There's a problem with "expert'' advice, writes Lynne Hill.
An expert is like a man who knows all there is to know about diamonds but has not seen one in a ring or necklace for a long time.
The expert is highly qualified and very well paid, so has forgotten how ordinary people live.
And that is the problem with a number of outside experts Dunedin has experienced.
They simply do not know the setting.
So it is no surprise that their advice causes problems for the Otago community.
Not so long ago, an expert from London was brought in to listen to public feedback on the present hospital system.
The conservationists hoped the expert was considering his carbon footprint, and not using too many towels in his four-star hotel.
Other people wondered if he would understand the New Zealand accent and idiom.
The cynics were sure he might not and thought that this was why the expert had been flown across the world, possibly in business class.
After all, those employing him might not have wanted him to understand.
Experts assured people with concerns about the changes in provision of hospital food that there would be considerable savings in the new system, and there would be no drop in food quality.
Now we learn that the savings are a good deal less than predicted, and in the beginning there was a considerable drop in food quality.
Advice from an expert might suggest that hospital services be removed from the central city and relocated to Wakari.
People who travel by bus to keep appointments would then have to get themselves to a bus stop, whatever the weather, and be able to board the bus without discomfort.
Only those who are able to drive or can afford taxis would be comfortable with such a move.
More people driving in the hill suburbs on icy mornings - not a very good idea.
Quite often the advice offered to management is veiled in secrecy.
If the experts are so sure their solutions are correct why are we so often kept in the dark?
I commend the Otago Daily Times for its persistence in trying to keep readers well informed, and the efforts it makes to highlight cases where information has been hidden from the public.
Very often when the information is released, there has been no real reason for its concealment.
The ODT is absolutely right to say that it is not the newspaper's job to be a cheerleader (p1, 21.7.16).
Where there are positives the ODT does an excellent job of focusing on them.
No expert has the right to tell the newspaper it should not focus on criticism.
Our local independent newspaper is a watchdog for our community.
It seems unlikely that any expert would be happy owning a dog which did not bark when intruders entered his/her home at 2am.
So they should not expect our newspaper to keep quiet about solutions which have the potential to adversely affect hundreds of people.
- Lynne Hill is a retired teacher and occasional writer.
