MEDIA RELEASE LABOR FOR REFUGEES 28.6.12

MEDIA RELEASE

"Labor for Refugees has today expressed its disgust with the way the Government has failed to step up and deal with the asylum seeker boat issue in open, fair and honest manner. The coalition is no better." said NSW Labor for Refugees co-convenor Mr. Prince today.

Mr Robin Rothfield, Secretary of Labor for Refugees Victoria added: "Both major parties in Parliament are blinded by their obsession with outdoing each other in punishing the very people they cry for. These poor people will be punished if they are forcibly sent to either Malaysia or Nauru."

Mr Prince said: "Labor for Refugees is embarrassed to say that  only the Green's solution identifies a decent and realistic way of stopping the boats. It is the same solution Malcolm Fraser successfully employed to stop the boats to Australia from Vietnam. Refugees should be brought to Australia in an orderly way- where our Government takes responsibility for bringing them here. "

Mr Prince went on to say: "Successive governments, including Labor Governments, have created this problem by only allowing an average of 56 refugees a year over 10 years to come to Australia from Indonesia- out of a total of 13,500 available places. They then blame the victims for trying to reach freedom.

In fact from the beginning of this year until 31 May - only 24 refugees were resettled from Indonesia to Australia that’s from a pool of 5,732 places available for asylum seekers and refugees. The Government is just not trying to find a solution which does not include punishment."

"It is the Government which is being intransigent and purist about not creating an orderly queue for refugees in Indonesia. ", Mr Prince said.

"This is not an insurmountable problem. There are only 4,239 asylum seekers in all of Indonesia. An orderly queue could easily be formed if there was the courage in Government to do so. People would then no longer take desperate measures- at the moment they have no choice because of the Government's policies." said Mr. Prince.

Mr Robin Rothfield, said: "Deterrence just does not work. The Howard Government got lucky because when those policies came into force, refugee numbers across the world fell by more than half. The politicians are kidding themselves by thinking their policies stopped people from seeking freedom."

Labor for Refugees called on the leadership of the Party to step up, put forward a positive proposal and stop trying to act tough. Mr. Prince said: "Our members in the Labor Party share the community frustration with the failure of the politicians in dealing with these problems in a fair dinkum way."

ENDS

Labor for Refugees NSW and Victoria represent many hundreds of active rank and file members of the ALP who are committed to fair and decent treatment of asylum seekers and compliance with the Refugee Convention.

Media enquiries

Shane Prince 0416 229 338, Co-Convenor Labor for Refugees NSW

Robin Rothfield 03 9486 5973 , Secretary Labor for Refugees VIC

Mob 0418 338 665

FOLEY ON WALKER IN PARLIAMENT

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [7.03 p.m.], 22.6.12: Today I attended the State funeral of the Hon. Francis John Walker, QC. I believe Frank Walker was one of the most successful politicians that New South Wales Labor has ever produced. By that I mean that Frank Walker had the privilege of serving as a Minister of the Crown for 12 years at the State level and three years at the Federal level, and he enacted a wide range of important reforms to the laws of our State and country. Frank Walker was elected to the seat of Georges River in a by-election in 1970. He was an organiser for Neville Wran to replace Pat Hills in the leadership of the State parliamentary Labor Party in December 1973. He was elected to the ministry when Labor came to office in 1976. During the next 12 years Frank Walker variously served in the following ministries: Attorney General, Justice, Aboriginal Affairs, Community Services, Youth, Housing, the Arts and Leader of the House.

The 1970 Georges River by-election that brought Frank to Parliament was hard fought. In a blatant piece of electioneering, then Premier Robert Askin promised to introduce a Summary Offences Act. Notwithstanding that, Frank overwhelmingly defeated the Liberal Party in that by-election, winning a seat for Labor from the then Government. Nine years later Frank Walker repealed the Summary Offences Act. In the cognate crimes bills and cognate summary offences bills that Walker shepherded through this Parliament in 1979 he amended 16 pieces of legislation. In 1976, 55,000 people in New South Wales were arrested for public drunkenness. People were arrested, brought before the courts, fined, some were imprisoned, often repeatedly, because they could not stump up $1 for bail. In 1979 in the other place Frank Walker said:

This Government intends to remedy that completely unsatisfactory situation by implementing provisions which will ensure that the law is placed on a rational and humane basis.

That was Walker's approach to law reform. He abolished the crime of being poor and the law preventing peaceful public protest. The definition of "offensive behaviour" was amended to move away from any conduct that offended the arresting police officer to a reasonable man test. Appeals to the Privy Council in London were abolished. The Legal Aid Commission and community justice centres were established. Compassionate treatment of victims of sexual assault came about. Aboriginal land rights legislation was introduced in 1983. It was a historic reform in the history of this State. As Minister for Housing, Frank Walker ceased constructing suburbs of public housing and instead engaged in partnerships with the private sector to mix public housing with private estates.

Frank Walker was committed to parliamentary democracy, civil liberties, human rights, equality before the law, and a tolerant and inclusive society. Frank Walker was also one of the most effective marginal seat campaigners modern New South Wales politics has seen. He was always at the cutting edge of modern campaigning and marketing techniques. Walker's organisation of postal votes in seats such as Blue Mountains and Hurstville in the 1976 campaign played no small part in getting Labor across the line. For Frank Walker possessed both conviction and cunning.

I thank Premier Barry O'Farrell for granting Frank Walker a State funeral today. I also acknowledge the terrific speech delivered by the Minister for Police, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, on behalf of the Government. I sent my condolences to Frank's widow, Pam, and his brother, Robert. I am proud to call Frank Walker a comrade and friend. I salute his service to this State and his great reformist achievements.

PRIMROSE ON WORKERS COMPENSATION

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [1.03 a.m.]: I refer to the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and the Safety, Return to Work and Support Board Bill 2012. This is truly disgusting legislation.
I will refer to the legislation that indicates something of the mindset of those who drafted it. I refer to page 37, line 15, in schedule 2 to the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill, which states:

2.3 Amendment of Civil Liability Act 2002 No 22

Section 26I Non-economic loss damages limited to workers compensation amount

Omit section 26I (2). Insert instead:

(2) When determining the total amount to which a worker would be entitled as compensation under a provision of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the amount is to be determined under the provision as it was in force when the injury to the offender was received

According to this legislation, workers with injuries are "offenders". That gives us an interesting insight into the mindset of those who drafted this legislation. No longer will non-economic loss damages be limited to the workers compensation amount for a worker, who is described as an "offender" in this legislation. Certainly this legislation is offensive, not the injured worker. The O'Farrell Government will financially and emotionally devastate injured workers and their families with its unprecedented cuts to workers compensation in New South Wales. I have heard nothing but indignation in the past couple of months from so-called family defenders against the marriage equality legislation, and how families will be destroyed by same-sex relationships, yet I have not heard one word of protest from those same family defenders about the draconian changes proposed by the O'Farrell Government to workers compensation.

Mothers and fathers who are injured while they are trying to earn a living will be financially crippled by this legislation. In some cases, families will lose their homes and be placed in poverty. Some mothers and fathers will decide they can no longer cope. The changes proposed by this legislation will apply retrospectively to injured workers and their families. Injured workers currently living week to week on medical benefits and entitlements will be left unable to support themselves and their families. Earlier today we saw the spectacle of Premier Barry O'Farrell claiming that the laws were not retrospective, and as we now know that is plainly wrong. The retrospective application of his appalling cuts is there in black and white in his own legislation. This morning on ABC breakfast the Premier said the changes would not be retrospective:

Angela Catterns: So retrospective changes, how far back?

Premier O'Farrell: No they are not.

This is completely at odds with the legislation. Schedule 12, paragraph 3 (1) clearly states:

(1) Except as provided by this Part or the regulations, an amendment made by the 2012 amending Act extends to:

(a) an injury received before the commencement of the amendment, and

Schedule 12 to the bill also states that an insurer has 12 months to conduct a work capacity assessment of an existing recipient of weekly payments, and three months after the insurer makes that assessment the cut to weekly payment applies. Even workplace lawyers have criticised Premier O'Farrell for suggesting that the retrospectivity of these laws does not apply. On 20 June Mr Ivan Simic, a partner at Taylor and Scott lawyers, stated on the Linda Mottrem ABC show:

The legislation is horribly retrospective. He is absolutely wrong. He is either telling a lie or he doesn't understand his own legislation.

The Premier has misled the public about the fact that these changes will not come into effect until the Governor signs off on them. According to the legislation, that is plain wrong. The legislation provides for some amendments to have operation on and from 19 June 2012. Medical benefits for injured workers will be cut off after one year, forcing those who do not receive surgery within one year of their injury, or those who are forced to endure ongoing treatment, into destitution. The O'Farrell Government will reduce benefits to injured workers from the day after they are injured, with a further reduction after 13 weeks of their injury.

The Premier will completely cut off benefits to large numbers of injured workers after five years, even if the injured worker is permanently injured and cannot return to work. Journey claims will be axed completely, which means a nurse finishing a double shift who is seriously injured in an accident on the way home will receive no assistance and be left completely destitute. Workplace injuries cannot be predicted. They can happen to anyone, at any point in their career, and can devastate families already struggling to keep their heads above water. These are disgraceful cuts that will hurt those who can least afford it—people who are simply unlucky enough to be injured at work, and their families.

The philosophy that has always underpinned workers compensation schemes is straightforward: someone who is injured at work and cannot work should be compensated for as long as they cannot work; and that compensation should include payment of their medical treatments and medical bills for as long as they cannot work. This philosophy includes the view that employers who have been negligent should be required to contribute their fair share to that payment of compensation so that the burden does not fall on taxpayers. Yet, ironically, the amendments in this legislation will put a greater impost on the taxpayers of New South Wales.

Premier O'Farrell's argument that workers compensation premiums will have to rise by 28 per cent if members do not allow these amendments to pass is, frankly, untrue. In the WorkCover New South Wales executive summary "Actuarial valuations of outstanding claims … to 31 December 2011", Michael Playford and David Wright from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Government's own actuaries, say on page 2 that the buffer between the collection of premiums and payouts is not sufficient to return the scheme to surplus within a reasonable time. The question then becomes: What does "reasonable time" mean? Turn to page 3:

The projections indicate that (with no other changes)—

and that is the key

—aspiring to return to full funding by 5 years would require a premium rate increase in the order of 28%.

Full funding in five years "with no other changes"—but no-one is proposing that. They go on to say that aspiring to return to full funding by 10 years "would require a premium rate increase in the order of only 8%." Opposition members asked Mr Playford in evidence before the Joint Select Committee on the NSW Workers Compensation Scheme, "What would be a reasonable time?" He indicated between five and 10 years would be a reasonable time. And the premium increase is in the order of only 8 per cent, not 28 per cent as the Premier keeps claiming.

Premier O'Farrell also makes no mention of the fact that in New South Wales in the past five years premiums have been discounted by 33 per cent. The threat of a 28 per cent rise in premiums is just a myth. What is true is that premiums have been discounted by 33 per cent—in the order of $7 billion—in the past five years.

We all have to acknowledge that there are problems with the workers compensation scheme. But what are they, and what should be done to remedy them? The select committee heard from witness after witness, from submission and oral evidence right across the industrial spectrum, from people such as Garry Bracks through to Mark Lennon and from all the injured workers and insurance companies themselves, that there were problems with the scheme's agents and claims management. But not even one recommendation embodied in this legislation before us today goes to those pieces of evidence. Insurance companies were getting paid more for processing fewer claims. Allianz Australia Workers' Compensation (NSW) Limited said this about the government guidelines:

While there are guidelines and procedures available to Agents to return workers to full health and back into the work place, they are far from effectual as they are:

· Ambiguous and open to variable interpretation

· Not enforceable

· Inconsistently applied

· Not used by all parties involved in decision making regarding claims

In our experience, many claims are extended beyond the treatment of the original injury and regularly encompass related physical conditions, pre-existing or degenerative conditions, and secondary psychological conditions (such as depression and anxiety).

This is one of the insurance companies in the scheme saying that the process is difficult and untenable. But nothing in this legislation goes towards fixing up any of these problems. There were repeated instances of evidence about the difficulties in returning people to work; that employers would not give people a job after they had been injured; that people who were trying to get back to work were having quite some difficulty doing so. All of those problems have been ignored by the O'Farrell Government. There are many instances of matters that were given in evidence but which remained ignored. For example, Ernst and Young in its 2012 peer review report, while acknowledging the changes implemented in 2011, recommended that WorkCover review its overall approach to management of the scheme, and in particular the management of agents, including their remuneration, and conduct a back to basics review of that remuneration. Nothing in the legislation we have before us today addresses this concern either.

The final report of the select committee ignored the evidence that had been presented to the committee. The sham report was presented by a sham committee, stacked with four Government members and two other members who voted with Government members on 95 per cent of the recommendations, and only two Opposition members. Yet even it recommends further and ongoing review of the workers compensation scheme; in fact, it wants a joint select committee to be established to look at the way the scheme is working; and wants the New South Wales Government to review the functions, powers and behaviours available to the scheme agent. If it is so important that a joint select committee be established to extensively review WorkCover and the workers compensation scheme in New South Wales, what is the reason for the Government's headlong rush to do one thing, and only one thing—to cut benefits to workers? All that evidence was ignored by the Government in its mad rush to reduce benefits to New South Wales workers. In submission 131 the NSW Self Insurance Corporation, the Treasury, says very clearly:

Our main recommendation is that the Committee seek to have the impact of any proposed reforms scenario tested and actuarially costed to understand the implications on the TMF [Treasury Managed Fund] before deciding on the package of reforms to be implemented.

But Premier O'Farrell is not stopping to wait for that. Treasury in New South Wales is being ignored.

Under this legislation "seriously injured worker" means a worker whose injury has resulted in permanent impairment and the degree of permanent impairment has been assessed for the purposes of division 4 to be more than 30 per cent. During the select committee hearing Michael Gliksman, Vice President of the Australian Medical Association, and Peter John Burke, a medical-surgical specialist representing the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Association of Surgeons delegate to the Medico Legal Committee, the Law Society of New South Wales, were asked what their opinion was of increasing the threshold to 30 per cent. They were asked how many would make it through the 30 per cent threshold. Dr Gliksman replied:

Very few. In my experience of those I see who I feel have a genuine work-related injury less than one in 100 people would get to the 30 per cent threshold. In my opinion it would shut the system down as a means of support.

Dr Burke replied:

I agree with that. It is one in 100. It would severely damage the average person who is genuinely injured at work.

Roshana May and Timothy Concannon, members of the Injury Compensation Committee of the Law Society of New South Wales, and Justin Dowd, President of the Law Society were asked the same question: What would happen if the 30 per cent impairment level suggested in the issues paper—and now this legislation—was imposed? Mr Concannon replied:

In my experiences of working under the scheme, I have had two or maybe three workers, amongst thousands of workers I have acted for over that period, who would satisfy that requirement.

                   Ms May was asked whether it was true that only 100 claimants or so in the scheme were currently receiving ongoing care.

Ms May replied:

Yes, I think it is more like 110; I am sorry, I do not have the figure.

She was then asked whether there were not thousands, and she replied:

There are not thousands ... The best estimate of the Injury Compensation Committee is that it would reduce lump sum payments, if you are talking about that, to more than 95 per cent of the current injured population

I will provide the House with a few examples in the time that I have left. A 35-year-old man sustained a crush injury and had a below-knee amputation. He lost his leg and was assessed as having a 28 per cent impairment. A 25-year-old man who suffered back and thigh pain while twisting underwent a discectomy three months after the injury. He still has back pain but has been assessed as having a 10 per cent impairment. A 35-year-old man had a surgical discectomy three months after an injury and has persistent back and thigh pain, numbness along his foot, is unable to do his usual recreational activities and some household activities and has restricted lumbar motion and chronic back pain. He was assessed as having a 13 per cent impairment. Premier Barry O'Farrell has a simple message for him: No more benefits. When people experience back pain, instead of having their medical benefits paid the New South Wales Government is now telling them to sit in the emergency department at a public hospital and wait.

Many people's injuries do not reach the 20 per cent threshold, and certainly not the 30 per cent threshold. To impose those sorts of thresholds is simply cruel to them and their families. One of the cruellest provisions in this legislation is that, as I said, it will be retrospective. Those people who have been injured for 10 years who cannot work because they are in pain, even though they want to, and who have structured their lives around the benefits they receive to put a bit of money away each week for the mortgage and bills will be smashed by this legislation.

There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for that. Mr Ivan Simic, a lawyer with Taylor Scott, said in his evidence to the select committee:

I think everyone has forgotten that the most important purpose of the scheme is to provide insurance for injured people so their families are not left in family ruin.If we are going to live in a free market society, one of the great things in a free market society is insurance. WorkCover has totally forgotten it is supposed to be an insurer and look after people's families when tragedy strikes. They have just totally forgotten it and lost the plot.

Premier Barry O'Farrell has also lost the plot, as has anyone who votes for this legislation today.

A REPLY TO PAUL SHEEHAN

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/boats-keep-coming-and-the-real-cost-keeps-rising-20120610-20471.html

Paul - you quote some interesting figures which seem to be right from the mouth of Scott Morrison but not from any authoritative source that I can find. Here’s some current stats on those in detention  - In April 2012, the DIAC website states that there were 4329 people in immigration detention facilities and alternative places of detention, including 3528 in immigration detention on the mainland and 801 in immigration detention on Christmas Island. The DIAC website goes on to state that at 30 April 2012, there were 463 children (aged under 18 years) in immigration detention facilities and alternative places of detention. The majority of children in facilities-based detention have been in detention for less than three months. The site states that no children are detained in an immigration detention centre.

1638 people have been approved for a residence determination to live in the community, (DIAC website) but movement of these approved people into the community has been very slow. 3000 people in generous Australian families registered under the Government’s Homestay Program in May 2012. The first 50 refugees to be placed under that program were moved into Australian homes on the 7th June 2012 (Daily Telegraph 8.6.12).Now I don’t have access to budget papers as you seem to do but all of this is downscaling cost in line with Australia's international human rights obligations, a matter that you did not once mention in your article.

At the same time as the Federal Government committed to moving more refugees and asylum seekers out of detention centres, they also decided in April 2012 to reduce payments to people living in community detention from 89% of the lowest Centrelink Payment, to 70% of the lowest Centrelink payment. This will present a challenge to families who have exited detention with their children. In practical terms this will leave a mother and child with around $300 per week with no concessions, to feed and clothe themselves, pay gas, water, electricity and catch public transport to appointments ( Asylum Seeker Resource Centre Email 12.4.12).

What is the current population of Australia Paul. 22,328,800. Google it.  So that makes the people currently in detention .01% of the Australian population. All your fuss for such a tiny proportion of the population! And of the new arrivals , take note that DIAC also tells us that between 2 and 4% of refugees coming to Australia come by boat, each year. The rest arrive by plane. Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison blather on about turning the boats around because they know that this rings bells in the minds of the poorly informed in marginal seats. But they also know that this could cause more drownings and put the lives of service personnel at risk. You seem to have forgotten the revolt by navy service personnel during the Howard Government, revolted by what they were being asked to do.

Wayne Swan was right. Just about all of the people on Nauru were recognised as refugees and came to Australia, some with their mental health damaged for life. But don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story, or your apology for Abbott and Morrison's rampant populism.

Jenny Haines

UNITE AGAINST ABBOTT

Red News Readers,

It is like this nation is sleepwalking into the nightmare of an Abbott Government. There is still a chance that we could have an Abbott Government this year. The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party needs to get their act together, and changing the leadership is not the only answer. They need to get on the front foot and sell the progressive reform of the last 5 years. The problem with them selling their policy and practice on refugees and asylum seekers is it is such a mash! And a mess! In my view any person who votes left of centre in this country needs to get active in a united push to defeat Abbott. Wake up Australia, an Abbott Government is not for you!

Jenny Haines

Abbott announces tougher asylum policy

June 9, 2012 - 12:49PM

Sydney Morning Herald

AAP

Asylum seekers who are believed to have destroyed their documents before arriving in Australia will have a presumption against refugee status under a coalition government, Tony Abbott says.

As part of three policy "enhancements", which the opposition leader said would immediately be put in place under a coalition government, Mr Abbott said there would be a "strong presumption that illegal boat people who have destroyed their documents not be given refugee status".

Mr Abbott said the government would also ensure that his Immigration Minister "exercise the right" to appeal against affirmative decisions.

"This right has never been exercised under this government," he told reporters on Saturday.

This would ensure that "yeses are checked, not just noes", opposition spokesman for immigration Scott Morrison said.

"Under our current system noes are checked under an appeal process by applicants but yeses never get checked."

Under the third proposal put forward by Mr Abbott, an integrity commissioner would report to the minister every six months on what is happening to the processing success rates.

"What is happening now is that 90 per cent of people who arrive illegally via boat are given successful outcomes."

Mr Abbott said other countries had "heavier rates of rejection" and he wanted to know why this was the case.

The "enhancements" would be on top of the party's current immigration policy, which includes the re-establishment of offshore processing at Nauru, the re-introduction of temporary protection visas and the option of turning boats around.

It is not the first time the opposition has flagged a crackdown on asylum seekers entering Australia without proper documentation.

In April 2010, Mr Morrison said having correct documentation should be a "key requirement" for asylum seekers.

© 2012 AAP