SA Footy

stan wrote:

jo172 wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Booney wrote:
Tarzia will be given something juicy as reward. Health or police?

How about Speaker?
Mind you, it wouldn’t be hard to do a better job

Well the test is not sending pornography to female legislators.

What the Labor Right will let people get away with in the name of holding power never ceases to amaze

I don't know mate, I have seen some crazy stuff from all sides of politics to hold power. I think our pollies are all good and ethical until it affects there hold on power, then as you said it is amazing what they are allowed to get away with.

Protecting the skins of Ministers who don't take steps regarding the tying up and beating of mentally ill elderly people is as bad as it gets in my view.

heater31 wrote:4 Department chiefs told to clean out their desks this morning.

He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Booney wrote:There's been a noticeable shift in people's defence/offence strategies in this thread since last Saturday night.

Been interesting to watch.

As expected though really. A change in government which means the Labour types in here are now the opposition and now on the attack, although will still need to defend for the next few years as the new government will pretty much blame the previous government for everything, I mean we have seen that over the years.

From my point of view I'm looking forward to the Liberals energy plan coming out in more detail, a interconnector to NSW will be useful as the black coal generation out there is typically cheaper on the spot market, however ElectraNet will enjoy the transmissions costs for that. Also will the pumped hydro at Highbury (300MW for 4 hours) still get up, its a valuable generation source I think we need.

Regardless it will be interesting as to what happens going forward, Steve has a reasonable amount of work in front of him, but with the alignment with the Federal government now we could see some interesting things happening in SA. Basically now that SA is not Labour it seems that Malcolm and his mates will want to get SA up and about as quickly as possible before the next state election.

Also I have been pretty harsh on Steve Marshall basically referring him to something like a bumbling goof at best, but his time is now and he can really show us all what Steve is really about. This is his chance to show everyone how good he really can be.

stan wrote:

heater31 wrote:4 Department chiefs told to clean out their desks this morning.

He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Yeah, good on him, **** those people who have had or will have their livelihood taken away.

morell wrote:

stan wrote:

heater31 wrote:4 Department chiefs told to clean out their desks this morning.

He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Yeah, good on him, **** those people who have had or will have their livelihood taken away.

That happens no matter who is in power.

morell wrote:

stan wrote:

heater31 wrote:4 Department chiefs told to clean out their desks this morning.

He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Yeah, good on him, **** those people who have had or will have their livelihood taken away.

Most of them earn $1000 plus per day and got 12 months worth as a severance package......they will be fine!

morell wrote:

stan wrote:

heater31 wrote:4 Department chiefs told to clean out their desks this morning.

He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Yeah, good on him, **** those people who have had or will have their livelihood taken away.

They were political appointees, feeling bad for them having their livelihood taken away is akin to feeling bad for Robert Brokenshire getting his livelihood taken away on Saturday night.

Jim05 wrote:

morell wrote:

stan wrote:

heater31 wrote:4 Department chiefs told to clean out their desks this morning.

He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Yeah, good on him, **** those people who have had or will have their livelihood taken away.

That happens no matter who is in power.

Agreed.

And I think it's flawed.

jo172 wrote:

morell wrote:

stan wrote:

heater31 wrote:4 Department chiefs told to clean out their desks this morning.

He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Yeah, good on him, **** those people who have had or will have their livelihood taken away.

They were political appointees, feeling bad for them having their livelihood taken away is akin to feeling bad for Robert Brokenshire getting his livelihood taken away on Saturday night.

Nah. That's what I'm critical of. They shouldn't be political appointees.

And they might have earned a good salary, but I still don't think it's right to sack someone like that.

Not to mention the obvious flow on effects that it will initiate.

They haven't committed a crime. They haven't been awful at their job. They're a victim of circumstance and it ought to be looked at IMO.

morell wrote:

jo172 wrote:

morell wrote:

stan wrote:He did say he wanted to start cleaning out the shop front, so good on him for getting into it. Obviously has his eye of a certain setup, so if you work in the SA public service you could expect a restructure coming pretty soon.

Yeah, good on him, **** those people who have had or will have their livelihood taken away.

They were political appointees, feeling bad for them having their livelihood taken away is akin to feeling bad for Robert Brokenshire getting his livelihood taken away on Saturday night.

Nah. That's what I'm critical of. They shouldn't be political appointees.

And they might have earned a good salary, but I still don't think it's right to sack someone like that.

Not to mention the obvious flow on affects that it will initiate.

They haven't committed a crime. They haven't been awful at their job. They're a victim of circumstance and it ought to be looked at IMO.

They knew they were political appointees when appointed though.

There's a fair bit of live by the sword, die by the sword at play.

If they were career mandarins who had been promoted on merit and had diligently served governments of both stripe it would be different, but these four in particular just aren't.

It's the same way that the younger SDA appartchiks will no longer get their plush roles as Ministerial Advisers on $100k a year (instead those going to Young Libs, albeit the promise is less than 50%, we'll see if that's carried out though)

stan wrote:Also I have been pretty harsh on Steve Marshall basically referring him to something like a bumbling goof

He's now in charge of a place with a capital city, so Marshall could be our own...

And quelle surprise we were days away from the RAH losing accreditation.

But at least Jay built the O Bahn extension ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Rural public health services seem to have been stacked with administrators who trained in the UK running the NHS and who toe the state government's line on running with minimal beds and minimal staff, and looonng waiting lists. to save money for vote buying promises in election years. I'd be glad to see them gone!

jo172 wrote:And quelle surprise we were days away from the RAH losing accreditation.

But at least Jay built the O Bahn extension ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not quite

CALHN (RAH, QEH, Hamsted and Glenside) are accredited until June 2020, so no chance of them losing accreditation until then.

However if they don't rectify their identified issues by the beginning of June, come July......

Psyber IMO beds aren't so much the issue, staff though (read p 60-61 of the Chief Psychs Oakden report) to deal with the increased acuity and complexity being seen across our transformed health sector, well that's a discussion that needs to occur.

Only the perversity of the SA ALP faction system could lead to the Minister responsible for TAFE SA wind up being promoted.

They've learnt nothing from Oakden

am Bays wrote:

jo172 wrote:And quelle surprise we were days away from the RAH losing accreditation.

But at least Jay built the O Bahn extension ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not quite

CALHN (RAH, QEH, Hamsted and Glenside) are accredited until June 2020, so no chance of them losing accreditation until then.

However if they don't rectify their identified issues by the beginning of June, come July......

Psyber IMO beds aren't so much the issue, staff though (read p 60-61 of the Chief Psychs Oakden report) to deal with the increased acuity and complexity being seen across our transformed health sector, well that's a discussion that needs to occur.

Oakden is a special case - a Psycho-Geriatric Unit rebadged as Nursing Home so that trained Psychiatric Nurses were not required in place and funding for its running could be extracted from the Commonwealth government which would not have occurred had it remained a Psych facility.

Looking at general medicine and ED overload, when I did a locum at Mt Gambier hospital there was constant pressure to get people out of the wards because there were patients clogging up the ED lying around waiting for a bed to be admitted to. I was put under pressure a few times when I said, "No this patient in the ward is not yet well enough to be discharged safely."

Similarly, while I was working in Perth a couple of years ago we had a two week period there when there were no Psych beds available anywhere in Perth, and every ED in the city had 3 or 4 people psychotic from Methamphetamine use detained, shackled to ED beds, and sedated with anaesthetic agents to keep them manageable and other patients safe.

Psyber wrote:Oakden is a special case - a Psycho-Geriatric Unit rebadged as Nursing Home so that trained Psychiatric Nurses were not required in place and funding for its running could be extracted from the Commonwealth government which would not have occurred had it remained a Psych facility.

4/5 staff done for maladministration in the ICAC Report were specialist MH staff, so you're not quite correct. The Nursing home part of Oakden was a mixed staff model of non MH (PSAs) and specialist MH staff as it was still a legislated treatment centre under the MH Act so MH registered clinicians were part of the daily staffing mix. The other long stay psycho-geriatric ward (Clemence House) was all MH registered staff.

Psyber wrote:
Looking at general medicine and ED overload, when I did a locum at Mt Gambier hospital there was constant pressure to get people out of the wards because there were patients clogging up the ED lying around waiting for a bed to be admitted to. I was put under pressure a few times when I said, "No this patient in the ward is not yet well enough to be discharged safely."

Similarly, while I was working in Perth a couple of years ago we had a two week period there when there were no Psych beds available anywhere in Perth, and every ED in the city had 3 or 4 people psychotic from Methamphetamine use detained, shackled to ED beds, and sedated with anaesthetic agents to keep them manageable and other patients safe.

Impossible to argue against the above.

am Bays wrote:

Psyber wrote:Oakden is a special case - a Psycho-Geriatric Unit rebadged as Nursing Home so that trained Psychiatric Nurses were not required in place and funding for its running could be extracted from the Commonwealth government which would not have occurred had it remained a Psych facility.

4/5 staff done for maladministration in the ICAC Report were specialist MH staff, so you're not quite correct. The Nursing home part of Oakden was a mixed staff model of non MH (PSAs) and specialist MH staff as it was still a legislated treatment centre under the MH Act so MH registered clinicians were part of the daily staffing mix. The other long stay psycho-geriatric ward (Clemence House) was all MH registered staff.

Thanks for that info - my version had come from someone who had worked there and left a few years before the issues hit the press recently. It sounds like their version was a little biased. I hadn't known the details of how the restructuring to achieve some Federal funding was done. My direct knowledge of the set up of the place was long previous to the restructuring - early in my career I had worked for 6 months in the Psycho-Geriatric Unit at Hillcrest run then by Dr Lesley McLeay in the days when Bill Salter was Medical Superintendent.

(Lesley would never have let happen any of the more recent events when she was in charge!)

Psyber wrote:Thanks for that info - my version had come from someone who had worked there and left a few years before the issues hit the press recently. It sounds like their version was a little biased. I hadn't known the details of how the restructuring to achieve some Federal funding was done. My direct knowledge of the set up of the place was long previous to the restructuring - early in my career I had worked for 6 months in the Psycho-Geriatric Unit at Hillcrest run then by Dr Lesley McLeay in the days when Bill Salter was Medical Superintendent.

(Lesley would never have let happen any of the more recent events when she was in charge!)

Ah yes, Lesley McLeay, what one of the wings of the Oakden Nursing home was called McLeay House