Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Red tape choking childcare industry

And it all adds to the costs that parents pay

New government reporting requirements for childcare centres are eroding the amount of attention that can be given to the children, workers in the industry say. And staff numbers are dwindling as workers leave jobs where every move is monitored, judged and reported.

Registered childcare centres now have to independently report on 708 indicators which Federal Government inspectors use when conducting compulsory inspections every two years, Childcare Queensland president (Glynn Bridge said. If a childcare centre fails to get a tick for any of the 708 boxes under the Government's Quality Improvement and Accreditation system, it could lose accreditation. "The red tape is killing us," Ms Bridge said. Fear of losing accreditation has prompted some centres to introduce monthly checklists, which include directors reporting on more than 40 workplace practices, ranging from nappy-changing and hand-washing to childcare philosophy.

The industry fears more regulations are looming under a Rudd Government proposal to introduce a grading system for childcare centres. Centre owners say they are not opposed to inspections or health and safety requirements for their businesses, but fear losing experienced staff as a result of "unreasonable processes".

Kerrie Lada, the director of Hardy's Road childcare centre at Mudgeeraba on the Gold Coast, is among those trying to juggle childcare and government paperwork. She said that would prefer to "get down on the ground" with children rather than sit in the office with piles of paperwork. "My job as director has changed over 20 years," Ms Lada said. "I'm basically doing paperwork rather than supporting staff and children and families. It's basically ticking boxes to say we have done it".

Another childcare centre director contacted by The Sunday Mail , who asked not to be named, said she had recently lost a senior employee and others had complained of stress because they feared letting down colleagues and the centre if they failed to get a "tick" on any of the criteria. "The stress levels are definitely high. What's confusing is the criteria changes every time. And you feel like you're being judged and watched," she said.

More than 900,000 children from about 700,000 families Australia-wide use childcare each year. About 10 per cent of centres in Australia failed to receive accreditation last year.

Ms Bridge said she had recently briefed Queensland Minister for Communities Lindy Nelson-Carr on industry issues and had requested a meeting with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to discuss the complex regulation of centres.

The article above is by Paul Weston and appeared in the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" on June 15, 2008.






More public hospital negligence

After all the publicity about meningococcal meningitis and its drastic outcomes, it's incomprehensible that it is not looked for as a first step. One suspects another underqualified immigrant doctor. Public hospitals employ almost any doctor at all and don't look too closely at their qualifications

A FAMILY is seeking a $7 million payout after their 10-month-old son was left blind, deaf, brain-damaged and disabled by an undiagnosed bout of meningitis. Jeremy Netherway, now 8, was diagnosed with a viral infection when his worried parents rushed him to Perth's St John of God Hospital in Subiaco on May 29, 2000. But the boy's parents, Nicola and Peter Netherway, claim the hospital and a doctor, Anita Cvitanovich, failed to recognise that Jeremy had pneumococcal meningitis.

They are suing the doctor and the hospital for $7 million, saying Dr Cvitanovich failed to carry out tests to confirm meningitis and delayed giving Jeremy antibiotics to treat the illness. They also claim the hospital failed to keep the doctor fully informed of Jeremy's condition.

The damages amount has already been agreed to by all parties but the doctor and hospital have denied liability and blame each other for Jeremy's condition. The liability issue is on trial in the District Court, with judge Shauna Deane presiding over the matter, which is listed for three weeks.

Giving evidence yesterday, Mr Netherway choked back tears as he described the day his son was rushed to hospital. "He was listless, he had his eyes shut, his head was tilted back. He was very, very pale," Mr Netherway said. His wife, Nicola, earlier told the court that Jeremy had been admitted to hospital for the night after Dr Cvitanovich diagnosed him as having a viral infection, saying he needed to be rehydrated. She said the doctor had told her meningitis was a possibility but that it was unlikely. But Ms Netherway said that after sleeping for two hours, her son's condition became progressively worse. He was suffering from a fever and vomiting constantly until he was dry-retching, she said.

By the time Dr Cvitanovich returned at 8am on May 30 to check on Jeremy's condition, the baby was grunting and breathing coarsely, Ms Netherway said. It was then that the doctor placed him on intravenous antibiotics and took blood before he was rushed toPrincess Margaret Hospital for Children.

Ms Netherway told the court she saw Dr Cvitanovich a few days later in the intensive care unit, where she was informed that Jeremy may suffer paralysis from his illness. He now requires full-time care.

The court has already heard that Dr Cvitanovich did not see Jeremy after 10.30pm on May 29 but had told nurses to contact her if Jeremy was vomiting, had not urinated or his temperature had risen above 38.5C. She did not return to the hospital until 8am the next day when Jeremy's condition had worsened considerably, Ms Netherway said.

Source





Muddled "Green" policies

By Barry Cohen (Barry Cohen is a former environment minister in the Hawke Labor government)

I'm confused. And I'm not alone. For eons environmentalists have been rabbiting on about our dependence on coal, oil and the carbon emissions they produce. "Let's go solar," was their cry, for the one thing Australia was not short of was sun. And we have the skin cancers to prove it. With our engineers and scientists in the vanguard of solar technology it appeared the way to go. I was convinced to go solar many years ago. While the electricity bill remained unchanged, I gained a psychological advantage over my critics. As environment minister, there was no shortage of those. The introduction by the Howard government of an $8000 rebate on solar panels, had tempted me to try again. The balance of $12,000 was a small price to pay for that feeling of superiority and the warm inner glow.

The dream ended when the budget restricted rebates to those with incomes of under $100,000. Overnight, 90 per cent of orders were cancelled. The industry, unable to sustain that level of cuts was, to put it mildly, thoroughly pissed off while environmentalists are having difficulty recognising the Government that received a standing ovation in Bali.

Environment minister Peter Garrett, asked at Question Time to apologise to the solar industry, had an interesting response. He told the house that the program, "was oversubscribed and would have overheated and produced, in the solar industry, demand fluctuations such that it would have made this industry very difficult to be sustainable. Compressing the plan for five years to three years the industry would have greater sustainability." Having spent a lifetime in business, I had difficulty grasping how an industry going gangbusters could be in trouble. My experience had been the opposite.

The decision, we were told, was an exercise in cutting down on middle-class welfare. However, the rebate was not welfare but an incentive to encourage as many people as possible to go solar to cut carbon emissions. What difference does it make if those that do are rich, poor or middle class? The result is the same. If anything, the more affluent are likely to use more electricity and produce more carbon emissions. Ask Al Gore.

Equally confusing was the decision to whack the rich by pushing up the price of luxury cars. Now, I define the rich as anyone who earns more than me, so I'm all for making them suffer but surely the way to go is to use the tax system to encourage motorists to switch to fuel-efficient cars. Again, it doesn't much matter who cuts down carbon emissions as long as it happens. The rich can afford to pay and think how good they'll feel. The recent budget was the opportune time to abolish the tariff concessions on 4WDs. Introduced originally as a subsidy for farmers, it became a fashion statement for yuppies who rarely, if ever, went off-road. OK, I have one but so would you if you owned a wildlife sanctuary and had to drive up and down cliffs.

I've previously 'fessed up to being a climate-change sceptic which, these days, is marginally better than being a pedophile but I will support any measure that reduces pollution and congestion. If the Government is serious about climate change, then they should use the taxation system to lower the cost of fuel-efficient cars and increase the price of gas-guzzlers. There will never be a better time.

The most surprising omission from this, and past budgets, was the failure to end the financial advantage given to those who drive to work over those who use public transport. The former can claim all car expenses against their taxable income while the latter can't claim anything. Work vehicles aside, it should be the other way around.

Soaring fuel prices have already caused hundreds of thousands to switch to public transport but isn't that what we wanted? Reverse tax deductibility and it will snowball. Cities will become livable again and our transport system will be profitable.

Finally to an obsession that has been with me since I entered parliament 40 years ago: controlling our population growth. I was stunned at the recent news that next year Australia will bring in 300,000 immigrants. That's about double the average over the past 50 years, so we can expect to have 30 million within 20 years. Guess where most will live? In our capital cities, of course. Imagine Sydney and Melbourne each with about an extra three million. It's madness. As global warming and climate change are the direct result of individual demand for more and more energy then surely we should be trying to contain our population growth?

"We need more skilled workers," the pro-migration lobby cries. Fine, bring in skilled workers and limit the other categories.

I'm reluctant to give prime ministers advice, mainly because they don't take kindly to advice from feather dusters. Let me make an exception. Prime Minister, there is, at the moment, an extraordinary amount of goodwill in the nation towards you and your Government. Australians understand there is a crisis and are prepared to make sacrifices and suffer pain providing you take them into your confidence and the pain is fairly and evenly distributed. They also want consistency. At the moment there are too many contradictions.

At the risk of being melodramatic this is the time for you to go Churchillian and call for "blood, toil, tears and sweat", not palliatives and cosmetics.

Source





Another case of blaming anybody but the person responsible

THE hotel industry has been spooked by the debate over who is responsible for drunken behaviour. And hotels are expected to clamp down even harder on serving drinkers who have already had alcohol. The stricter approach is likely after Coroner Stephen Carey berated the Dover Hotel in his findings on the death of a patron who fell into a river after drinking at the pub in October last year.

Peter O'Sullivan from Tasmania's liqour and gaming branch said the rules over serving alcohol to patrons who appeared drunk were very clear. But he said the broader debate about at what point those who drink to excess are responsible for their own behaviour could be murky. Hotel licensees can be fined $12,000 if charged under the Liquor Licensing Act with serving alcohol to a person who appears drunk. Staff members can be fined $6000.

On Monday, Coroner Carey said staff at the Dover Hotel had indirectly contributed to the death of John Larkins who fell down a river embankment opposite the pub while stopping to urinate on his walk home. The hotel has not been charged under the Act but the coronial "slap" has caused the hotel industry to take a closer look at responsible serving practices.

Australian Hotels Association general manager Steve Old said the association was talking with the publican at the Dover Hotel about the issue. "It is a tough one. But I do not want to delve into the broader issue of personal and industry responsibility at this stage because the publican is dealing with some legal issues," Mr Old said.

Source

No comments: