Premier Berejiklian

A copy of a post just, on Mon. 23 Aug. 21, emailed to Premier Berejiklian, for her information and comment.

We suspect that any emails we send to her simply go into the trash – it certainly may as well be happening. Does anyone have a different experience in trying to deal with her?

She may argue that she’s too busy with stuff on the COVID virus, but if that’s so, it’s so depressing, just a tragedy!

Peter Drucker, the famous management consultant and writer, used to be always saying that, “The control of businesses is their people decisions.” And certainly, the control of Governments is their people decisions. And surely there must be no one more important in the people decisions being made by the Berejiklian Government than Ms Berejiklian herself, from which follows that that’s what she should be concentrating on – trying to make sure that the very best people are appointed to every position in her government.

Important as stuff to do with the COVID virus is, there’s a great deal happening in New South Wales besides it – the very best person in New South Wales to do so should be handling the COVID virus stuff, while Ms Berejiklian is trying to make sure that the very best people available are in charge of all the rest that’s going on.

In a book called, “How to Motivate People,” it’s author, Michael Le Boeuf, Ph.D., described as an “Internationally Renowned Management Educator,” claims that this is the “The greatest management principle in the world” – “THE THINGS THAT GET REWARDED GET DONE.”

That in every situation there is what can be called a “reward system” which determines the things that get the most rewarded through to the things that get the least rewarded.

After more than 20 years studying these matters, we’re convinced that, when it comes to health care in New South Wales, we have a reward system under which it’s the worst things that get the most rewarded and the best things that get least rewarded – it’s virtually corrupt.

Surely the experiences of one of our readers, who, for convenience we’ll call XXX, about which we have written extensively, illustrates this.

To summarise:-

XXX was experiencing what is called the “frequency problem,” common in seniors, he was  having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate, and when he consulted his GP, Dr Chris Grant, about this, he recommended that he seek help from A/Prof. Andrew Brooks, Urologist. Prior to going ahead with Brooks, XXX wrote to A/Prof. Paul Sved, Urologist, outlining his symptoms and seeking his advice, and Dr Sved’s response was that there were many things to be considered that might help with his symptoms before surgery. But, in the end, XXX decided to trust Dr Grant and Dr Brooks and go ahead with Brooks – obviously to his profound regret, almost daily. For Brooks, surgery was the first option! His diagnosis was that XXX’s bladder had become muscular, and therefore smaller, down to a capacity of about 200 mils, from years of having to force his urine past partial blockages in his urinary tract, and that if he had the treatment he recommended, surgery called the TURP, in which any partial blockages were removed, his bladder would soon be back to a more normal size, say, 330 mls in capacity, certainly within 3 to 6 months, and he would no longer have the frequency problem.

(Brooks had his nurse carry out the tests to back up this diagnosis, for which XXX was charged more than a fully qualified Urologist would have charged, and Brooks has absolutely refused to release copies of the results of her tests, despite the fact that XXX is entitled to them by law – even when he sought the help of the NSW Privacy Commissioner to try and get them, who, incidentally, was completely useless, Brooks still wouldn’t release them.)

So XXX had Brooks’ TURP – which didn’t help him in any way, as Brooks himself has admitted in writing. He still had, and, in fact, still has, the frequency problem exactly the same, AND, it damaged him for life in a highly personal way, something which didn’t just happen sometimes, it’s ALWAYS a consequence of the TURP, and can’t be reversed.

Some 5 months later, as XXX still had the “frequency problem,” he consulted A/Prof. Vincent Tse, Urologist, who had been recommended to him by Dr Sved. Dr Tse went to a great deal of trouble, showing him graphs and so on, showing that his bladder then had a capacity of about 33o mls, but explaining that the fact that he still had the “frequency problem” was because his bladder had become weak, as is often the case with seniors, so that a fair bit of urine was still left in it after he’d urinated, meaning it was sooner before it was full again – about which nothing could be done! No wonder Brooks has refused to release the results of his nurse’s tests – the suspicion is that how XXX’s bladder was, when he consulted Tse, is exactly how it was when he consulted Brooks, 5 months before, when his nurse carried out her tests, and that all Brooks’ talk about  his bladder being small and muscular was fairy tales, put forward so he could justify, at least in his mind, surgery for which he would get $3,2oo for less than an hour’s work. But, and this is crucial, Brooks had claimed that his treatment would take the capacity of XXX’s bladder from about 200 mls to a more normal size, say, of about 330 mls, which would mean he would no longer have the frequency problem, but here it was , with a capacity of  about 330 mls, and he still had the frequency problem???!!!

But our main point in all this is this, who was the most rewarded? – Dr Sved, who charged a couple of hundred dollars for his help, Dr Tse who charged $750 for all his testing and advice, or Dr Brooks, from his fee of $3,200 for less than an hour’s work.

XXX claims that afterwards, when he made the comment, in general conversation, that he thought Brooks was about putting together a “nest egg” for his retirement, Grant just laughed, saying, “I would have thought Dr Brooks had lots of “nest eggs” already” – in other words, that he thought that he was filthy rich.

But wait, there’s more.

XXX claims that over the years, Brooks has had henchmen ring him on 7 different occasions, one in the last few days, on about 10 Aug. 2021, making all sorts of threats, “you might be sued for defamation,” “you might end up in gaol,” etc. etc. etc. if he didn’t take his descriptions of his experiences, his side of the story, down from the internet, while, at the time, steadfastly refusing to tell his side of the story in any way. (Let us repeat again, what we’ve said so often, that we would be happy to put up on the internet Brooks’ side of the story to anything and everything we’ve ever written.) And XXX further claims that one of these henchmen happened to mention that Brooks, from time to time, made “contributions,” (bribes?”) to GPs to help them in running their businesses, which he described as being a “norm” for the industry. And further, that when XXX emailed Grant asking if he’d ever received one of Brooks’ “contributions,” not only did he not respond, but he took action to prevent XXX from sending him any more emails ever again.

So readers, get the picture. Bad specialists making more money, perhaps much more money, than the good specialists, and GPs making more money if they refer patients to the bad specialists than if they refer them to the good specialists.

To us it seems that this is the “reward system” that exists in New South Wales. It makes it difficult for us, the people, to find doctors we can trust.

Unquestionably, Commissioner Sue Dawson and her people in the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission play a big part in bringing this reward system about. When complaints are made to them about people like Brooks, the people who do it find it’s been a complete waste of their time and effort, because they are told they have no basis to complain, and it’s implied that they’ve been stupid in ever thinking that they might have had a basis to complain. The result is that people like Brooks know they can virtually get away with murder!!!

But in the end, the top people in the Berejiklian Government – like Elizabeth Koff, Secretary, NSW Health, Brad Hazzard, Minister for Health, and Premier Berejiklian herself, and others, are the problem. They are the ones who recently appointed Dawson to another 5 years as Commissioner. They ignore all emails about the problem – we’re yet to get evidence that Premier Berejiklian ever responds to any emails from anybody about this. And if anything, all that’s probably happening it that we’re probably just endangering our lives, and the lives of our families, by putting stuff like the above up on the internet. And certainly, we’re getting no thanks from the people.

info@questionsmisc.info.

In your role as Premier of New South Wales, is it of concern to you that there is a doctor in our State whose track record is that, when male patients are referred to him for help with what is called “the frequency problem,” (they are having to get up 2 or 3 times during the night to go to the toilet which makes it difficult to get a good night’s sleep,) he recommends, and if his recommendation is accepted, carries out surgery which (a) doesn’t help the patients with the problem in any way and (b) damages them for life in a highly personal way, it can’t be reversed, apparently just so he can get $3,200 for less than an hours work.

And it appears he just keeps doing it and doing it.

It would seem obvious that if people like you cared, he would decide he couldn’t keep doing it.

I would be most grateful to hear from you.

We’ll let you know if we get a reply.

16/2/21: Not even an acknowledgement of the receipt of this email, yet.

One of our readers claims that, on the recommendation of Dr Andrew Brooks, Urologist, and trusting him, he underwent a TURP operation, allegedly to help with a frequency problem he was experiencing, he was having to get up 2 or 3 times a night to urinate, and that, as well as the fact that it hadn’t helped in any way, (as Brooks himself subsequently admitted in writing,) as an inevitable consequence, it happens with TURP operations ALWAYS, his sex life has been badly affected badly, and it’s for the rest of his life, it can’t be reversed.

It wouldn’t need to be explained to our male readers that, in having an organism, a large part of the pleasure they feel comes from their semen being ejaculated through their penis – well, after a TURP operation, that doesn’t happen, their semen is sent up into their bladder which doesn’t cause them to feel a thing.

We’ve often speculated as to how much gaol time a thug would get if he’d assaulted someone in a pub, and that as a consequence, his sex life had been similarly affected badly for the rest of his life? Perhaps it would take a male judge to appreciate how much a disaster this was. We’re certainly of the opinion that Brooks should have got time in gaol – perhaps should still be gaol?

But our 2 main points are:-

Firstly, in case our readers haven’t realised it yet, in NSW, under Ms Sue Dawson and her people at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, we have a “reward system” in which doctors like Brooks know  they can get away with this sort of thing, in fact, can get away with anything – of course, he only recommended the TURP operation so he could get a fee of $3,200 for less than an hours work, and no doubt he’s done it over an over again and perhaps is still doing it over and over again, (it would be incredibly unlikely that the only time he’d ever done it was with our reader,) without ever having the slightest fear that complaints to the HCCC about his conduct would be otherwise than dismissed as having no proper basis.

Our reader says he’s never made a complaint to the HCCC about Brooks as, from other experiences, he knows how useless they are, and that it would be a waste of his precious time. He says that he imagines Brooks would come up with, “I explained to Mr XXX that if he had a TURP operation his sex life would be affected badly for the rest of his life, that it couldn’t be reversed, but he said he didn’t care about this so long as it saved him from getting up an extra one or two times a night to urinate!!!!!” – what else could he say? And that it wouldn’t matter how many times our reader said that this hadn’t happened, particularly pointing out that Brooks didn’t have anything in writing to confirm his consent, as would have been reasonably expected, that Ms Dawson would believe Brooks, and not the complainant – they NEVER believe complainants!

It would interesting to know how many times patients have complained to the HCCC after Brooks has done this – all to no avail, of course!

But, Secondly, and far more importantly as far as we’re concerned, is that in the three and half years since Gladys Berejiklian became the leader of the NSW Government, in January, 2017, she’s done nothing about Sue Dawson being the NSW Health Care Complaints Commissioner, when surely Dawson would have to one of the worst people imaginable to fill this role – when surely it would be kindergarten stuff to find someone better! Ms Dawson herself doesn’t deny that 98% of the more than 550 NSW people a month who complain about NSW health care workers, mainly doctors, (and we’re sure that that number could be easily be many many more if the word hadn’t got around that complaining was a waste of time,) are, in the end, told they have nothing to complain about – that the people in NSW, in general, are stupid, they keep complaining, when they have nothing to complain about.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

A letter just, on 8 Jul. 2020, emailed to Ms Sue Dawson, the Commissioner at the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission.

To us, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission is SUCH an important element in the running of our State, requiring that it’s Commissioner be one of the very best people available. (Doctors should be made to feel that they have to perform at the highest level – at present there are indications everywhere you turn that they feel they can get away with just about anything, because they can.)

And the fact that anything like 98% of the people who make complaints about NSW doctors to the HCCC end up being told that they have nothing to complain about raises only two possibilities – either, that a remarkable number of the people in NSW are just plain stupid, (to us, it’s an insult to us, the people,) or, that Sue Dawson may not be amongst the very best people available to be it’s Commissioner.

And the fact that Dawson has retained the role of being it’s Commissioner for the 3 and a half years in which Ms Berejiklian has been our Premier – since January 2017 – raises the question as to whether she is the amongst the very best people to be the top person in our government???

The most important part of any leader’s job is for them to be ensuring, as best they can, that the very best people are filling the key roles in governments as with all organisations, and to us, while Ms Dawson is the HCCC’s CEO, it would appear that Premier Berejiklian is sadly lacking in this regard.

We’ll let you know if a response is received from Ms Dawson to the email shown above – but, in our experience, she’s not really into providing responses to emails.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

An 11 July, 2020, update: Our email still hasn’t even been acknowledged, despite a reminder having been sent this morning.

If you click on this link, you are taken to an article entitled, “A day in the life of … Sue Dawson.” This is part of it:-

To us, two sentences in it are ridiculous, nothing short of bizarre!

“The fact that we have people feeling comfortable about making complaints, and empowered to question the care they have been given, is a good thing.”

“In the context of the tens of millions of health services delivered in NSW each year, the number of complaints is reassurance that the quality of our care is good.”

This, when, after she’s admitted that the Commission expected to get nearly 600 complaints a month in the 2018-2019 year, she submits that this provides “reassurance that the quality of our care is good” – perhaps it was good in many cases, but nearly 600 people a month didn’t think so in their cases, taking the time and trouble to make a complaint, when there would be many others, perhaps another 600 didn’t, having learnt from making previous complaints themselves, or in some other way, that doing so was a waste of their precious time.

This, when 98% of those who complain are told they are stupid for complaining because they don’t have a basis to do so, leading her to submit that, as a result, people generally are “feeling comfortable about making complaints???”

This, when, in the rare cases when a basis for complaint is accepted, and the public receive notice of this in one of their Media Releases, it’s a least 5 years since the issues involved arose, and most likely at least 5 years since a complaint was made – although the dates of complaints are NEVER disclosed.

This, when often, health care workers who are found guilty of something, have retired, or otherwise ceased to be registered to practice anyway.

And, of course, the person who’s been letting her get away with this rubbish for 3 and a half years now, is Premier Berejiklian.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

One of our readers claims that he sent the following complaint to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission about A/Prof. Timothy Tan, Cardiologist on 19 Oct. 2018:-

This response was received from a Ms Catarina Soares on 5 Nov. 2018:-

We are constantly getting reports from readers complaining that, although on it’s own figures, the HCCC gets 200 complaints a month about NSW doctors, it never finds that more than 1 or 2 a month have done not a very good job, with perhaps another 1 or 2 more being found guilty of abuse to do with sex or drugs – the other nearly 200 being told that they were stupid for complaining because they had nothing to complain about. That they are pure geniuses at coming up with excuses, with, as a result, NSW doctors knowing that that can almost get away with murder, literally!

So what happened in this particular case?

Our reader got this in an email on 16 Jan. 2019.

In other words:-

Firstly, you have no basis to complain, it’s all your fault – he “provided you with  appropriate  care and treatment,” even though he was too lazy and negligent to ask what medication you were already on, as he told you not to rely on his advice in any way but to hotfoot it to your regular cardiologist for proper advice as soon as you could, “upon leaving the Hospital!!!”

Secondly, “At no point during your presentation did Dr Tan inform you to contact him for further advice.” What does it even mean??? The email that was sent didn’t seek “further advice,” it was sent to give him the opportunity to make up for his laziness and negligence in the advice he had given!!!

In relation to the ordinary email address our reader used, when he responded to Ms Soares’ enquiry telling her he’d used the email address on the Sydney University’s website – tim.tan@sydney.edu.au – she told him it was no wonder he hadn’t got it, that he should have used the one available from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. But when he emailed the people at AHPRA they told him they didn’t have an ordinary email address for Dr Tan, and that they had no idea what Ms Soares was talking about!!!

He says that when he then emailed Ms Soares about this, with a copy to  Commissioner Sue Dawson herself, neither of them even acknowledged his email – of course!

(We’ve learnt the hard way that if you’ve sent an email to someone and haven’t got even an acknowledgement it’s receipt within 14 days, that, if it ever becomes relevant, they’ll swear until they’re black and blue in the face that they never got it, ALWAYS.)

Sue Dawson was made Commissioner in Dec. 2015, and, in our experience the level of competence in complaint handling under her shown in this matter is entirely typical – she’s useless, not a suitable person to hold her position, and if Premier Berejiklian, who’s been in charge since Jan. 2017, thinks she is, perhaps she’s not a suitable person to hold her position. But perhaps we’ll get a response from the Premier – although we doubt it.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

If you Google Premier Berejiklian, you are taken to a “Contact the Premier” page, on which is an incredibly cumbersome and complicated email form which we used in 3 attempts to send the letter shown below – and still didn’t get a clear cut indication that it had been sent successfully!!! Hopefully she got it.

So we put it up on this page on our website on 5 July, 2020. Hopefully she’ll read it.

We’ll let you know if we get a response.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

A 9 July, 2020 update: Not even an acknowledgement yet.

We’re neither Liberal or Labour, we don’t care which, and we have a belief that that’s how all the people in NSW are going to gradually become – that modern technology has changed the world to the extent that the party that gets the most votes in future elections will be the party that has the best track record  of addressing concerns people send to them in emails. This will become the best means of marketing.

In other words, the party that uses ordinary email addresses, not email forms, to enable people to set out their concerns quickly and easily, and has people standing by who people think address their concerns the best, within reasonable times.

Of course, it’s almost too obvious to say that, at present at least, both the NSW Government and the NSW Opposition seem to be a million miles away from being like that.

As an illustration of this, one of our readers claims that, only a couple of days ago, after he’d raised an issue with his local State MP, Geoff Lee, he got a “snail mail” letter back, not an email, advising that the issue had been passed on to Minister Hazzard, and adding the proviso, “Please be advised that a response may take several weeks to complete” – this, when our reader claims that a lot of the times the issues that are passed on to Minster Hazzard are NEVER responded to, and once, when he DID get a response from one of the Minister’s people, it was the worst letter he’d got in his whole life.