More misguided meddling by the reactionaries

This sketch doesn't quite say it all . Imagine the people as children " one more child ? The bureaucrat says " You need him - your numbers are low" : he says !
Good on the Colac Herald and Stephanie for telling the story of some of the nonsense imposed on professionals in our Region . ( Norma Sell and teachers- Friday )

Under the new State model , model teachers will seek model pupils to have model classes - pity about public education for all!
As Sir Humphrey said of the model hospital - " yes it is clearly the most efficient" - Bernard "but it has no patients".

Performance Assessment Pay PAP is such a simple idea that’s its popularity with politicians is completely understandable.
What is Labor doing following the Libs down into the cul desac of idealised business models of governance -
While some form of assessment is necessary , PAP is too often used by Sir Humphreys team to force everyone to do strange snow jobs with stats and clearly results in cynical, counterproductive lights and mirrors games. The idea is also built on a false focus on financial motivation when there are other things that motivate people to work; PAP often rewards individuals rather than team performance, resulting in more risks of single focus ( those who take on hard jobs have lower levels of " success") with less team solidarity and effectiveness ( eg difficult kids and needs for diverse client management).
How do we know ? - we've seen it all before - great waste of time; breeder of cynicism and obfuscation in any workplace where resources are stretched. Where the camel too was willing .

Is State Labor so empty of depth they don't recognise a simple old nigger in the woodpile ? Or should we say the mere straw of more paperwork -esp uneliable stuff. If Mr Kennett was wrong about what motivates the peanut gallery, why would Brumby get more out his old pile of nice sounding ideas than he did? Large numbers of very capable professionals left their jobs in the public service over Jeff's highly frustrating and insulting piece of social engineering . Our loss - we trained those people and they were a great loss.
The idea that you can quantify performance assessment and then link it to motivation and change in the care professions is a complete myth from the frustrated control freaks handbook. There is no simple fix to make things better in the real world where there is never enough staff! ( maybe in some polys office?) Imagine testing mothers along the lines of how clean the house was ( nice long checklist) , or how much the children liked her cooking or their partners view of all she did or didn't do ( with ratings) !!!!!! Doctors and nurses won't be helped by such drivel ( I hope a few write in and support other methods of review )
Professionals are multi baggers ( the industry term)too, which means they function by making difficult decisions; If we want the willing to work, we should support those who stay out in the colder spots, to help them do the jobs they are trained for – not presume to know how and when they should be doing certain things - esp by the poorly focused and comfortable teams upstairs .
This false expectation is worse than dangerous --its clearly a crippling old virus : a very effective disease that depresses, deters and threatens the willing horse or camel- the very people you want to be involved with your children . Busy People who have time for people .

We not only need more " general practitioners" in medicine, but more GP's generally . The country is losing those who would work on a multitude of tasks and risks. Now our communities are getting diseases they never used to get when we encouraged carers to exposure themselves to a diversity of risk and demand . Pay obviously isn't the only incentive for carers. Helping other people make difficult choices can be!
If blind following of business models are part of Gillards and Rudds education revolution , then we already know how effective they will be , and in which old circles they are still revolving in.

Why houses will never be built on the Barham River floodplain

Because the first builder will find himself uninsurable because of either settlement, flood risk or both .
As we know , that hasn't stopped some of our councillors from thinking the whole idea is a great idea.What a waste of time.
Our councillors are too willing to trust reports and guarantees from afar . Guarantees that aren't worth all the reams of paper they are now printed on .
It's not what’s in those reports that we need to worry about -- its what‘s not in them. . All those megabucks our Council spent listening and responding to report after report.
Why did noone mention engineered fill failure ? A simple evaluation of the catchment landscapes and soils capability was not done - The local fill will not consolidate. That capability information used to be a statutory requirement in the scheme, but the word and job has been removed in the last few years and DSE don't bother providing such advice anymore.
The very last review by VCAT of the project failed to pick up this important matter , assumming the many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of local fill would be suitable - when they clearly would not be! Up until 2005, such matters would have been identified in a one page report to Council, as would the vanity of trying to protect houses from damage at the end of a high energy boulder river with frequent landslip and debris loads. How much more time and money will we see wasted on reports from un-authoritative Authorities? Time Mr Mulder helped us weed out people who say a lot, but say nothing.