Hi. I am Greg and I want to Grumble about the demise of Families SA chief, David Waterford who spectacularly resigned on the weekend deepening the state government crisis over child protection.
Now I don’t know any more than is in the public domain, and Mr Waterford is certainly no friend of community services. My experience of him goes back to the gutting of financial counselling services in 2010, where he appeared hostile and obstructive at best.
More importantly though, it is not like he was a brilliant leader and the child protection system in SA was the best thing ever – clearly it’s not, and he has presided over this flawed system.
But running an appalling system is not why he resigned.
He resigned because he gave incorrect advice to the Minister, and they in turn made misleading statements to the media – not the parliament mind you, to the media. This is obviously fatal because we have such a superficial political dialogue that it is impossible to simply say, as any reasonable person elsewhere would, “look, we gave some advice last week, but on further checking we found out something else”.
But what sort of message does this send? Presumably it is ok to oversee a failing system – even one as vitally important as child protection – but if you embarrass the Minister that is a crime requiring falling on one’s sword.
And more broadly, when I see the unflattering image of David Waterford on the front page of today’s Tiser with screaming headlines about the “shambles” of the communication around the latest child protection disaster, I wonder about the impact on a public service already so cautious and risk averse that at times it appears incapable of decision – let alone innovation.
I fear this type of public flogging may drive public servants to focus even more on covering their own-backs, implementing even more layers of centralisation and control – notwithstanding that part of the problem of the system is this centralisation, the ensuing mountains of paperwork which senior public servants have to wade through in long hours at night, and the lack of authority and agency at other levels of the system.
Ultimately, we probably do more damage by having a public service with a culture of risk and decision avoidance, than we do from having the odd controversy or wrong fact communicated.
Maybe I am naïve, or a hopelessly unreconstructed modernist, but I think outcomes are more important than communications!
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 29 July 2014
Greg's Grumbles can be heard on Radio Adelaide during SACOSS' Small Change program - 6pm every Tuesday night. 101.5FM or online.
Tuesday 29 July 2014
Tuesday 22 July 2014
44. Krispy Kreme
Hi, I am Greg and I want to grumble about a certain doughnut shop that has opened up on Port Road at Croydon.
Now for years when I have caught planes home I have been bemused to watch people rearranging the overhead luggage so that they could bring their box of Krispy Kremes back to the apparently deprived and doughnut-less frontier town Adelaide.
But now, amid much fanfare, we have our very own Krispy Kreme outlet!
Last Monday I was mildly amused to see people camping in the freezing cold to be the first to contribute to the global franchise’s $500m a year revenue. That was just bizarre (as was the knife-point doughnut theft later in the week), but what I want to grumble about was the number of people who thought it was fine to park in the bike lane outside the shop.
As I rode by on Thursday I counted 12 cars parked in the no-parking zone.
I’m sorry, it is not ok that I and other cyclists are put at risk by being forced out into the traffic lanes just so that they can get closer to the their sugar fix.
I don’t think you need to be a health fanatic to say that in peak hour traffic, my health and wellbeing should have a higher priority than their easy access to breakfast treats.
And ok, having got that Grumble out of my system, I will acknowledge that it is pretty trivial in a week where the Australian government abandoned any real policy to address climate change, madmen or zealots shot down a passenger plane at horrendous human cost, and in a disproportionate and bloody response to rocket attacks against it, Israel is bombing Gaza and continuing the cycle of war and hatred.
But what can I say about that. To paraphrase Gandhi, when I think of western civilisation, I think it would be a good idea.
But the issues here are just too big, too horrible and too disempowering.
I am Greg, and I despair.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 22 July 2014
Now for years when I have caught planes home I have been bemused to watch people rearranging the overhead luggage so that they could bring their box of Krispy Kremes back to the apparently deprived and doughnut-less frontier town Adelaide.
But now, amid much fanfare, we have our very own Krispy Kreme outlet!
Last Monday I was mildly amused to see people camping in the freezing cold to be the first to contribute to the global franchise’s $500m a year revenue. That was just bizarre (as was the knife-point doughnut theft later in the week), but what I want to grumble about was the number of people who thought it was fine to park in the bike lane outside the shop.
As I rode by on Thursday I counted 12 cars parked in the no-parking zone.
I’m sorry, it is not ok that I and other cyclists are put at risk by being forced out into the traffic lanes just so that they can get closer to the their sugar fix.
I don’t think you need to be a health fanatic to say that in peak hour traffic, my health and wellbeing should have a higher priority than their easy access to breakfast treats.
And ok, having got that Grumble out of my system, I will acknowledge that it is pretty trivial in a week where the Australian government abandoned any real policy to address climate change, madmen or zealots shot down a passenger plane at horrendous human cost, and in a disproportionate and bloody response to rocket attacks against it, Israel is bombing Gaza and continuing the cycle of war and hatred.
But what can I say about that. To paraphrase Gandhi, when I think of western civilisation, I think it would be a good idea.
But the issues here are just too big, too horrible and too disempowering.
I am Greg, and I despair.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 22 July 2014
Tuesday 15 July 2014
43. Preventive Health Cuts
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the Federal government terminating the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health.
The agreement is, or at least was, where the Federal and State government cooperated and funded key preventative health programs to keep Australians healthier.
But in the Federal Budget, the Commonwealth unilaterally terminated the agreement. This was lost in the plethora of other budget cuts – including in the health area, but given the importance of prevention, and the potential future budget savings, was this really a good move?
Well, last month in Senate Estimates Committee, Labor Senator Jan McLucas asked why the Agreement was cut – and the answers would have been funny if it wasn’t so serious.
The Department of Health’s first response was that it was a government decision (meaning not the Department’s) but that there was duplication and overlap with services the states provided. When asked how they made that judgement, they said that a review was undertaken.
When asked whether the review had been published, we found out that it was not finished. The “formative work” had been done but the next stage was to consult with the states and territories. So, they thought there was duplication, but did not bother to check with the states who were providing the programs on the ground.
In fact, on further questioning, it was clear that the Federal Department didn't really have detail on what activities were actually funded. Oh, and the review was not really about the “population outcomes” – ie. about whether the programs were actually working.
And when Greens Senator Penny Wright asked what impact cutting those preventive health programs might have on hospital care and potential savings on the health budget, again the Department could not tell us and said it was impossible to know.
So all that was both sad and farcical, and I haven’t even mentioned the quibbling over whether it was correct to say the programs had been “cut” when really all that had happened was that the Commonwealth had defunded them.
But the bottom line is, we cut prevention programs with no evaluation of their effectiveness, then say we have to charge fees for doctors’ visits and wind back our universal health care system because there are too many people getting sick. Hmmm.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
*Disclosure: SACOSS received funding for a project officer under the Healthy Workers Initiative.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 15 July 2014
The agreement is, or at least was, where the Federal and State government cooperated and funded key preventative health programs to keep Australians healthier.
But in the Federal Budget, the Commonwealth unilaterally terminated the agreement. This was lost in the plethora of other budget cuts – including in the health area, but given the importance of prevention, and the potential future budget savings, was this really a good move?
Well, last month in Senate Estimates Committee, Labor Senator Jan McLucas asked why the Agreement was cut – and the answers would have been funny if it wasn’t so serious.
The Department of Health’s first response was that it was a government decision (meaning not the Department’s) but that there was duplication and overlap with services the states provided. When asked how they made that judgement, they said that a review was undertaken.
When asked whether the review had been published, we found out that it was not finished. The “formative work” had been done but the next stage was to consult with the states and territories. So, they thought there was duplication, but did not bother to check with the states who were providing the programs on the ground.
In fact, on further questioning, it was clear that the Federal Department didn't really have detail on what activities were actually funded. Oh, and the review was not really about the “population outcomes” – ie. about whether the programs were actually working.
And when Greens Senator Penny Wright asked what impact cutting those preventive health programs might have on hospital care and potential savings on the health budget, again the Department could not tell us and said it was impossible to know.
So all that was both sad and farcical, and I haven’t even mentioned the quibbling over whether it was correct to say the programs had been “cut” when really all that had happened was that the Commonwealth had defunded them.
But the bottom line is, we cut prevention programs with no evaluation of their effectiveness, then say we have to charge fees for doctors’ visits and wind back our universal health care system because there are too many people getting sick. Hmmm.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
*Disclosure: SACOSS received funding for a project officer under the Healthy Workers Initiative.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 15 July 2014
Tuesday 8 July 2014
42. Post-ACNC Regulation of Charities
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the government's consultation on the replacement arrangements planned for when it abolishes the national charities regulator, the Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission (the “ACNC”)
Comments on the proposed arrangements are due by 20 August, but the Options Paper the government is seeking responses to says this feedback will inform public consultations in July and August.
Now that could be an innocent stuff up, but when their submission template (which doesn’t work, BTW! [at least when this Grumble went to air]) contains a list of stakeholder categories that shows no understanding of the scope of the charity sector you really have to wonder.
Curiously, the “Centre for Excellence,” which the government previously touted as taking over the education and support functions of the ACNC is not mentioned at all, while predictably the regulatory functions will revert back to the tax office and ASIC.
I have grumbled before that getting advice and processing of applications was slow under the ATO, and that the ATO has been used as an attack dog by governments concerned about charities asking difficult questions.
And when it was in charge, the ATO did not even have an up-to-date public list of charities, despite their entitlement to significant tax concessions. And now that public database, built by the ACNC, is to be mothballed.
But of course the Bill to abolish the ACNC has not gone through the Senate yet. When a Senate Committee recently conducted an inquiry on the bill, over 80% of respondents (and almost all the charities responding) said they wanted the regulator retained.
Yet the government members of the committee just ignored all the research and reasons put forward by the vast majority and wrote a report supporting the abolition – and so we have this latest consultation.
And no doubt there will be charities and not-for-profit organisations lining up like sheep to comment on the new proposal. You know the format: “thank you so much for the chance to comment on this important proposal”; “we appreciate the government’s intention to support charities”, etc etc.
Bah, bah.
Well, here is my submission:
I don’t want arrangements made to replace the regulatory body that came about after years of poor regulation, bookshelves full of government reports recommending the establishment of such a purpose-built regulator, and a broad public consultation to design a better system.
And why should I take time and effort to comment on your proposal when you have not listened to a word that the vast majority of our sector has said about the ACNC and sector regulation.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 8 July 2014
Comments on the proposed arrangements are due by 20 August, but the Options Paper the government is seeking responses to says this feedback will inform public consultations in July and August.
Now that could be an innocent stuff up, but when their submission template (which doesn’t work, BTW! [at least when this Grumble went to air]) contains a list of stakeholder categories that shows no understanding of the scope of the charity sector you really have to wonder.
Curiously, the “Centre for Excellence,” which the government previously touted as taking over the education and support functions of the ACNC is not mentioned at all, while predictably the regulatory functions will revert back to the tax office and ASIC.
I have grumbled before that getting advice and processing of applications was slow under the ATO, and that the ATO has been used as an attack dog by governments concerned about charities asking difficult questions.
And when it was in charge, the ATO did not even have an up-to-date public list of charities, despite their entitlement to significant tax concessions. And now that public database, built by the ACNC, is to be mothballed.
But of course the Bill to abolish the ACNC has not gone through the Senate yet. When a Senate Committee recently conducted an inquiry on the bill, over 80% of respondents (and almost all the charities responding) said they wanted the regulator retained.
Yet the government members of the committee just ignored all the research and reasons put forward by the vast majority and wrote a report supporting the abolition – and so we have this latest consultation.
And no doubt there will be charities and not-for-profit organisations lining up like sheep to comment on the new proposal. You know the format: “thank you so much for the chance to comment on this important proposal”; “we appreciate the government’s intention to support charities”, etc etc.
Bah, bah.
Well, here is my submission:
I don’t want arrangements made to replace the regulatory body that came about after years of poor regulation, bookshelves full of government reports recommending the establishment of such a purpose-built regulator, and a broad public consultation to design a better system.
And why should I take time and effort to comment on your proposal when you have not listened to a word that the vast majority of our sector has said about the ACNC and sector regulation.
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 8 July 2014
Tuesday 1 July 2014
41. Community Grants
Hi. I am Greg and I want to grumble about the state budget.
Last week I said that there was not much to grumble about in the budget, and at the macro level that’s true. But there’s always devil in the detail. In this case it’s cuts to natural resource management grants to community groups.
These grants went to farmers and landcare groups, to Aboriginal communities, to schools, to local progress associations, to friends of parks groups and more – 106 grants last year to protect and restore our environment. Small amounts of money that make a big difference on the ground.
And that broad list of recipients shows that this sort of environmental work is not just good for the planet, it’s also good for social and economic development.
But on TV last week the Minister, Ian Hunter, was telling us that cuts had to be made and that he had a choice of cutting those good community grants or losing 12-14 environment department staff. Ok, it is a hard choice, but it’s a lousy justification.
Spending and cuts are always about priorities, and on top of massive cuts to the environment department and programs in recent years (the Conservation Council of SA was moved to nominate Park Rangers as an endangered species), it’s pretty clear that this government just does not prioritise the environment.
But even within the environment budget, what are we to make of this putting the department in front of the community?
The Minister is right that those department officers would do important work, but what analysis was done on the benefits of the community grants program?
I ask because there is huge value-for-money where programs harness and support volunteer efforts. That is true for the environment, for sport and rec clubs, and across the community services sector.
But in our economic system, if something (like volunteer work) doesn’t have a dollar value then it is not valued (I did a PhD on that in a past life!), and these cuts are just another example of governments under-valuing the contribution of the community sector.
Perhaps that is why we are called the third sector – it is where we come in budget priorities after business and government.
So while the budget overall was a good response to South Australia’s economic circumstances and to federal government deficit shifting, when it comes to cutting environment programs, what can I say:
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 1 July 2014
Last week I said that there was not much to grumble about in the budget, and at the macro level that’s true. But there’s always devil in the detail. In this case it’s cuts to natural resource management grants to community groups.
These grants went to farmers and landcare groups, to Aboriginal communities, to schools, to local progress associations, to friends of parks groups and more – 106 grants last year to protect and restore our environment. Small amounts of money that make a big difference on the ground.
And that broad list of recipients shows that this sort of environmental work is not just good for the planet, it’s also good for social and economic development.
But on TV last week the Minister, Ian Hunter, was telling us that cuts had to be made and that he had a choice of cutting those good community grants or losing 12-14 environment department staff. Ok, it is a hard choice, but it’s a lousy justification.
Spending and cuts are always about priorities, and on top of massive cuts to the environment department and programs in recent years (the Conservation Council of SA was moved to nominate Park Rangers as an endangered species), it’s pretty clear that this government just does not prioritise the environment.
But even within the environment budget, what are we to make of this putting the department in front of the community?
The Minister is right that those department officers would do important work, but what analysis was done on the benefits of the community grants program?
I ask because there is huge value-for-money where programs harness and support volunteer efforts. That is true for the environment, for sport and rec clubs, and across the community services sector.
But in our economic system, if something (like volunteer work) doesn’t have a dollar value then it is not valued (I did a PhD on that in a past life!), and these cuts are just another example of governments under-valuing the contribution of the community sector.
Perhaps that is why we are called the third sector – it is where we come in budget priorities after business and government.
So while the budget overall was a good response to South Australia’s economic circumstances and to federal government deficit shifting, when it comes to cutting environment programs, what can I say:
I am Greg and I am grumbling.
This Grumble can be heard online or by podcast.
First Broadcast: 1 July 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)