarily as directed. We -- the electors -- provide, through our votes, to politicians -- our representatives -- enough authority to exercise initiative.

Remove the rose-tinted glasses

Australia operates under a system of representative democracy. We elect politicians who are then expected to represent us in parliament.

There are dozens -- hundreds -- of issues which must be resolved each year by our representatives. They do their best -- at least we still live in a democracy!

Remember that our politicians are our representatives not our puppets. If we are not satisfied with our representatives -- we can put ourselves up for election... and find out how hard it really is, to win the hearts, minds and votes of electors.

What we are really doing is, asking a bunch of politicians to do the heavy politicking. Sure, we only get to vote for the people who put themselves forward. Sure, we get to choose only from politicians and wannabe politicians. Tough.

As electors in a representative democracy, our only role in running the country is to vote.

Okay, we can also let our representatives know what we want on any particular issue.

Have you already informed your elected representative on your opinion on every single issue to be decided? No? Have you checked the opinion of every single person who is also being represented by "your" elected representative? No? Well... Stop complaining that you are not being "accurately" represented on the one issue that is the media's current flavour of the day.

Is there a True Democracy?

Again, from Kids.Net.au: A democracy is a form of government in which the people, either directly or indirectly, take part in governing. In Australian democracy we take part indirectly, by voting for our representatives.

A democratic government involves the people -- somehow. If you want government just for you, you want individualist anarchism. To me, that sounds much better. Still, Australia is a democracy, not an anarchy.

At its best, democracy is where 51% of the people can tell 100% of the people what to do. If you are outside that 51%, you agree to go along with the majority decision.

In order to get that 51% decision, 1% of the people can spend a lot of money on very convincing advertising... but that's another problem.

For today, just remember that we live in a "representative democracy". You are entitled to your own opinion but your actions are governed by majority decisions.

And your elected representatives are just that: representatives.

Stop whining. Start thinking. Make your views known. And if you don't like your representative -- start now, planning your own election campaign.

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

Un Sustainable Over Development

Agamedes takes advantage of another person's well-written words, in support of Functional Stability.

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

The following is reprinted -- with permission -- from an occasional enewsletter from Keith Lethbridge, a Councillor with the City of Armadale. I support his views. Keith keeps his focus on the local impact of unsustainable development...

G'day folks.

Before the dust has settled on our most recent "infill" program, before the Armadale Redevelopment Authority has rolled its swag & departed, before the necessary infrastructure, the jobs, the health, education & policing services are in place ... look out, here comes the next wave of development.

According to the Minister for Local Government, this could be lawfully thrust upon the unsuspecting Percy Public, but he knows we'll cooperate, because the benefits are clear & obvious. Without growth, business stagnates & we run into a heap of problems.

According to that logic, growth must always continue. Perpetual growth, forever! In Armadale, in Australia, in America, in Bangladesh & in China! Of course we're talking about the growth of human population. Human beings: the only creatures on this little green planet that can't survive without perpetual growth. The only boofheads never to achieve Functional Stability.

The Minister's message is actually two-fold: On the one hand, we'll achieve that much-loved dynamic, vibrant, forward-thrusting economic status, the apparent dream of every upwardly mobile politician. On the other hand, we have no choice, because people from all those other dynamic, vibrant & forward-thrusting countries are currently experiencing a most unfortunate run of bad management & require somewhere to live & something to eat.

Whatever the spin may be, it appears obvious that perpetual growth has us spinning towards disaster. Environmentalists agree. They say we have to change our ways; learn to live on less, to utilise our resources more effectively. That's true. And every 45 years as population doubles, we'll have to become twice as efficient, in every way. We'll have to use half as much water, produce twice as much food & cram twice as many people into the same space ... every 45 years. Come on folks, we can do it!

Scientists tell us that the population will level off in the future, as people (especially women) become better educated, want less children & demand a higher standard of living. (With their better education, wouldn't they agree with the economists that perpetual growth is the only way to achieve, or even maintain a high standard of living? Wouldn't they fear the stagnation & recession that we are told goes hand in hand with Functional Stability?)

Looking at India, Mexico, Africa & Indonesia, it would seem that we have a long way to go before that levelling-off occurs.

Functional Stability was achieved in Australia for many thousands of years with very little technology. Modern Australians have shown, through Permaculture & other innovative methods, that Functional Stability can be achieved along with a much higher standard of living, using appropriate technology. Australian Permaculturalists have shown the way in many struggling countries. As appropriate technology develops, so we can all live in greater comfort, without the need for growth.

The perpetual growth economic theory would be quite comical if it wasn't so dangerous. We all know it's a bad idea, so why not have the courage to say so? We all know, for just one example, that reduction in total carbon emissions can never be achieved if we continue to double our population every 45 years (in Armadale, read "every 15 years"). It would eventually be necessary for everyone to stop breathing out! We love trees because they "breath out" oxygen, but that stuff we breath out is called carbon-dioxide, as everyone well knows.

But enough of the "bleeding obvious". While we may or may not think globally, the very least we should do is to act locally. We can do this in a small & totally harmless way by having the City of Armadale adopt the simple Population Policy I have suggested. It would be a start & would allow & encourage us to monitor the situation. In doing that, we might just become less likely to fall into the spin cycle of perpetual growth that currently threatens our beautiful home town.

Best wishes.

Keith Lethbridge

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

Real Women, Pretend Inclusion

Agamedes finds that his bulldust meter has hit the extreme end of its dial.

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

Oh! Look! "Real" women are involved in this year's Perth Fashion Festival! How do I know? Because Jerry Hall "called in briefly" to have her photo taken.

There's Jerry Hall, watching amateur models. No photos of the amateur models, though. Not famous enough, not photogenic enough, I guess.

Mariella Harvey-Hanrahan is the festival director. "Giving real women representation in the fashion industry and supporting plus-size models was perhaps her proudest moment," according to The West, on 11 Sep 10. The rest of her life must have been a really miserable disaster...

"Giving real women representation in the fashion industry..." The models in the Every Body Counts show are all amateurs. No professional models. Why not?! Perhaps because no woman with a "real" shape can get a job in the fashion industry?

"Plus-size models"? Is that the only unfashionable shape that Harvey-Hanrahan can imagine? To be fair, the "face" of the festival is an anorexic who seems to have spent time on a rack. With that as a role model, 99.999% of women are "plus-size".

So how successful was the Every Body Counts parade?

Sorry, I can't tell you.

There's a photo a Jerry Hall. Proud words from the festival director. Some words from Natalie Wakeling, "Perhaps Australia's best known plus-size model..." Who seems to be denying that this event is both tokenistic and a publicity stunt. Several photos of "real" models -- most of whom do look rather good.

No actual report of the Every Body Counts show, though. Just a passing mention that all 12 models were "styled" by one person... Does that mean that none of the well-known fashion designers were interested?

The fashion industry occasionally claims to be interested in designing for real people and using real women as models.

Perhaps it's time for some action that is more than a tokenistic publicity stunt.

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

Oakeshott Turns Down Token Ministry

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

"Mr Oakeshott said he had decided to turn down Ms Gillard's offer of a ministry..." (The West Australian, 11 Sep 10). Smart move there by Oakeshott.

Can you imagine: a ministry set up purely and simply as payment to a malleable "independent". The minister -- probably -- not even a member of cabinet. An office, staff, some money to spend -- and no say in anything else whatsoever. No input to the secret cabinet discussions. Forced by the terms of the "power-sharing" agreement to not disagree in public.

If Oakeshott were worth a ministry it should at least be a real ministry. Not just a means to pass him some personal profit and power.

Let's see if any of the other negotiated "agreements" are worth more than the offer of a pretend ministry.

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

Gnangara Mound can Set the Standard

Agamedes can be brutal when our environment is being destroyed.

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

Why is it that when we want someone to not do something, we first let them do it, then we charge them money for doing it, then we leave them free to do it again?!

Water use over limit by billions, shouts the headline in The West Australian, on 6 Sep 10. The Department of Water has found that "96 of the 436 licence holders [licensed to pump a limited amount of water from the Gnangara Mound] ... had exceeded their limits." So an already over-drawn source of water has people draining it even more, by stealing water.

What will we do about it?

Probably, nothing at all. Look at our record:

An alumina refinery pollutes. They deny that they polluted. For the day on which pollution was measured, they claim that it was a one-off, that it will never happen again. They are, perhaps, fined a small amount which will hardly affect their annual profits.

I say, they broke their environmental agreement. The refinery should be closed down.

An oil well burns, explodes, leaks oil into the environment. I say, they broke their environmental agreement, written or implied. They should pay every cent of cleanup then the company should be banned from every drilling in the area again.

A tourist resort pumps tourist sewage to... somewhere... near a dolphin sanctuary. Raw sewage leaks into the dolphin sanctuary. I say, they broke their environmental agreements, the resort should be closed until the operator can guarantee that no more raw sewage will leak into the environment.

People and businesses put the environment at risk. Businesses do it in order to make money. An official smack on the wrist does not affect income. A fine can be written off against profits and is probably tax deductible.

A business agrees to not damage the environment. It then damages the environment. The business cannot be trusted. It should be closed down.

If you want to be nice: The business should be closed down until (a) all damage has been fully repaired and (b) clear action has been taken to prevent a recurrence. If (a) takes a long time, well, that's why it should not have happened in the first place. If (b) is expensive, well, that's a valid consideration when the business considers its future financial viability.

What about the Gnangara Mound?

Now businesses -- or individuals, or councils -- are drawing well beyond their licence limit of water. This affects all of us, because Water Corporation also depends on Gnangara Mound for metropolitan water supplies. It also affects the environment because drawing on the Mound lowers the water table which kills plants in the area.

A smack on the wrist is pointless. A fine is simply another cost to the business, to be passed on to customers. The bores must be turned off.

Someone draws too much water. So stop their bores. Now! To be kind, just stop their bores until consumption has caught up with their licensed allowance. You drew twice your allowance for this year? So you draw no water at all for the next year.

This is not about the cost of water. It's about the use of water. There is a limited supply. It must be managed.

Avoid fines and punishment

The real point is, we must use less water. (The obvious answer is, we should have less people needing to use the water. That's another debate.) At the very least, each of us must use no more than a fair share of the available water.

So put a limiter on each bore. When the annual (or weekly, or monthly) limit is reached -- the bore stops pumping. Start with the people who have already exceeded their limits. They have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.

Forget about punishment. Aim for prevention.

The rules are in place. The limits have been set. People who cannot work within those limits have been identified. Prevent them from -- help them to avoid -- future illegal pumping.

Prevention is better than cure. Water wasted today will never come back.

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

Kimberley Gas Processing Plant

Agamedes sees "the environment" as being important to the debate. But Agamedes is wrong.

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

There are three schools of thought regarding the gas processing hub to be built at James Price Point, north of Broome:

• Ensure that traditional landholders get compensation for use of the land,
  
• Hurry it along so that business can proceed,
  
• Protect the environment by stopping the project.
  

The newspaper often fails to clearly distinguish these three views. The first two are all about money and who gets it. The third is barely given a mention.

If the project is to go ahead...

If the project is to go ahead then it should go ahead -- quickly. Barnett is right to initiate compulsory land acquisition.

The big picture is, that traditional landholders are happy to sell their traditional land rights; the only question is, For how much. Big business has the traditional big sticks of money in the bank and politicians in the pocket. Traditional landholders have the more modern big stick of the legal right to delay business for as long as the landholders wish.

James Price Point has introduced a new variable: squabbling amongst various groups who each claim to be the real, traditional landholders. Why would they bother? Well...

Being a traditional landholder gives you the right to collect a fist-full of money. So it's important to be the traditional landholder. The traditional landholder gets money. The rest get nothing. This is not internal family fighting, nor inter-tribal feuding. This is a serious fight for serious cash rewards.

While the fight continues, there are actual rewards to the people who represent -- or manage -- the various participants. The people who are seen to be negotiating gain rewards of power or reputation or money. It's in their interests for the "negotiations" to continue.

Meanwhile, the people who will ultimately be declared to be the traditional landholders are getting nothing. They may get a further nothing once the settlement is reached. But they certainly get nothing while the fighting continues.

In summary: The first two schools of thought are fighting for money. Who gets it, how much, how soon. From these points of view, Barnett is absolutely right to attempt to stop the squabbling. Stop making money for professional "representatives" and start making money for business and, perhaps, for traditional ex-landholders.

What was that third point again?

Did I mention that there is a third school of thought?

Some people are said to not want the hub to be built at all...

Who are these people?! Are they environmental nutters who mistakenly believe that some things are more important than money? Are they self-centred tourist operators who believe that their current eco-tourist ventures are more important than making really big bucks by bulldozing the environment? Are they tourist town managers who don't want flouro vests and steel-capped boots trampling down their country town ambiance?

Anyway, it's far too late for that last...

I have two lasting memories of Broome:

• A peaceful country town with beautiful beaches, beautiful weather and a relaxed lifestyle. That memory is from about 1972.
  
• A crowded town packed with traffic, drunks in the park and litter in the streets and at the beaches. That memory is from 2008.
  

Broome has dedicated itself to growth and money. Yes, you can have a great holiday there -- if you pay for a nice resort and avoid the crowds and fights. Well, I doubt that you will be able to avoid the crowds...

In 2008 I drove into Broome. Weaved through the traffic and pedestrians. Parked at the end of a row of shops. The shops were a mix of find-it-anywhere cafes, supermarkets, chemist shops. Interspersed with tourist traps selling cheap and nasty souvenirs with pictures of -- sometimes -- Broome. With the identifying imprint, Made in China. The carpark doubled as a rubbish tip.

A few hundred people in flouro vests and steel-capped boots will only emphasise the nature of the town. It's a town for growth, for trapping tourists and for making as much money as possible.

What was that third point again?

In The West Australian of 3 Sep 10 there's a pretty little photo of a whale flicking its tail. Off James Price Point, according to the caption. The rest of the page is dedicated to the battle between business -- wanting money, traditional landholders -- wanting money, tourism operators -- wanting money, and traditional landholders -- wanting money.

Environmental protection is hardly worth mentioning.

The plant will go ahead. That part of the environment will be destroyed. Broome will continue its down-hill slide to growth.

Barnett is doing the right thing: getting it sorted out as quickly as possible.

All that's happening is that people are fighting over money. Who gets it and how much.

The environment is stuffed anyway.

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