To us, the issues seem remarkably simple.

(1) It’s being alleged that while Ms Sue Dawson is the CEO at the HCCC, that 98% or more of those who submit complaints about NSW health care workers, are, in the end, told that they have nothing to complain about, and, it appears that she can’t provide any evidence that this isn’t how it is, and,

(2) If she can’t, is this good enough? – with the Berejiklian Government’s Minister for Health, Brad Hazzard, to decide.

To see the latest correspondence on this, use this link.

After we’d sent emails expressing concerns about the performance of the New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission’s performance, under it’s Commissioner Sue Dawson, to Premier Berejiklian and Geoff Lee, MP, one of the Berejiklian Government’s local Members of Parliament, they both indicated they’d passed our emails on to Brad Hazzard, MP, the Berejiklian Government’s Minister for Health – it seems it’s up to Minister Hazzard to make the “people decision” as to whether Ms Dawson continues to occupy her role or some one better is found.

This lead to us receiving this letter from Minister Hazzard on 28 July, 2020, by email.

To us, this is an amateurish response, not addressing the real issues at all. We responded with this on 29 July, 2020:-

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

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.

A 5 Aug. 2020 update: Our response, sent to Minister Hazzard’s email address on 29 July, 2020, is yet to be even acknowledged.

Something reminded us recently of the claims of one of our readers, that way back in June, 2008, after he’d made a complaint to Primary Health Care Limited, (now Healius,) that a doctor he’d seen in one of their centres had given him advice on 5 different matters and that all 5 advices were wrong, he’d got this response from Dr Edmund Bateman, Healius’s founder, (since deceased in 2015,)

What an arrogant ignorant twerp he was!

And that our reader further claimed that, not only had Bateman told him to “p..s off,” he’d given orders to his lackeys, (Heil Hitler,) that if ever our reader was to visit any of it’s centres in the future, he was to be escorted from the premises, with “the police being called if necessary,” – our reader being a kindly old gentleman in his 70s! Further evidence of what an arrogant ignorant twerp he was.

Our reader says he only found this out, when some years later he saw the same doctor again, not to consult him on health matters, but to ask for his comments on what AHPRA was saying about him, and that when he found he wasn’t getting anywhere, he’d left – only to get an email the next day advising him that he’d been “ejected from their premises” and so on and so on, all black and white lies!

Of course, not only was Bateman an arrogant ignorant twerp, he was dumb and perhaps bad-tempered – surely he couldn’t have thought that letters like this would do the cause of his organisation any good, but he couldn’t resist carrying on like a Hitler like dictator, as presumably he was.

Of course, we’ve steered well clear of Healius, ourselves, ever since, and advised our readers to do the same.

We’d send Healius a copy of this post to give them the opportunity to provide their version of things, except that they don’t have an ordinary email address readily available, and we don’t have enough of our precious time to try and be in contact with people and organisations like this – as far as we’re concerned, people and organisation who don’t have an ordinary email address readily available may as well have up in big red letters somewhere, WE’RE NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN YOUR FEEDBACK, especially when they add, as is the case with Healius, “Please note that this process can take up to 30 working days depending on the subject matter of your feedback.” People and organisations who are interested in feedback are prepared to go to the trouble and expense of having more people on standby to provide responses to feedback than Healius clearly does.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.

To us, the fact that Sue Dawson is the CEO of the  NSW Health Care Complaints Commission is an absolute scandal affecting the lives of many of the people in NSW quite badly – the fact that she was ever appointed to this position being a quite hopeless “people decision.” NSW health care workers, particularly doctors, know that, almost literally, they can get away with ANYTHING – and a lot of them are getting away with ANYTHING. To us, if Dawson is reappointed in Dec. 2020, at the end of her 5 year term, it will be nothing short of a disaster for the people of NSW!

(We’ve just checked the HCCC’s Media Releases, and, from it, so far, in the first 28 days of July, with only one NSW health care worker, not a doctor, has it been found that a complaint was justified – this, when according to it’s own figures, the HCCC gets more than  500 complaints in any 28 days. And, over the years, when we’ve checked these Media Releases, we’ve found this sort of thing not unusual. Readers, don’t you find this almost laughable? as we do!)

Of course, Sue Dawson was appointed to this position in Dec. 2015, when Mike Baird was the Premier, but she has continued to hold this position in the three and a half years since Gladys Berejiklian became the NSW Premier, taking Mike Baird’s place – when, in our opinion Dawson should have been replaced with someone better years ago.

And when we recently sent emails to Premier Berejiklian herself, and our local State Member of Parliament, complaining about the fact that Ms Dawson was continuing to hold her position, all they both said was that they’d passed our emails on to the Minister for Health, Brad Hazzard!

We could write a book about how hopeless we’ve found Minister Hazzard to be, over the years – including one occasion when, in response to one of the similar issues we’d raised, we got a letter from one of his people, which we always say was the worst letter we’ve ever got from anyone in our whole lives. Yet it appears that, under the Berejiklian Government, the “people decision” has been made that Minister Hazzard is the person to make the “people decision” as to whether Sue Dawson continues to hold her position???

We can’t think of anyone worse! But, perhaps, one day, we’ll get a response from him that causes us to change our minds, that makes the slightest sense. We’ll let you know, if we ever do.

(One of the things we find particularly annoying, is when people respond to emails without even indicating the date of the email they’re responding to – and we find that this is something Berejiklian Government people always do! Solicitors are taught that doing this shows a complete lack of professional courtesy. To us, one thing is certain, and that is that if Minister Hazzard ever responds to the emails that have been passed on to him, say, in 3 months time, that we’ll left scratching around trying to work out what emails he’s responding to.)

And, on top of this – how about this, readers? There’s a Parliamentary Committee called the “Joint Parliamentary Committee on the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission,” a committee of seven Parliamentarians, that’s been especially set up, about which it’s said that “The role of the Committee, as set out in the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, is to monitor and review the HCCC’s over all performance,” of which the Chair is Gurmesh Singh, MP, (about whom it’s alleged that he gets an extra $10,000 a year  in his salary for acting as the Chair,) who not only doesn’t respond to emails sent to him complaining about the HCCC’s over all performance, (we sent him one on 29 June, to which he hasn’t responded,) but it appears clear that, on his orders, he never even gets them – presumably because he thinks it might spoil his whole day if he got such emails?

Which raises the question, who on earth made the “people decision” that Mr Singh would be a good person to be the Chair of this committee, and who is making the “people decision” that he should continue being the Chair of this committee? And who made the people decision that the person making these decisions would be a good person to continue doing so?

To us, the decision to have Sue Dawson continuing as the CEO of the Health Care Complaints Commission is a hopeless “people decision,” the decision to have Minister Hazzard as the person to make this decision, is a hopeless “people decision,” and the decision to make Gurmesh Singh the Chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the NSW HCCC, and perhaps continue holding this position is a hopeless “people decision” – SO many hopeless people decisions!!!

And it’s hard to believe that Premier Berejiklian hasn’t played a significant part in some, perhaps all, of these decisions.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.

Further to this post.

As mentioned, on 8 July 2020, this was emailed to Sue Dawson, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commissioner:-

And that, on 17 July, 2020, we got this from Paul Spink, one of her officers:-

We replied on the same day with this:-

As at today, the 28 July, 2020, we haven’t heard anything further. To us, if in 11 days, Mr Spink hasn’t been able to come up with anything to counter the claim that Ms Dawson and her people eventually tell 98% of the people who lodge complaints with them about NSW health care workers, particularly doctors, that they have nothing to complain about, it’s not looking good that he’ll come up with anything, EVER?

To us, the claim is obviously correct – but perhaps we’re wrong, perhaps either Paul Spink or Sue Dawson will set us right. We’ll let you know if we hear from either of them.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.

A 4 Aug. 2020 update: During 18 days since our email to Mr Spink, it hasn’t even been acknowledged, let alone responded to, which, to us, is typical of the HCCC with Ms Sue Dawson as it’s CEO. Do any of our readers think we’ll get a response EVER?

This story has come from one of our readers who practiced as a NSW solicitor for more than 30 years.

He says that, as long as he’d been a NSW solicitor, there’d been a scale of costs or charges which said how much to charge when acting on conveyancing matters – for instance, if he was acting on a $500,000 purchase with a $400,ooo mortgage, there was a book that said how much to charge. AND, and that sigmificantly, it was regarded as malpractice, you could be “struck off,” if you advertised that you charged less than this book said, and/or, in fact, charged less than the book said.

Further, that, under this regime, by 1991, he had built up a thriving practice specialising in conveyancing, employing 32 solicitors and staff which could hardly cope with all the work it was getting. But that, in November 1991, everything changed.

A Professor Alan Fels, a so-called expert on competition, as far as we’re concerned, a preposterous imposter, (one of the three people in the world we hate the most!) had put it forward as fact that the scale of charges was restricting competition, when, of course, this was rubbish, unbelievable rubbish – it was the fact that you HAD to charge what the scale of charges said that was restricting competition. But Nick Greiner, the NSW Premier at the time, fell for this rubbish, and laws were enacted that, firstly, said that NSW solicitors COULD advertise, and secondly, that they no longer HAD to charge what the scale of charges said – which meant the scale of charges had become irrelevant, and was no longer referred to.

So, overnight, the conveyancing industry was changed from one in which an honest quid could be made into one in which you literally HAD to be a “crook” to survive! As a consequence, all at once, there were “crooks” everywhere advertising that they would do conveyancing matters for ridiculously low charges. Our reader says that he had inside information that one these “crooks,” perhaps the most prominent one, was having to spend all day every day explaining to clients how it was that, when it came to the settlement of their matters, their costs were so much more than they’d expected. But, of course, by that time the clients were “over a barrel,” as the old saying goes – it was too late to transfer to another solicitor, they had to “pay up” or their matter wouldn’t be settled.

Our reader says that he’s always saying that, (a) he didn’t really realise he had to become a “crook” to survive, and, (b) that even if he had, he wouldn’t have made a very good “crook!” And so, some five years later, after what seemed to him to be like 5 years of a long slow death, with more and more work going to the “crooks,” and his practice getting less work, he had to close it’s doors, and go bankrupt.

The fact is, and this is the point of this story, the scale of charges should have been kept as a point of reference – that solicitors could have advertised, saying things like, “We charge 5%, or 10%, or 15% less than the scale of charges says, or whatever,” which, among there things, would have made it very easy to check whether they’d charged what they’d said they would.

But our reader claims that he sent numerous letters by email to Alan Fels, Nick Greiner, and the NSW Law Society, pointing this out, but didn’t ever get even one sensible reply.

But there are three further points to this story.

Firstly, that, as we’ve come to realise recently, there should be scales of costs in all areas, no more so than when it comes to medical procedures.

Secondly, that there COULD be such scales of costs in all areas, even with medical procedures, that with modern communication technology it would be easy to put together such scales, perhaps rough and ready, but still incredibly helpful.

Thirdly, that from our past experiences there would seem to be no money in doing this.

As an example, with TURP operations, described as follows:-

We already know , from the experience of one of our readers, that Dr Andrew Brooks, Urologist, charged $3,200 for carrying out this procedure, which we understand took him less than an hour, and this was in 2014, so he would probably be charging more, perhaps much more, in 2020. And we believe that every Urologist in Sydney, who has an ordinary email address, could be emailed asking how much they charge, and the charges listed, in less that 2 days. And that this could be done with every conceivable surgical procedure, with the lists being produced being SO useful and helpful to SO many people.

By the way, we’d be astonished if lots of Sydney Urologists would be charging way less than Andrew Brooks charged in 2014, even in 2020 – although we could be wrong. Perhaps he could be emailed to find out – but in our experience Brooks hasn’t responded to an email in his whole life.

Of course, the “good guys” would cooperate, and the “crooks” would hate the idea.

(Perhaps there are such lists already in existence which we don’t know about. Perhaps readers know of some which they could let us know about and which we could share.)

As we say, from our experiences in the past, there’s probably no money in it – perhaps if there was, it would be being done! But, if this is the case, couldn’t Premier Berejiklian be allocating one or two public servants, it would probably only take one, to be putting these lists together.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.

To summarise what we’ve set out in this previous post.

A committee of Parliamentarians exists, (we’re not sure when it was set up,) called the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission.

Here’s a list of it’s members.

As you can see, Gurmesh Singh, MP, is it’s Chair, – for which it seems he gets an extra $10,000 in salary per year.

In Mr Singh’s own words, “The role of the Committee, as set out in the Health Care Complaints Act 1993, is to monitor and review the HCCC’s overall performance.”

BUT, it appears that there’s no way that the people of NSW can get letters to him complaining about the HCCC’s record in dealing with complaints about health care workers, particularly doctors, and that this is on Mr Singh’s orders!!! – it appears he doesn’t want to be bothered with such letters, doesn’t want to be expected to lift a finger to take any action about the HCCC’s record, which, of course is atrocious..

To us, this makes the making Mr Singh the Chair of this committee a hopeless “people decision” – and if it was made while Ms Berejiklian has been the Premier, it just another example of a hopeless “people decision” being made within the Berejiklian Government. And, if by chance, Mr Singh was made the Chair before Ms Berejiklian was appointed as the Premier in January, 2017, and she’s done nothing about it in three and a half years, it almost makes it worse. And, if facts like the above are presented to Ms Berejiklian and her people – we are certainly going to be sending her a copy of this post, we’ll let you know if we get a reply – and still nothing is done, that’s worse again!!!

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

INCREDIBLE! INCREDIBLE! INCREDIBLE!

In an attempt to get Gurmesh Singh, MP, the Chair of this committee, to comment on certain aspects of the performance of Sue Dawson and her people at the HCCC, this letter was emailed to him on 29 June, 2020. The email address we used was the one for his electorate as shown on the NSW Parliament’s website – coffsharbour@parliament.nsw.gov.au. It was assumed that if we used this email address it would get to him.

Having not heard anything in 24 days, this email was followed up with, “I’m wondering if you got this email? on 23 July, 2020, as a result of which, we got this.

In other words, it would appear that our email to Mr Singh was just sent on to the committee’s staff. And furthermore, that although, in any case, we’re told this already always happens, we’re told that, in the future, we should just send letters like the one we’ve sent, to the Committees staff, so the staff at Mr Singh’s electoral office won’t be bothered with them.

Which, to us, raises the question, as whether Mr Singh, has got the 29 June letter yet. Certainly, if he did get it, he hasn’t responded to it in any way.

And the more important question that’s raised is whether Mr Singh hasn’t got this letter because he’s given orders that he is NEVER to be bothered with letters like this one – when he’s the Chair of a committee specially set up to, and we quote from one of Mr Singh’s own letters, “to monitor and review the HCCC’s overall performance.”

To try and clarify the situation, this was sent today, on 24 July, 2020, to the Committee’s staff, using the ordinary email address that’s been nominated, hccc@parliament.nsw.gov.au.

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

To us, appointing Mr Singh to be the Chair of this important committee is possibly shaping up as another one of those horrible “people decisions” that keep being made within the Berejiklian Government.

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.

On 4 July, 2020, this was sent to Ramsay Health Care, the owner and operator of many of the private hospitals in Sydney and the whole wide world, using the email form on their website.

(Readers can be taken to the HCCC’s media release on this by using this link.)

As, on 24 July, 2020, 20 days later, we’d heard nothing, an attempt was made to send it again – but everything had changed!!!

Amongst other things, when we attempted to send the same thing, we got this:-

So, after some fiddling around, we reduced the length of what we wanted to say, and sent it off, and we received this:-

So it seems that Ramsay now has a “Contact Centre,” in which there’s a “team,” but, typical of sleazy organisations like Ramsay, the ordinary email address used to send us this  doesn’t work – it can’t be used to contact the team. Presumably, we still have to use use their email form to contact them, and anything that’s sent to them has to be “less than 250 characters long.”

Of course, we already know what the outcome of all this will be – Ramsay will strenuously deny that it offered Dr Chu any inducement to make sure his patient spent more than $20,000 in their hospital, unnecessarily, and Dr Chu will strenuously deny that he benefitted in any way from anyone, particularly from Ramsay, for having brought this about – even after he signed some of the paper work needed for the patient’s daughter to tap into her superannuation fund so it could be afforded. And, of course, wouldn’t you think, readers, that it would seem virtually certain, that Dr Chu would be lying in claiming that he did what he did for no reason at all??? and that this could have been easily uncovered if Ms Sue Dawson and her people at the HCCC had any investigative skills at all, which, of course, they haven’t, and that, if it was uncovered, Chu should be struck off for life and perhaps go to gaol?

Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, in all the circumstances, Ramsay could refund some, at least, of the over $20,000 the patient paid to it? Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha!

We only did all this, in case any of our readers weren’t already aware of what Ramsay, the Dr Chu’s of this world, and Sue Dawson and her people, are like.

Sometimes readers, we can almost think we live in a rotten stinking world!

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.

On 9 July, 2020, this letter was emailed to the Fairfield Government hospital, using the email form on it’s website – https://www.swslhd.health.nsw.gov.au/fairfield/.

It hasn’t even been acknowledged, let alone responded to. Over the years, since Nov. 2014, when the incident referred to occurred, we’ve sent at least 4 or 5 similar letters using this email form and the ordinary email address, fairfield.hospital@sswahs.nsw.gov.au, and not one of them has even been acknowledged, let alone responded to.

It would seem that, with the way the hospital was managed at the time, everything else had higher priority than helping a couple deliver their baby, and one question would be – has anyone ever been held accountable for this? We can imagine that people have been sent to gaol for less than this.

But, we’ve always thought that a more important question has been – has anything changed? can couples who go to the hospital these days for help in having a baby, be assured that they won’t end up having to try to deliver the baby themselves, without any help?

But we’ve recently come to realise that an even more important question is, does the present CEO of the hospital, whoever he or she is, do their level best to make sure the hospital is managed in such a way that making sure that couples coming to the hospital for help in having a baby will always get it is one of the highest priorities, and claim that they do so? And if not, (we already know they don’t believe in responding to emails like ours,) how is it that he or she continues being the hospital’s CEO?

It’s said that the control of an organisation, of a Government, is it’s “people decisions.” In other words the best organisations, the best Governments, make the best “people decisions.” And it’s becoming more and more clear that, under the Berejiklian Government, some “people decisions” are being made that are nothing short of shocking – perhaps none more so than than that the present CEO of it’s Fairfield hospital should, in view of the above, continue holding his or her position – perhaps have been appointed to this position in the first place?

Who makes the decisions about who are to be the Berejiklian government’s hospital’s CEOs? And who made the decision that this person was the best person to make these decisions? It’s hard to believe that Premier Berejiklian isn’t the most important person in making the “people decisions” involved in running her government?

Email us at info@questionsmisc.info.

For those wishing to donate to help continue and expand our work, use this link.