Unthinking and uncaring

It's amazing how little our state politicians know -- or care -- about government agencies.

Imagine that you are planning a party. A new years eve party, for example. You look at the total cost and think, Uh oh, I can't afford to spend two thousand dollars... So what do you do?

You think, food... it's a barbeque... let's have more sausages and less steak. You think, drink... more soft drink, less spirits but more beer. You think, shelter... we're starting early, it'll be hot and sunny, the rented shadecloth is essential.

In other words... You look at the various costs and decide which ones -- if any -- can be reduced.

If you were a politician you would say... cut five percent off everything.

Five percent less steak. Five percent less sausage. Five percent less soft drinks, spirits, beer. Five percent less shade cloth!?

Oh, you'd be thinking, five percent less guests...? Wrong!

A politician would say, five percent less food, drink and shelter... but the same number of guests.

What if the guests don't enjoy themselves? They're thirsty, hungry and sunburnt... Well... too bad... says the politician.

Next year they can all pay for their own new years eve drinks... in a privately owned pub.

Why would a politician make such ridiculous budget cuts? Because they don't care about the service being provided. Because they only care about being reelected. Because they don't understand how their own organisations operate.

Because organisational budgets are complicated. Politicians are simple. It's difficult to understand operational costs and service delivery. It's easier to listen to a treasury official who says, five percent cost reduction may win you the next election.

After all, it's not as if the politicians will lose any of their own income. It's not as if the politicians will lose any sleep over the budget cuts.

Nope.

It's just public servants who will work harder. Or be sacked. And it's just the public who will get less service.

So who cares.

Not the five percent fantasy politicians. That's one hundred percent certain.

====
Problems ? Solved

Meaningless conditions

"Global aluminium giant Alcoa is facing a fine of up to $125,000 after being charged with breaching its operating licence conditions" (Daniel Mercer, 'Alcoa charged over dust', The West Australian, 29 Dec 2012).

An "operating licence" sets the conditions under which the organisation can operate. The conditions were -- allegedly -- breached. So why is Alcoa still operating?

What is the point of a trivial fine? In terms of the profits being made by Alcoa, the amount is trivial. In terms of the operating costs of Alcoa, the amount is trivial.

Alcoa -- like Varanus -- will have made a sensible business decision: reduce operating costs by one billion, at the risk of being fined a tiny fraction of that saving.

It's a simple business decision. Save a large cost now and accept the risk of a very minor cost later.

The cost of damage due to dust is transferred away from Alcoa. The cost is carried by the environment.

An "operating condition" should be just what it says, a condition under which the operation is allowed to continue.

The current "operating condition" is simply a minor cost to be factored into the business plan.

Breach an operating condition -- stop operating. It's as simple as that.

You're allowing dust to blow onto the neighbours? So stop operating. Immediately. When can you start operating again? When you have proven that no more dust will blow.

But the cost of dust prevention is too high? So stop operating.

There is no point in operating conditions which can be breached at will.

If an essential condition cannot be met -- then the operation should never have been allowed. If the condition has not been met -- the operation must be stopped.

====
Problems ? Solved

Drive for speed... or pleasure

We left home at about ten in the morning. Possibly a bit earlier. Not early enough to be anything but a relaxed start to our first day away. Away on a short holiday in the southwest of Western Australia.

Onto the freeway, heading south. Another unpleasant drive down the freeway.

The freeway -- or Forrest Highway -- is the you-beaut link between Perth and Bunbury. It cuts five minutes off the three hour journey, or some such exciting benefit.

What it really does, is to change a pleasant drive in the country into a traffic-filled race with all the other city drivers. Fast, flat and boring. No small towns to add interest. No spots to pull off the road for a break. Just drive, drive, drive.

We turned off for "services" towards Pinjarra. No indication of the distances to the promised services but we knew that Pinjarra was not very close. So we tried the nearby Resort.

There's a picture of a cup... a claim that the resort offers tea and coffee. The obvious building -- the one with the parking area -- is most unwelcoming.

A nearly empty carpark. No obvious front door. No welcome sign. No sign even of interest in attracting customers.

We drove on. To the delightful and historic tearooms by the river, at Pinjarra. Where we had coffee and cake -- rather expensive but delicious, and supporting local enterprise.

Our drive continued. Down South West Highway.

Yes, we could have returned to Forrest Highway.

We preferred to *enjoy* the rest of our drive.

====
Problems ? Solved

Offensive tackle by ex footballer

"Technically, Ashton isn't qualified to change a bandaid."

According to Jon Fogarty, you must be qualified to change a bandaid if you want to evaluate a computer based patient records system.

Is this the sign of a coward on the run? You're scared, so you run for cover. And as you run you hit out -- preferably at a target too weak to hit back.

A very offensive tackle.

It does, however, raise an interesting question. What qualifications are required to run a hospital?

Is it enough to be an ex footballer? Is it enough to be a millionaire? Is Fogarty qualified to even change a bandaid?

Apparently -- according to Fogarty -- you need some level of medical qualification to hire consultants to check an IT system. Yet Fogarty is quite happy to put himself in charge of an entire hospital. Systems, patients, health-care and all.

When money is the motive, expect health-care to go out the door.

====
Problems ? Solved

"The shopping event"

Shane Wright, economics editor at The West, has an article about shopping, "Online just a new retail phase" (3Dec12). He argues that online shopping is here to stay, that it is simply the next stage of catering to the "desires and tastes of shoppers."

Of shopping at an old style bricks and mortar shop he writes, "Just going to the department store was an event -- and still is for those who know Myer in Melbourne."

I did that myself, earlier this year. I went shopping at Myer in Melbourne. An event, indeed...

The shop is large. Well signposted though. We soon found the women's shoe section. We soon found some nearly suitable shoes, too. We wondered if the shoes were available in a suitable size...

So we looked for some help. A shop assistant, for example. We looked for someone to tell us, yes, we have these shoes in your size.

Actually... we would have been happy to find a shop assistant who would take our money... The shoes were a short term solution. The pair that we were holding were good enough to wear for the short time required.

There was no shop assistant to be seen.

They were not busy. They were... not... there.

We left. Shoeless.

Perhaps that could be a reason for the drift to online shopping.

Why go to the city to be ignored? You can do your shopping in the comfort of your own home. And have plenty of time left over, to go to a more enjoyable "event".

Does online shopping provide only limited service to the shopper? So what... Myer in Melbourne provides no service whatsoever.

In my limited experience of one visit.

One visit which taught me, Never again.

Potential customer. Lost.

====
Problems ? Solved

The stigma of AIDS

It's the Sunday Times again. Reporting on the stupidity of the world.

This time, it's people with AIDS.

People with AIDS are being stigmatised. They are afraid to admit to their illness, for fear of being rejected by friends and family.

Okay, that's not nice. But read on.

"Sufferers of the virus ... are still too afraid to reveal their condition to their family, friends or work colleagues..." Yes, sympathetic nod, that's not nice, is it.

To continue:

"... too afraid to reveal their condition ... despite most being able to live symptom-free."

Symptom-free? So what?!

AIDS is a nasty disease. So is leprosy. No-one wants to catch either. We now know enough about leprosy to know that it is a very difficult disease to catch.

We know enough about AIDS to know that yes, in the right unfortunate circumstances we can catch AIDS... From family, friends or work colleagues.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

We -- people who do not have AIDS -- are glad that AIDS sufferers can live without symptoms. That's great -- for you.

At the more selfish level -- we do not want to catch your disease.

That's the source of the stigma: fear of infection.

Can we catch your disease? If not, convince us.

Meanwhile, stop being so self-centred. Consider your friends, your family, your work colleagues. Help them to understand that AIDS is not easily transmitted.

Or accept the stigma. Which is really just avoidance based on the instinct for self-protection.

We're sorry you're sick. But please understand: we do not want to share your disease.

====
Problems ? Solved

Buying a politician

Okay, the Sunday Times is not noted for the accuracy of its reporting. Still, that's no reason to dismiss all of its stories. There is the ring of truth in it's tales of a businessman buying political favours.

Peel Health Campus (PHC) has already admitted that it paid a bonus to doctors who wrongly admitted patients. Extra patients means extra government money for PHC. So PHC paid extra to doctors, each time they helped rip a bit more money out of the government.

Today's story is about claims of poor patient care. More specifically, a patient records system which allows the wrong patient to be prepped for an operation.

Followed -- according to the whistle-blower -- by a cover-up coming right from the top management of the " hospital".

Oh, the joy of having a hospital run for profit rather than for health!

Then there's the side-story, of the buying of political favours.

The boss -- the major shareholder of PHC -- is reported to have bought the support of the Liberal party. At least he claims to have bought political favours... according to the newspaper report... With our politicians it's hard to tell. Are they really bought? Or are they simply taking your money...

So the PHC bunch of cheats and incompetents wants to expand its campus. To be able to suck more money from the government, presumably. After paying the appropriate bribes the PHC boss is reported to have said that the PHC expansion is now a "no-brainer" decision for the state government.

Just as well, really.

A no-brainer is the only sort of decision that our politicians are capable of making.

====
Problems ? Solved