JENNY'S RED NEWS

KIDS IN LONG TERM DETENTION

2012-01-29T10:10:00.001+11:00

MEDIA RELEASE

REFUGEE PROTESTERS FIND LONG TERM DETENTION KIDS AT REMOTE LEONORA

DETENTION CENTRE

Around 40 refugee supporters of the Refugee Rights Action Network

(RRAN) travelling to Leonora this weekend have been shocked to

discover children who have been in detention for over a year when they

visited the remote Western Australian detention centre.

Around 140 unaccompanied minors have been moved in recent weeks from

Christmas Island and Darwin to the detention centre. The RRAN

activists have called for the immediate release of the children from

detention.

“We were told that children and families were going to be out of

detention by the end of June last year, but Leonora is proof positive

that even six months later, the government has not lived up to the

promise of getting children out of detention. It’s a scandal, “ said

RRAN spokesperson Victoria Martin-Iverson.

“These kids are not recent arrivals. A majority of the 40 kids we

managed to see have been in detention over a year. Yet, they are

either still waiting for their second interview or have just had their

appeal hearing. One seventeen year-old Hazara asylum seeker has been

in detention for two years and only had his second interview this

week! How is that possible?

“We were shocked to find that Serco guards referred to them by number.

How dehumanising is that? One guard came is asking ‘Is 176 in here?”

Another introduced a young Mohammed as, “Here is 428; he speaks good

English.” Perhaps more shocking - some of these kids have signs of

self harm on their bodies.

“We have serious concerns. They are not going to school; teachers are

meant to be coming into the detention centre – but even that hasn’t

happened yet, six weeks after they have arrived here.”

“We eat, we sleep; we eat, we sleep. We are very tired,” one Hazara

told the Perth visitors.

“We were told in town that the no asylum kid has been to the library

since the families were moved out of Leonora,” said Victoria.

“We are also concerned that there seems to be a large number of

untrained MSS guards at Leonora, and that we saw them with direct

client contact responsibilities with the children in detention. We

thought that having untrained guards in such contact is in direct

conflict with guidelines for children in detention. There is a serious

question whether Serco or the Immigration Department is breaching its

duty of care by using untrained guards.”

The RRAN cavalcade will be leaving Leonora around Sunday lunchtime (29

Jan) to make the return journey to Perth.

For more information/ interview contact Victoria Martin-Iverson 0417 904 329

TURN BACK THE BOATS AND PEOPLE WILL DIE

2012-01-25T09:42:00.003+11:00

David Marr, SMH.

24.1.12
People will die. They died the last time the navy forced boats back to Indonesia and they will die the next. They have always died.

That's why the navy hates these operations and that loathing is deep in the DNA of the service. It goes back to the violent blockade carried out by the Royal Navy before and after the Second World War to prevent Jews reaching Palestine. Jews were trapped in Europe. Jews and sailors died at sea. The film is called Exodus.

After Tampa, Canberra ordered the navy to force back every boat to Indonesia. The admirals resisted. They told John Howard's people most of the boats were so unseaworthy they could barely make the outward journey let alone limp home again.

Advertisement: Story continues below They reminded these civilian bureaucrats of the long history of desperate people compelling rescue by sabotaging their boats. They tried to explain the moral and legal obligation of every sailor to rescue those in peril on the sea - even in wartime. Howard was adamant: push back every boat you can, with rescue only as the last resort.

Boats were boarded by Australian sailors in violent altercations. Shots were fired across bows. Engines were sabotaged by asylum seekers. Hulls holed. Boats set on fire.

The fourth boat post Tampa slowly sank in front of HMAS Adelaide with Canberra ordering no rescue of the 223 men women and children on board unless and until they were in danger of drowning. Australian sailors eventually carried out a heroic, successful and entirely unnecessary rescue from the sea.

"If the Manly ferry was sinking out in Sydney Harbour, none of those people would have gotten wet," Bec Lynd, an able seaman on the Adelaide that day, told ABC TV's Q&A last year. "We would have been there in a flash."

That rescue changed her mind about the boats. She thought the navy was out there stopping terrorists but found herself giving first aid to women and their children. "We sort of felt like we were used as a bit of a political tool," she said. "To be put in harm's way and to put other people in harm's way when it isn't necessarily - it's not a nice position to be put in."

The death count began with the seventh boat. At least three on board died when it was successfully forced back to Roti Island off the coast of Bali. Survivors told Four Corners they were beaten with batons and sprayed in the eyes by Australian military personnel.

The 10th boat caught erupted in flames, endangering an Australian boarding party and leading to another heroic mass rescue in which two Afghan women drowned, several children survived by a miracle and Australian personnel were deeply traumatised.

By Christmas 2001, four boats carrying more than 600 people had been forced to return to Indonesia. Then the boats stopped. The strategy had proved highly effective. When a few boats reappeared in 2008, the navy kept going through the routine of asking them to sail away. They never did and weren't forced to.

But in April 2009 desperately foolish men on a boat stopped at Ashmore Reef took the sailors seriously and blew up the vessel, killing five Afghans and hideously burning dozens of others.

Asylum seekers shouldn't do this but they do. It's a fact of history. Desperate people take terrible risks. Tony Abbott knows that when he says he will turn every possible boat back to Indonesia. It certainly works. But do we think it's worth it?

A REPLY TO JOHN MENADUE

2012-01-19T16:55:00.001+11:00

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/no-man-is-an-island-they-say-so-why-the-sea-of-heartbreak-20111223-1p8lx.html

The Editor,

SMH.

Dear Sir/Madam,

John Menadue writes that opponents of the Malaysia Deal need to think again. Why? What has changed in Malaysia recently in respect of it human rights record that would give anyone any hope that refugees and asylum seekers sent from Australia to Malaysia would be treated any better in the future under this Deal than they have been in the past? There are many reports of refugees being stopped in the street and asked for papers by the Malaysian Police, who may beat the refugee even if the papers are in order. No one believes the assurances of the Malaysian leadership that human rights abuses will not happen to the 800 refugees returned to Malaysia under the arrangements of the Deal. You would have to be very naive!

Malaysia is a very troubled country. It’s Opposition Leader has just faced another cooked up trial for sodomy. The Herald reported on Wednesday 18th January 2012 on the appalling treatment of Cambodian maids by Malaysian families. Malaysian as a society and as a political system has a long way to go in developing respect for the human rights of those who do not fit the dominant paradigm.

There does need to be more regional processing of refugees, as they move forward towards Australia. Why we can’t get governments sorting out how this can happen seems very odd. But perhaps they don’t want to be seen to be being humane. Not popular with the voters in the marginal seats and the focus group participants they are trying to please.

Jenny Haines

Newtown. Sydney.

CAN CAPITALISM BE REBUILT

2012-01-18T10:12:00.001+11:00

Capitalism: we can rebuild it Nigel Farndale

January 18, 2012

It is battered and bruised and remains the worst type of economic system - except for all the others.

SHORTLY after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, political economist Francis Fukuyama declared that we had reached the end of history. Communism had failed. Liberal democracy, and the capitalism that underpinned it, had triumphed. There were no more arguments to be had on the subject of how man should best govern himself.

The only trouble was, history carried on going, first throwing the world into convulsion on 9/11 and then, with the financial meltdown of 2008-09, pulling the ideological rug from under all those triumphant liberal democracies. We were used to a ''natural'' cycle of boom and bust and some even welcomed its ''creative destruction'', because it meant the weak companies went under while the strong survived, but this bust was something different and more profound. It seemed to be a bust of capitalism itself.

After all, when taxpayers have to bail out banks because they are ''too big to fail'', that surely is a contradiction of capitalism - the survival-of-the-fittest part, anyway. Bailouts amount to nationalisation, the opposite not only of privatisation but also the laissez-faire economics that we were supposed to believe in. This seemed to have more in common with socialism, or even the planned economies of communism. Perhaps it was not the end of history, then, but the end of capitalism - at least capitalism as we know it.

Advertisement: Story continues below A number of books have been written on this, usually with apocalyptic titles featuring the words ''death'', ''end'' and ''nightmare''. But as I sifted through them, trying to penetrate the fog of economic jargon, I started to wonder: do these doom-mongers have any better ideas? If capitalism really is failing, is there a viable alternative?

Perhaps we need to look to heterodox economics: schools of thought outside the mainstream. One idea that has traction in France is the decroissance, or decrease movement. This group wants to decrease economic growth, which it believes is damaging the planet. Not only must it stop, it must be reversed. The usual eco-handwringing, you might think. But in a way, it is at the heart of the great macro-economic debate of our age: should our main concern be unemployment or inflation? Austerity or growth? Do you reduce the size of the state or increase it?

For the decroissance movement, gross domestic product is an inadequate yardstick for economic performance, not least because it doesn't measure the degradation of the environment as lost wealth - and it doesn't distinguish between productive economic activity and the creation of jobs for jobs' sake. In contradiction of John Maynard Keynes, the guru of interventionism, decroissance favours ''real'' economic growth over the ''make-work'' it associates with stimulus programs, such as the $US787 million one Barack Obama introduced in 2009.

I ask George Magnus, the senior economic adviser to UBS, what he makes of this. ''It chimes with ideas that have been around for a while,'' he says. ''Such as the need for a happiness index, or an economic and social wellbeing index, instead of vanilla GDP.

''But if decroissance means we have got past the point where economic growth matters, well I dispute that. It's not a natural state of affairs; people will always want to become better off. And in Western countries, where populations are due to rise, we are going to need growth. The idea we can get on without it is naive.''

Another idea doing the rounds is that old-style capitalism is failing because we don't understand how human psychology drives the economy. This takes various forms and offers various solutions, such as a theory that if more women were running banks and major companies there would be more stability, because there would be less testosterone involved and so less risk.

Before we ask if there are any alternatives to capitalism, we ought to say what it is. Karl Marx more or less invented the term in the 19th century to describe something that had existed since the end of feudalism. Capital for him was all about the private ownership of the means of production. And exploitation, of course, what with all those hardened mill owners and their grim, smoke-spewing factories.

But capitalism has come a long way. Speaking in its defence recently, former Tory cabinet minister Michael Portillo asked: ''Is there any other system that could lift so many people out of poverty and create societies rich enough to provide welfare, health and education services?'' When you put it like that, the anti-capitalists look like Monty Python's People's Front of Judea: ''Apart from those capitalists who made us rich and provided welfare, health and education, what have the capitalists ever done for us?''

Marx decreed that capitalism carried the seeds of its own destruction. But as philosopher Karl Popper argued, the communism that Marx thought would replace it was even more doomed to failure - because it required the arrival of a ''New Man'', one who would embody freedom. And this New Man would be the end that justified the means, which, in the case of Stalinist and Maoist communism, meant not only denying freedom but committing genocide on a scale that would have made even Hitler gasp.

But if capitalism's supposed nemesis failed, were there any worthwhile ideas that could be rescued from its ashes? Well, one post-communist movement is called participatory economics. Parecon, as it is known, has four elements: solidarity, self-management, diversity and equity. Solidarity means encouraging people to work for the benefit of others as well as themselves. Self-management means that everyone has a say in decisions that affect them. Diversity means giving people more options for how they work and what they consume. And equity is about fairness and equality - nobody should have substantially more wealth or power than anyone else.

See what they did there? It all sounded reasonable, right up until equity, which is back-to-basics communism.

But the other three perhaps amount to a new, more responsible capitalism, and this idea is very much in the air. British Prime Minister David Cameron's Big Society is, after all, barking up the same tree. I ask Paul Ormerod, author of The Death of Economics, where he stands on this. ''The capitalism we have today is not the same as capitalism in 1910,'' he says. ''Then there wasn't the same idea of a welfare state or state intervention, except for defence. The great strength of capitalism is that it is not static, it's dynamic. It evolves.''

Perhaps, I say, its real problem is its name - it needs rebranding. And perhaps there is something that can be borrowed from Marxism here, the coming of a New Man? ''Yes, I do think there needs to be a shift in attitude and a change in values,'' says Ormerod. ''Something like the Big Society or one-nation conservatism. If you are wealthy you ought to give something back through a sense of noblesse oblige. You have an obligation to the rest of society.''

This chimes with the rather Victorian views of Margaret Thatcher. She believed that people would have a more heightened sense of responsibility the wealthier they became.

Ormerod again: ''It's not a matter of pulling levers but more of values needing to change. It's like these directors of companies awarding themselves raises when their companies haven't been performing well. Their behaviour is damaging to capitalism.''

Ormerod believes this is not an economic problem so much as a cultural one. ''How do you alter culture? You have to send cultural signals. So governments shouldn't give knighthoods and invitations to Buckingham Palace garden parties to bankers who have ruined the economy through their greed.''

Adam Fergusson's book When Money Dies: the Nightmare of the Weimar Hyperinflation has become a modern classic. I ask for Fergusson's take. ''I don't think there are any serious alternatives to capitalism,'' he says, ''not if we hope for growth and recovery, because capitalism represents the competition and enterprise that produce these things. The events of the past three or four years will have taught those who practise capitalism some big lessons.''

A shortage of money is not the problem. The problem is that the money is in the wrong place. It's in China, where people, for reasons that seem enigmatic to us, like to - say it in a whisper - save. What we are witnessing, then, is the ''creative destruction'' of the heavily indebted Western economies by the emerging economies of the East. Darwinism at its purest. And a very capitalist idea. What, after all, is capitalism about if not competition and survival of the fittest?

Capitalism, like the poor, will always be with us, because trade is how society operates. Trade is the human condition. As philosopher Michel Onfray has said: ''Is this the end of capitalism? Absolutely not. Capitalism has been through antiquity, feudalism, the industrial era. It has worn the guise of fascism and now it's wedding itself to the ecology cause. After this latest event, it will take on a new form. It is indestructible and works like the Hydra of Lerne, cut off one head and another grows in its place.''

How might it adapt? Well, Bill Gates has spoken of ''creative capitalism'', an idea to change capitalism to work more in favour of ''the people''. But actually it's the very lack of overall direction that is capitalism's genius. Who could have predicted that we might look to the BMW factories of Germany for a new model of capitalism?

There they are attempting to reuse all the materials that go to make up a car. And what are we to make of the success of employee-owned companies such as British retailer John Lewis? Isn't that a rather fresh capitalist take on the old communist idea that workers should employ capital rather than the other way around?

It is time to mention the elephant in the room, China. Perhaps the alternative to capitalism is already here or, rather, there. Perhaps their version of capitalism is working at the moment because China is a totalitarian state, not despite it being one. Ormerod again: ''It was only when China moved towards a type of capitalism that it started becoming wealthy. But can its one-party state evolve into something sustainable? Will it allow dissidents, which is what capitalism needs to evolve? Without differing ideas, their version of capitalism will die.''

So where does that leave us? Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. He could have said the same of capitalism.

TELEGRAPH

Nigel Farndale is a Sunday Telegraph columnist and author of five books.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/capitalism-we-can-rebuild-it-20120117-1q4k4.html#ixzz1jlB7GuLO

REFUGEE DESPERATION

2012-01-15T09:43:00.003+11:00

Today a man lies in the dirt curled up and clutching the the wire fence at the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation (MITA). He was there all last night in the cold. He is not eating or drinking. One of the teenage boys put a blanket on him last night. A guards stands watch as he is on PSP- I cant keep up with the acronyms- it used to be called SASH watch (Suicide and Self -Harm) The man said - " I am animal - they treat me like animal so I am animal."He has been recognised and accepted as a refugee, five months ago. He is waiting for the SECURITY CHECK or that is what he is told. It is hard to know where the decisions sit after they are made. Whose desk drawer holds these decisions while people rot and go mad in detention. Recently his father died in his home country. perhaps this is what has tipped him over the edge. Yesterday he was visited once again by his DIAC case manager who told him yet again that he has no information and that he must be "patient". So 24 hours later he lies shivering and dehydrated in the dirt, unable to think of anything but holding on to the wire fence and waiting...8pm. Reason and compassion have intervened. He is no longer on the ground. He is either in hospital or in his room.The problem remains as thousands of people rot in detention waiting for decisions which could be made in months but instead take years take years. This is the 20th Anniversary of Mandatory Detention. How much longer will our government continue this cruel expensive system? ENOUGH.--Pamela CurrCampaign CoordinatorAsylum Seeker Resource Centre

EDs OVER THE FESTIVE SEASON

2012-01-09T10:24:00.000+11:00

Jenny Haines

8.1.12

Being and old nursing hand with time on my hands, and the need for cash, I worked some shifts in the Emergency Departments of Sydney Hospitals over the Christmas New Year Break. Nothing changes! Governments and promises come and go, but EDs are just as busy, just as short staffed, just as poorly equipped as they always were. It amuses me angrily that governments and bureaucrats want ED Staff to speed up processing times, but they can’t even guarantee that there is the basic functioning equipment at every bed that every doctor and nurse needs to do their job. I am still after 30 years, wandering around looking for a working sphygnanometer, a working thermometer, or a working ECG machine, so vital when a patient has chest pain. But hey, you may have to fiddle while vital minutes go by, getting the old ECG machine you found in the corner to work, because the more modern one is in use, and present you with a readable ECG. Nothing changes!!

Some observations :

1. I noted particularly this year there seemed to be a lot of “family dumps” ie families sending older more embarrassing members of their family to ED around Christmas Day. Can’t have grandma, grandpa , aunt or uncle being an embarrassment when the rest of the family and friends come over on Christmas Day! One old lady was sent into hospital by her carers who seemed to be living in her house. She had nothing much wrong with her except a bit of diarrhoea that any competent carer should have been able to deal with. We did a full assessment on this lady, and sent her home with ambulance transport. One hour later she was back. The carers had sent her back to ED. They could not cope with her having diarrhoea!
2. Another variation on the older person presentation over the Festive Season – lonely, painfully lonely older people living on their own, presenting with a collection of minor complaints. The deep suspicion of the staff is that they come to hospital to have someone to talk to at Christmas, to get a decent feed, maybe a little gift, a bit of help with clearing their bowels, and then home to their loneliness again.
3. And another variation of the older person presentations are those that present from nursing homes and aged care facilities . Many of these facilities no longer have registered nurses working shifts, so the aged are cared for by Assistants in Nursing or Carers. If the resident becomes ill, the policy is to send them to ED. ED staff assess them, treat them, clean them up, and send them back with a new medication regime that is put in blister packs, and administered by the Assistants in Nursing or Carers, who have very little education in medication administration, the side effects and the nasty interactions that medications can cause. But hey, AINS and Carers are cost efficient to the proprietors, and that is what aged care is all about now, cost containment.
4. One tragic presentation was an old lady who had been found lying in her room covered in urine and faeces. She was deep blue. The ambulance staff picked her up, resuscitated her as best they could, and brought her to ED. The ED medical staff, unsupervised by a Senior Staff Specialist or a Consultant ( they are on holidays) did not run an organised resuscitation. Orders and counter orders were flying as the most senior of these junior doctors panicked, and then started arguing with the other junior medical staff. The nurses involved in the resuscitation were horrified. The patient deteriorated and vital treatment that should have been started early in the resuscitation was started too late. The patient died. Afterwards, in the staff room, the nurses fumed. One or two doctors joined them. How interesting that the reflection on this event was undertaken by the nursing staff, but not the doctors. The doctor in charge of the resuscitation refused to discuss what happened. That won’t be the end of this though. It should be a reportable event. There will be discussion with senior nursing staff on their return to work and there will have to be a lot of talking amongst the doctors to work through how to avoid such a messy situation in future.

Much is said by politicians and bureaucrats about Emergency Departments, their efficiency and how to improve things. Some of the solutions are very simple eg ensure that every bed in every ED has the basic equipment that the doctors and nurses need to do their job – a working thermometer, a working blood pressure machine, a working monitor, a bedside table, a bed that the patient is able to get on and off without scratching themselves, a chair and a bedside table. If every bed place in every ED had that, it would be a start.

Then of course there is the need to address bed blockages ie there are not enough open beds, and more need to be re-opened. To do that we need more nurses, not Assistants in Nursing, Registered Nurses. But where to get them from when there is a shortage of nurses? Agency staff, overseas backpackers on temporary contracts, new graduates looking for immediate work to pay off debts seems to be the answer, until we can find a way to encourage more of our youth into nursing, and more of our employers into employing them when they graduate.

EDs are a pressure point in our society. They care for everyone, high and low, every day of the year, day and night. They pick up the tired, the sore, the wounded, and the very sick, treat them, clean them, and care for them, while our society that just does not want to know, turns a blind eye to their suffering. ED staff are there, on the frontline, caring. It’s about time our politicians and bureaucrats recognised the needs, and stopped the point scoring.

AUSTRALIA'S HYPOCRISY

2012-01-05T09:54:00.000+11:00

MEDIA RELEASE

5.1.12

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT REJECTS INDONESIAN UNHCR REFUGEES: HYPOCRITICAL
POLICIES ARE PUSHING REFUGEES ONTO BOATS

A group of Tamil refugees in Indonesia, recognized as refugees by the
UNHCR, but rejected by the Australian government now say they have
little choice but to get on a boat to get to safety in Australia.

The Tamil refugees are part of the group of 254 taken to the port of
Merak by the Indonesian navy at the request of then Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd in October 2009. More than two years later, having
spent a year in detention and being found to be genuine refugees, the
Australian government has turned its back on 40 Merak Tamils despite
being referred to Australia by the UNHCR.

Most of the refugees are now living in Medan, but out of 134 Merak
Tamil refugees still in Indonesia, only three families have been
accepted.

The rejection has angered the Tamil refugees. They are already
boycotting English and computer classes in protest. A bigger protest
in Medan is planned for next week.

“The refugees have been shamefully treated by the Australian
government. Their plight makes a mockery of the Australian government
supposed concern for the safety of refugees at sea. It is rank
hypocrisy. Their policies are pushing people onto boats. There is no
other way to get to safety in Australia. The Australian government
should not feign surprise if more Merak Tamils get a boat to
Australia, ” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action
Coalition.

Around 50 Merak Tamils took a boat to Christmas Island in 2010, and
around 25 of them already have Australian protection visas.

“In 2009, then Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor, and other
Ministers said that Australia would help resettle the Merak Tamils.
Successive governments have reneged on that promise. They simply don’t
care about the lives of refugees – neither those that are left in
limbo in Indonesia nor those that lose their lives trying to get to
Australia,” said Rintoul.

Two other Merak Tamils drowned attempting to get a boat to Australia
in June 2010.

“There is no justice. We have been very patient for over two years,
but we are losing patience. We were processed by the UNHCR,” Nimal,
one of the Tamil refugees in Medan told the Refugee Action Coalition,
“There is a big risk for us to get a boat to Australia. But are left
with no choice. Is the Australian government is trying to kill us?”

“The UNHCR and the Australian government has let us down. We were
promised that we would be resettled within a year. There is no future
for us in Indonesia,” said Nimal.

The Australian government’s rejection of the Tamil refugees is also a
slap in the face of the Indonesian government which has repeatedly
requested Australia’s assistance to resettle the Merak Tamils. The
head of Indonesia’s Diplomatic Security, Dr Sujatmiko, told the media
in April 2010, "We need Australian people, the Australian government
to help them."

For more information contact Ian Rintoul 0417 275 713.

Interviews with representatives of the Merak Tamils can be arranged.

A REPLY TO ROBERT MANNE

2011-12-30T10:33:00.002+11:00

Jenny Haines, 30.12.11

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald’s National Times Section on the 22nd December 2011, Robert Manne, stated his opinion that the Left Got it Wrong on Boat People. Manne notes the current stalemate between the political parties in Parliament and does not resile from his opposition to John Howard’s Pacific Solution cruelties, but he criticises the Left for not recognising the efficiency of the Pacific Solution in reducing the numbers of refugees arriving by boat. No reference is given for the figures that he quotes on asylum seekers arriving by boat between 2002 and 2008. But how can you have it both ways – if you are horrified by the cruelties of the Pacitic Solution, you can’t then use that Solution to justify the reduction in numbers arriving by boat. And it may be useful for Robert Manne to take a look at the following figures:

Year Migration program Resettled refugees % of migration program

2000–2001 80 610 3 997 5.0%
2001–2002 93 080 4 160 4.5%
2002–2003 108 070 4 376 4.0%
2003–2004 114 360 4 134 3.6%
2004–2005 120 060 5 511 4.6%
2006–2007 148 200 6 003 4.1%
2007–2008 158 630 6 004 3.8%
2008–2009 171 318 6 499 3.8%
2009–2010 168 623 6 003 3.6%
2010–2011 (planned) 168 700 5 998 3.6%

Sources: DIAC advice; Population flows: immigration aspects 2008–09, source data, chapter 4, 2010; and DIAC annual reports

As a member of the Labor Party and a proud member of the Left, I have always admired Robert Manne's intellect and there comes a time in every movement where people change their views. The pain of the refugee issue can induce great shifts of opinion.

I do not subscribe to the view that current people smugglers are akin to Oskar Schindler. There is no doubt that crime syndicates operate in the business world of people smuggling and that those criminal elements should be dealt with by the processes of criminal investigation forces around the world, including Australia. But people smuggling is a difficult business that draws into its whirlpool those who are refugees themselves, Indonesian fishermen who have been driven out of business by Australia’s policing of their former fishing grounds, and opportunists. These latter people are often not fully aware or choose not to be aware of the criminal structure of the enterprise they are involved in, but are hoping to either make some money, or get some family to a safe haven through their service on the boats. If we are serious about stopping refugee deaths on the sea, then bring people who are refugees from Indonesia by plane or safe boat. It is a very simple solution. No sending them back to Malaysia with all its human rights problems, No Nauru or Manus Island. The problem here is the politicians on both sides won't do this. They are all too afraid of voters in marginal seats and focus group outcomes.

The great shift in Manne’s opinion, is his conversion to offshore processing. Manne suggests in his article there are two solutions in the form of offshore processing – the Malaysia Solution which he appears to reject because it provides for 800 refugees being returned to Malaysia to an uncertain future or the re-opening of Nauru and Manus Island, but this time with “decent, health, accommodation, and education facilities.” .Given current government policy and practice on both sides of politics, of contracting out detention facilities to questionable international corporations, there does not seem to be any guarantees that facilties on faraway islands would meet these requirements.
Manne goes on to admit that

“The obvious problem with such an offshore processing camp is that it might not succeed in its deterrent purpose. One solution here is to nominate in advance the number of those found to be refugees that Australia will accept each year from the camp, and to admit that number on the basis of date of arrival. The likelihood of a long wait should act as a powerful deterrent.”

But who goes to Nauru and Manus Island - those who arrive by boat and plane, given the government’s recent commitment to process both groups in the same way? Or is Manne suggesting some regional solution where the Australian Government brings refugees from Indonesia to Nauru and Manus Island by plane or safe boat, thereby bypassing the need for them to get on people smugglers boats to get to Australia? If he is suggesting that refugees who land on Australian soil be sent back to Nauru and Manus Island , Australia is in breach of the Refugee Convention. Given his concerns about the dangers of refugees sailing to Australia by dangerous boat journey, is he suggesting that we continue to allow that to happen, and then send these people to Nauru or Manus Island where they linger in an Australian created queue based on their date of arrival ? If he is suggesting the latter, there is a moral problem in his stated views. They seem to contradict.

Robert Manne goes on to suggest that once Nauru and Manus Island are re-opened, mandatory detention could be abolished. We don’t need the re-opening of Nauru and Manus Island to abolish mandatory detention. He then agrees with the current Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen that the annual refugee intake in Australia could be increased to 20,000. Minister Bowen will increase the annual intake on the condition that the Opposition agrees to the Malaysia Solution. Robert Manne agrees that the refugee intake could be increased on the basis that Nauru and Manus Island are re-opened. We don’t need the Malaysia Solution or the reopening of Nauru and Manus Island to increase the annual intake of refugees. Given the hundreds of thousands being accepted annually by European countries, an increase to 20,000 in Australia is a drop in the ocean. What we need in this country is a government that is prepared to act courageously and humanely, whatever the uneducated portions of the voting public think, but what we have is a government pandering to the perceptions of voters in marginal seats, and participants in focus groups. Until we have more education of these people about the realities of life for refugees and asylum seekers, there will never be a fair go for refugees and asylum seekers, in a country that once prided itself on being the land of the fair go for all.

L4R AND RAC ON REFUGEES

2011-12-25T09:48:00.000+11:00

Labor and Coalition in 'unholy alliance' on refugees

Stefanie Balogh

From: The Australian December 24, 2011

REFUGEE advocates have accused Labor and the Coalition of entering an "unholy alliance" on offshore processing, expressing dismay that the Pacific Solution-era island of Nauru has been resurrected as a processing option for asylum-seekers.

Labor for Refugees co-convener Linda Scott said the group was "concerned" about the negotiations between the government and opposition to break the border protection impasse.

She said the government's offer to reopen the Nauru processing centre in return for support to pass legislation to shield the Malaysian Solution from any further High Court challenge was "ostensibly a Liberal Party policy".

"Labor for Refugees clearly continues its opposition to any offshore processing, although we are especially concerned about options concerning places like Nauru which we know have a long history of problematic treatment of asylum-seekers," she said.

The ALP's national platform, adopted this month, prohibited any reintroduction of temporary protection visas, Ms Scott said.

...She also said the platform included caveats designed to ensure Australia upheld its international obligations and protected asylum-seekers. "We would certainly work hard to make sure the government kept those commitments," she said.

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul said: "We're pretty disgusted that the Labor Party is trying to establish an unholy alliance with the Coalition to reintroduce third-country processing.

"At least at Christmas Island people who are processed at Christmas Island come to Australia. But if there is a deal with the Coalition, it will give the Labor Party the capacity to turn people away from Australia," he said. "And that is why nothing good whatsoever can come out of the discussions."

Pamela Curr of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said she greeted Labor's decision to reverse course on Nauru "with despair".

"What is going to happen to these people? Are we going to dump them in Nauru in conditions that are so inhospitable that the Australian government hopes the message will go back to Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan 'don't come because the living conditions are appalling'?" she said. "It didn't work last time and it's not going to work this time."

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Labor's decision to embrace Nauru was a "very sad moment".
.

DONT STOOP TO STUPID POLICY OVER BOAT TRAGEDY

2011-12-20T14:39:00.000+11:00

Don't stoop to stupid policy over boat tragedy

Aloysious Mowe

December 19, 2011

Eureka Street

Almost a year to the day when a boat sank off Christmas Island with horrendous loss of life, yet another asylum seeker tragedy, with an even higher death toll, has occurred. Up to 150 people bound for Australia may have died in the seas off East Java on Saturday.

The familiar refrains of 'Stop the boats', or more elegant variations thereof, inevitably followed.

The Coalition's policy of towing boats back to Indonesia is both immoral and stupid. It puts the lives of asylum seekers at further risk and undermines the professionalism and morale of the Australian Navy. The other oft-bruited policy, off-shore processing, strikes at the heart of the asylum system.

People have a right to seek asylum, and Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention which clearly states that those who seek asylum and arrive in a country's territory by irregular means should not be penalised. Let us be clear: off-shore processing puts Australia in breach of its international obligations, and makes laughable the claim that Australia is a nation of laws.

Of course we want people to stop making the hazardous boat journey to Christmas Island, but tow-backs and off-shore processing are blunt instruments that avoid the complexity of the issue.

Asylum seekers who attempt the boat journey to Australia often make their way to Indonesia via Malaysia, or arrive in Indonesia directly from their countries of origin before making the decision to get on a boat. Many try to get their refugee status determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) offices in these countries, but the process is long drawn-out, seen to lack transparency, and has no independent review mechanism.

UNHCR is also in a bind: even if it recognises the refugee status of asylum seekers, there are not enough resettlement places for these refugees to take up. While they languish in Malaysia or Indonesia, they are unable to work legally, cannot get an education, face harassment from the authorities, and are readily exploited by unscrupulous employers who know they have few protections.

Senator Doug Cameron's cogent and insightful statement in reaction to Saturday's tragedy bears repeating:

“It doesn't matter what deterrent you put in place, if they are fleeing for their lives, if they don't have a future in the country they're in, then they will take these chances. You can't place enough impediments in the way of asylum seekers who are fleeing death or torture”.

This is a regional problem and requires a regional solution. Australia must engage with the countries through which pass the flows of irregular migrants, explore with them ways to increase the protection space for asylum seekers and refugees in their territories, and share in the cost, so that people are not driven by poor living conditions and lack of legal protection to make desperate journeys.

It should also engage in serious research to find out why people make onward journeys from the countries of first asylum such as Malaysia and Indonesia.

On a recent visit to Indonesia, I met many asylum seekers and refugees. For them, coming to Australia was not always an inevitability, but a solution to a problem that seemed to have no other solutions: where can they be safe, and lead normal lives?

For a young man of 16, waiting two to three years in Indonesia for the refugee status determination and resettlement process to play itself out seems like a lifetime, especially when you cannot get an education and have no other meaningful activities while you wait. Getting on a boat seems like the better option, and the young cannot weigh the risks because they feel they are indestructible.

Many have now learnt, to their cost, that this is not the case.

________________________________________

Aloysious Mowe is Director of Jesuit Refugee Service.

TONY KEVIN IN EUREKA STREET

2011-12-19T10:01:00.000+11:00

Questions surround latest asylum seeker boat disaster

Tony Kevin December 18, 2011

Eureka Street

Reports started coming in on Sunday about another major boat disaster en route to Christmas Island. Questions surround this latest tragedy, ten years after SIEV X and one year after the SIEV 221 shipwreck.

BBC News Asia reported the sinking location as about 90km out to sea. ABC News gave the same location. BBC reported at least 250 people were on board. Some reports put the number as high as 380.

The vessel appeared to have been carrying more than twice its capacity. It 'sank Saturday evening and the national search and rescue team [BASARNAS] has already moved out to sea to start the search', rescue team member Brian Gauthier told Indonesian news agency Antara. Gauthier's position is unstated: he may be an Australian Maritime Safety Authority secondment to BASARNAS (AMSA has extensive rescue at sea training-type cooperation underway).

Extreme weather caused reduced visibility. An Afghan survivor told Antara the ship rocked violently, triggering panic among the tightly packed passengers. This made the boat even more unstable and it sank. He and others clung to wreckage and were rescued by local fishermen. He estimated more than 40 children were on the boat.

This account recalls the details of SIEV X: a grossly overloaded, top-heavy boat capsizes after rocking violently in extreme weather; a few survivors are later rescued by local fishermen.

ABC News and Antara sources offer more detail as to the location of these events. Gauthier told Antara some of the rescued are in Prigi in eastern Java, around 30km from where the boat sank. Some survivors are in Trenggalek, a town about 20km further inland. Both places are around 200km east of Jogyakarta, in the Java southern coastal region (and about 350km east of Cilicap, where another sinking took place a few weeks ago).

Antara says the sinking location 'is estimated to [be] within 20-30 miles from the boundary waters Prigi Coast'. This would seem to locate the sinking in international waters outside the Indonesian contiguous zone, about 30km or more south of Prigi Beach.

Christmas Island — about 700km away in a WSW direction — was the most likely destination from this area. But this is an unusually long route, about twice as long as the direct route south from the Sunda Strait/Panaitan Island area. If the boat started from east of Prigi, its route towards Christmas Island would be diagonal to the coast — which could indeed put its sinking location about 30km from the coast after 90km travelling.

There are more parallels here with SIEV X: a circuitous route from a long way off, yet a sinking location finally not far outside Indonesian contiguous waters, far from Australian waters, and in the Indonesian search and rescue zone; and plausibly accessible to Indonesian fishing boat rescue.

The circumstances raise similar intelligence-related questions as those raised by SIEV X. How did fishing boats find survivors? How did anyone know where the boat was? Were there tracking devices on board? Were there intercepted distress messages from passengers using GPS-reading satellite phones, to relatives, to Indonesia, or to 000 in Australia? Did AFP inform AMSA of any distress message and location? Did AMSA inform BASARNAS?
This overloaded boat must have been at sea at least 15 hours to have got 90km from its embarkation point. Were there any monitored pre-embarkation phonecalls by passengers to family members (as there usually are these days)? Would the Australian border protection intelligence system have picked up such messages? What did they do with them, and when?

The events have a similar smell to them as SIEV X: of a possible Indonesian police (INP) illegal disruption operation, from a remote location, highly profitable and sending a terrible deterrent message to others.

As former AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty testified in the Senate CMI inquiry in 2002, 'though the AFP would never ask the INP to do anything illegal, once they have asked the INP to do anything to disrupt the movement of people smugglers, the AFP has to leave it in the INP's hands as to how they do it. Recent Senate Estimates Committee testimony by Customs suggests nothing much has changed.'

As with SIEV X, the Australian border protection system is far from the scene. And with all intelligence information being withheld on national security grounds, we may never know how this latest tragedy happened — as with SIEV X, SIEV 221 and the lost boats in 2009 and 2010.

Australian politicians and officials will blame the easy target we have been taught to hate: people smugglers. The tragedy will be exploited by both sides of politics. Gillard will use it to pressure Abbott to pass her legislation to enable Malaysian offshore processing. Abbott will use it to pressure her for Navy towback of boats, and for Nauru — as SIEV X was exploited by Howard to force Indonesia to accede to Australian towbacks.

It is an indictment of Australia's border protection system, including its secret intelligence-based parts, that such disasters go on happening, and that the Australian system continues to avoid admitting any degree of knowledge or accountability.

I will continue to research these issues, asking fact-based questions that the Australian Government would prefer not be asked. I do this because deaths of people at sea in these numbers are intolerable in any decent society that claims to conduct intelligence gathering on people smugglers, and people smuggling disruption operations in cooperation with the INP, by lawful means.
________________________________________

Tony Kevin is an author and former ambassador to Cambodia and Poland whose 2004 book A Certain Maritime Incident sparked debates about Australia's moral responsibilities on the high seas.

AUSTRALIA SHARES RESPONSIBILITY

2011-12-18T14:07:00.002+11:00

MEDIA RELEASE

AUSTRALIA SHARES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS’ DEATHS AT SEA

Australia cannot evade its share of the responsibility for yesterday’s
tragic sinking of another asylum boat off Java, according to advocates
from the Refugee Action Coalition. The boat is believed to have been
carrying Afghan and Iranian refugees.

‘Australia’s push for Indonesia to detain asylum seekers and to
criminalize people smuggling directly leads to the kind of tragedy
we’ve seen yet again today,’ said Ian Rintoul, RAC spokesperson.

‘There’s nothing inherently dangerous about the passage from Indonesia
– if it’s in proper boats. If the government is worried about people
losing their lives at sea, they should decriminalize people-smuggling
so that the voyages can be planned in the open and seaworthy boats can
come here without having to sneak into Australian waters in secret.’

“But the policy of detaining asylum seekers in Indonesia means asylum
seekers risk imprisonment if they contact authorities if they are
concerned about the seaworthiness of any boat.
“The fact that Australia impounds and destroys the vessels that bring
asylum seekers here means boats used for are more likely to be
unseaworthy. The crossing from Indonesia is these boats’ last voyage.’

‘This time we tragically have hundreds of people likely to be dead.
‘No doubt we’ll hear a lot of hypocrisy from government and opposition
about the tragedy of lost lives. They’ll say the sinking shows
Australia has to deter people from undertaking boat trips. But talk of
stopping the boats only makes the situation worse.
‘It doesn’t matter how unsafe the boat is, refugees will try to get to
Australia because that is often the only place where they can be safe.

‘According to reports earlier this year, there were 1462 civilian
deaths in Afghanistan in the first half of 2011 alone – a 15%
increase. May this year was the deadliest month of the war for
civilians since 2007. It’s no surprise that people are willing to risk
their lives on the trip to Australia.’

‘Sending people to Nauru or Malaysia will make no difference. People
trying to escape war and persecution in Afghanistan or Iran are still
going to try and come here because they have no other option. And any
refugees who are prevented from coming to Australia by government
policies will just undertake other dangerous journeys to Europe or
America, with just as much risk to their lives.’

‘Australia’s obligation is to welcome asylum seekers. We have
resettled a minuscule number of refugees from our region.

‘If the government and opposition really had a concern for asylum
seekers’ lives they would institute the humane refugee policy
Australia has needed for so long. They’d massively increase our
refugee intake from the region, they’d end mandatory detention,
decriminalize people-smuggling, remove offshore processing as a policy
option, and process and resettle refugees from Indonesia.’

More information: Ian Rintoul, 0417 275 713
__._,_.___

ASYLUM SHIP SINKS

2011-12-18T10:22:00.000+11:00

All,

Stay tuned for the Gillard blames Abbott and Abbott blames Gillard show.

Jenny Haines

Huge toll as overcrowded asylum ship sinks

Ali Kotarumalos, SMH.

December 18, 2011 - 9:27AM

Read later.A wooden ship suspected to be heading to Australia and carrying more than 200 asylum seekers, many of them from the Middle East, has sunk off Indonesia's main island of Java, local media report.

So far only 33 people have been rescued.

Police blamed the Saturday accident on overloading, telling the official news agency Antara that the vessel appeared to have been carrying more than twice its capacity.

Advertisement: Story continues below One of the survivors, Esmat Adine, told Antara the ship started rocking from side to side, triggering widespread panic.

Because people were so tightly packed, they had no where to go, said the 24-year-old Afghan migrant.

"That made the boat even more unstable and eventually it sank," he said.

Adine said that he and others survived by clinging to parts of the broken vessel until they were picked up by local fishermen.

He estimated that more than 40 children were on the ship. It was not immediately clear if any were rescued.

Indonesia, a sprawling archipelagic nation of 240 million people, has more than 18,000 islands and thousands of kilometres of unpatrolled coastline, making it a key transit point for smuggling migrants.

Those on board Saturday - apparently heading to Australia - were from Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

The private television station Metro TV reported that 33 people had been found alive and that perhaps 215 others were still missing.

Last month a ship carrying about 70 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan capsized off the southern coast of Central Java; at least eight people died.

AP

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/huge-toll-as-overcrowded-asylum-ship-sinks-20111218-1p0g4.html#ixzz1gpxjU15T

ASYLUM SEEKER POLICY BETRAYS TRUE BELIEVERS

2011-12-15T14:12:00.000+11:00

Asylum seeker policy betrays Labor's true believers

Robin Rothfield

SMH, December 15, 2011 - 6:48AM

You may have missed it, but the Labor Party made history last week by passing a policy to support, for the first time, the offshore processing of asylum seekers.

But for card-carrying Labor supporters in particular, and fair-minded Australians in general, it was a bitter pill to swallow.

The sweetener - such as it is - was an increase in annual visas for humanitarian refugees to 20,000 a year, on condition of a reduction in the number of boat arrivals.

This increase should be unconditional and not entwined in a quid pro quo formula that turns persecuted and vulnerable human beings into cold statistics as the government bids to make offshore processing Australia's new reality.

Ultimately, offshore processing of asylum seekers – during which some victims may have to wait as long as nine years in detention – will not stop the boats. We now have the harshest and cruellest policy in Australia's history, with more than a third of detainees having been incarcerated for more than a year and many committing acts of self-harm.

Labor's new policy is thus nothing but a political capitulation to the politics of fear and smear waged by Tony Abbott and his opposition.
In his speech to the national conference in Sydney, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said Labor's new refugee policy was ''compassionate'' and ''pro-refugee'', a balance between a ''soft heart and a hard head''.

He is either delusional or in denial. For how else to read this statement after his performance at the conference. Asked to justify the jailing of Indonesian villagers coerced into crewing boats bound for Australia – some of whom are teenagers and don't even know they are engaging in people smuggling – he simply deferred the issue to the Attorney-General. This was either politics at its cynical best or the best cop out in the book.

Further pressed as to whether it is justifiable to sentence an asylum seeker to life in detention when they have committed no crime, he responded that the High Court had ruled that indefinite detention of asylum seekers is legal. A sidestep to be sure, but hardly outright opposition to such draconian measures.

Worse, arguably, was his cold-hearted retort about the government's right to repatriate failed asylum seekers even when there is a risk of death as the Taliban have made brutally explicit in Afghanistan.
Bowen and the government's spin-masters have tried to sell the public the fiction that its policy, while maintaining a balance between humanitarianism and border security, is a deterrent for people smugglers.

But in reality it smacks of political expediency because the government knows that the Malaysian solution is stillborn – rejected by the judiciary and deadlocked in the legislature.

It may be true to argue that, by dint of a High Court ruling and a hung parliament, Labor is processing refugees on Australian soil and in a more humane manner.

But this is neither morally sustainable nor politically defensible. It's nothing but a false sense of security. For the first time in its history Labor's official policy is now to promote offshore processing as the solution.

And to add insult to injury, the rank-and-file party members were denied the right to a conscience vote on this issue even though they were granted it for the hot-button issue of gay marriage.

Indeed, it seemed Bowen was acutely aware it would be a close-fought battle because two prominent members of the Right faction, including refugee advocate Shane Prince, were denied permission to speak at National Conference.

Nevertheless, Labor For Refugees, with the backing of the Left faction, did manage to secure policy reforms that may improve the lives of asylum seekers processed in Australia. Labor has abandoned the policy of treating those who arrive by boat more harshly than those who arrive by air.
Mercifully, Labor has also committed to releasing children and, where possible, their families from detention centres. And for asylum seekers detained while their health, identity and security issues are checked, Labor will strive to ensure that detention is for a maximum of 90 days.
But striving is not good enough. They should be released within 90 days unless there is evidence of a security risk endorsed by a judge.

Nevertheless, these specific reforms pale into insignificance compared with the government's overarching new policy. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are now jostling in their race to the bottom on this critical issue. Former prime minister John Howard must be bemused at how the politics of panic he manipulated so expertly are edging Labor closer and closer to Howard-era policies.

As David Marr writes in his new book, Panic: ''Hearts are hardened. Terrible things are done in the name of protecting the nation. It is not the first wave of boats and won't be the last, but the politics are more rancorous than ever.''

Ordinary Australians should be ashamed that our government supports abdicating our responsibility to a third party. Australians need to deal humanely with refugees on Australian soil without compromising border protection.

By backing offshore processing, Labor has crossed the idiomatic Rubicon. It's a subtle but significant shift – one that alters the party's DNA. In short, Labor has abandoned defending human rights in favour of trading the human rights of asylum seekers with other countries.

Not in my name.

Robin Rothfield is secretary of Labor for Refugees (Victoria).

REFUGEE ENQUIRY

2011-12-13T09:18:00.000+11:00

Refugee inquiry to tackle backlog

Kirsty Needham

December 13, 2011
.
THE former attorney-general Michael Lavarch will conduct an independent review of the refugee and migration tribunals amid a backlog of cases and allegations that the process is being abused.

The matter has become urgent as thousands more asylum seekers are set to be funnelled into the Refugee Review Tribunal from early next year, as the separate system for assessing boat arrivals is scrapped.

An internal memo announcing Professor Lavarch's appointment was circulated within the Immigration Department yesterday, pointing to a surge in overseas students appealing visa knock-backs and sponsored family fighting to stay in Australia as two reasons for the backlog.

Advertisement: Story continues below ''The increasing delays result in uncertainty for applicants and provide an incentive for others to misuse the review process to extend their stay in Australia,'' the memo said.

In November, less than half of Refugee Review Tribunal cases (47 per cent) had been completed within the 90-day standard, while a third of Migration Review Tribunal cases were more than a year old.

The principal member of the tribunals, Denis O'Brien, had complained in the tribunals' annual report it would be a ''significant challenge'' for them to meet targets this year.

The migration tribunal deals with business, bridging visa and student visa refusals. Most cases lodged with the refugee tribunal - which only deals with plane arrivals - were from China, Fiji and India. There was a 31 per cent leap in new cases before the refugee tribunal and a 24 per cent increase in new cases before the migration tribunal last year.

Professor Lavarch is expected to report by the end of January 2012. The Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, said: ''This independent review will identify what changes could be made to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of both the MRT and RRT.''

The refugee tribunal lost members last year to the boat arrival system, which has been plagued by its own difficulties.

Two out of three visa refusals handed out by the boat system have later been overturned in the Federal Magistrates Court on the grounds of lack of fairness.

The court has also ruled that a key reviewer assessing boat arrivals appeared to be biased against Afghan Hazaras and has injuncted the Immigration Department from using the reviewer's decision.

Ads by Google

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/refugee-inquiry-to-tackle-backlog-20111212-1orij.html#ixzz1gMSvNMPQ

LIP STITCH PROTESTORS DECLARE HUNGER STRIKE

2011-11-27T10:46:00.000+11:00

MEDIA RELEASE

27.11.11

STATELESS ASYLUM LIP STITCH PROTESTERS DECLARE HUNGER STRIKE

The three Faili Kurd asylum seekers who have had their lips stitched
together since last Monday are continuing their protest and have now
declared a hunger strike.

On Saturday, 26 November, the three told the Immigration department
and the Red Cross that they would now be on hunger strike.

Until Saturday, they had been taking some sweet tea and juice.

At least one other Faili Kurd in the Darwin detention centre has been
on hunger strike for over a week. Two other Faili Kurds in Curtin were
hospitalised last week after self harm incidents.

The Immigration department already offered to move them to another
detention centre if they unstitched their lips, but the protesters
have rejected that as not offering them any solution. Yesterday
(Saturday), the department offered to negotiate their return if they
unstitched their lips but said that the arrangements would take them
at least ten months.

“The offer to return in unbelievable,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson
for the Refugee Action Coalition, “At least one of the Kurds applied
to be returned five months ago, but they were told then that as they
are stateless, the government could not send them anywhere.

“The government knows it is unable to send them anywhere, but is
keeping them in indefinite detention

“An urgent review of all the stateless asylum seeker cases is needed.
It is estimated that there are around 600 stateless asylum seekers
presently in immigration detention. They should be released. We don’t
want any more Peter Kasims,” said Rintoul.

Peter Kasim, was a stateless asylum seeker, that the Howard government
kept in detention for seven years (until 2005), although he applied
for residency to 80 countries.

“The bridging visas announced recently are not about to solve the
problems of long term detention. Three of the Kurds in Darwin have
been in detention between 17 and 21 months already. The Minister has
the power to release them, he should use it.”

For more information contact Refugee Action Coalition, Ian Rintoul 0417 275 713
__._,_.___

THE HELP THAT MICHELLE BEETS NEEDED

2011-11-21T14:44:00.001+11:00

The Help That Michelle Beets Needed

By Jenny Haines

21.11.11, as published in New Matilda.

Changes in health services management meant that Michelle Beets was too involved with the hiring and firing of Walter Marsh, writes former general secretary of the NSW Nurses Association Jenny Haines

Michelle Beets was the Nursing Unit Manager of Emergency Department of Royal North Shore Hospital. On Tuesday 4 May 2010 she was violently and horribly murdered on the doorstep of her Chatswood home by a former employee, Walter Ciarin Marsh. He told his wife — who testified against him in court — that he murdered Beets because she had been instrumental in his employment being terminated at the hospital and because her poor references were preventing him from getting another job.

Marsh was found guilty by a jury last week. He will not like jail. A man who wanted control of his life such that he would kill in such a horrible way, a man who would terrorise his wife and her brother such that they were initially terrified to tell the police what they knew, this man is not going to like jail at all.

Having spent 34 years in the NSW health system, I have seen many changes in the way health services are managed. This have mostly involved the flattening of management structures, and the devolution of senior management tasks and responsibilities down the remaining administrative line to Nursing Unit Managers. These changes open many questions in my mind about the murder of Michelle Beets.

Why was Beets seen by Marsh as the person who was solely responsible for his employment? Why did he see her as the sole person who was blocking him getting future employment?

In times past, these employment tasks were managed by the Human Resources Departments of Area Health Services. The restructuring of health services and management roles means that these employment roles have been devolved to busy Nursing Unit Managers.

I can only imagine how busy and stressful Michelle’s life as a Nursing Unit Manager must have been. There would not have been a lot of spare time to manage all the details of employing new staff, and ending their employment when they left, or were dismissed — all without much needed support from the Human Resources Department. When Beets wanted Walter Marsh dismissed, why wasn’t his case handed over to Human Resources?

When police were finalising evidence against Marsh, reports emerged about problems with his registration as a nurse in the United States. A Nursing Unit Manager can look up a nurse’s registration status in Australia online easily. If there are problems with a nurse’s registration overseas, however, surely that responsibility should remain with the registering authorities? A busy Nursing Unit Manager should not be expected to contact the United States to follow up on the registration status of a job applicant.

If Marsh was a threat to Beets, and she knew it, and she had raised this with the hospital, what had been done by security services at the hospital to protect her? I have heard evidence from Michelle’s close friends that she had expressed concern for her safety. A nursing colleague who attended the interview with Beets in which she advised Marsh of his dismissal told the court that Beets was nervous about how he would take the news — but relieved after the interview was over because he was now out of the hospital.

No one could have anticipated what happened. But for a Nursing Unit Manager carrying such a heavy responsibility on behalf of the Area Health Service to be exposed to such risks, raises real questions about the the allocation of that responsibility.

All sorts of clever ideas have been introduced into the health system over the last 30 years to downsize departments, and to make them more cost efficient. Very rarely it seems, are questions raised about the occupational health and safety implications of these measures.

SLOW REGISTRATION OF DOCTORS

2011-11-20T11:00:00.002+11:00

SMH, 20.11.11

Tom Hyland.

Susan Douglas's expertise as a doctor and obstetrician is indisputable. As an assistant professor of family medicine and head of Canada's largest obstetrics department, she had no trouble securing a lecturing job at the Australian National University's medical school in 2006.

While she is qualified enough to teach Australia's next generation of doctors, she cannot get full registration to practise medicine here herself. Dr Douglas is one of hundreds of overseas-trained doctors - encouraged by the government to come to Australia to ease critical gaps in the healthcare system - who are stymied from practising medicine when they arrive.

Some foreign doctors give up and leave. Others, such as Pakistan-trained Nasir Mehmood Baig - who arrived in 2005 and has a wife and four children to support - drive taxis while navigating their way towards registration. Those who eventually have their qualifications recognised have to work for 10 years often in remote areas, shunned by domestically trained doctors if they want access to Medicare billing, without which they cannot make a living.

Advertisement: Story continues below Most had no idea of the obstacle course they would face when they answered the call to come to Australia to help plug holes created in the years after the Keating and Howard governments froze enrolments of medical students to contain the Medicare bill.

The registration system is so convoluted that MPs carrying out a federal parliamentary inquiry into ways of making it simpler without cutting standards have been left perplexed. The inquiry's chairman, Labor MP Steve Georganas, says the accreditation and registration process is a ''complex mishmash'' that does not work properly.

It is not as though Australia doesn't need foreign-trained doctors. Almost 40 per cent of Australia's 75,000 doctors trained overseas. About 68 per cent of them work in major cities.

Less than a third work in rural and remote areas but they make up almost half the medical workforce in those areas. In one-doctor towns, often they are the only physician.

Nobody denies the need to carefully check medical qualifications, and all agree a good standard of English is needed. ''Absolutely, they have to be thorough in verifying someone's credentials,'' Dr Douglas said. ''The problem is that the assessment we demand of foreign doctors is far greater than what we demand for our own practitioners.''

Registration processes were tightened, centralised and supposedly streamlined after the ''Dr Death'' scandal in which Queensland authorities failed to check the credentials of Jayant Patel, the surgeon recruited from the US and now serving seven years in jail for manslaughter and grievous bodily harm.

Commonwealth and state governments set up the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in July last year to replace myriad state and professional boards. But the post-Patel reforms seem to have made things more complicated.

In June, a Senate committee inquiry into the new regulation agency, after hearing complaints of long delays, poor advice and lost paperwork, called on the agency to ''significantly improve its performance''. The same complaints have been made to the committee chaired by Mr Georganas.

The process is one of the most difficult to understand in the world, according to Rural Health Workforce Australia. Martina Stanley, director of a medical recruitment company, says other Western countries have complex and strict systems but ''we have the worst system for co-ordination'', with a reputation for ''causing frustration that makes us look ridiculous''.

Foreign doctors face a spaghetti bowl of red tape, involving multiple agencies. The Australian Medical Council checks and tests their credentials, the medical colleges govern specialists and the Medical Board of Australia registers them so they can practise. The regulation agency handles the paperwork. Gaining registration can entail more than a dozen processes.

Late last year, Queensland MPs from electorates reliant on foreign doctors and alarmed at what they saw as discrimination by regulators and medical colleges, demanded a parliamentary inquiry.

Nationals MP Bruce Scott talked of a system ''that has just gone mad''. Independent MP Bob Katter described the process as a disgrace. ''Without overseas-trained doctors, regional Australia could not function,'' he said.

In response, the federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, asked the House of Representatives committee on health and ageing to hold an inquiry. It will report early next year after receiving close to 200 submissions and holding 20 public hearings. It heard persistent complaints from doctors forced to do onerous language tests; of accrediting agencies not sharing information; of a lack of transparency; of shifting rules; and of a perception that the medical establishment is a closed shop protecting vested interests.

''It's clear the system is not working properly,'' Mr Georganas told The Sun-Herald. ''I don't think what we're talking about is discrimination but I think it's this stupid bureaucracy that has grown out of each different college and the Australian Medical Council. Every step of the way there's a separate bureaucracy. None of them talk to each other.''

He highlighted the case of Dr Douglas, now vice-president of the Australian Overseas Trained Doctors Association, who told the inquiry of a Kafkaesque ordeal with a ''dysfunctional, difficult and irrational bureaucracy''.

The Canadian is a native English speaker but to practise here she had to provide written proof of her language proficiency from her high school which closed decades ago.

She was forced to do the costly medical council accreditation process twice in two years and was confounded by more than one catch-22.

She had to obtain a fellowship with the college of general practitioners before she could register as a GP - but she could not get a fellowship until she was registered.

As processes dragged on, Dr Douglas said she ''fell into a state of deep depression''.

''It isn't that any one event in itself is particularly shocking,'' she wrote to the committee, ''it is the fact that the problems never seem to end and just go on and on, to the point where you literally feel like you are losing your mind.''

Australia's dependence on foreign doctors is self-made. The decision by first Labor and then Liberal federal governments in the 1990s to freeze local medical school enrolments was made amid predictions of an oversupply of doctors. But the freeze did not account for a growing population and the reluctance of Australian doctors to work in the bush. So doctors were recruited from overseas.

There was a catch. The Howard government barred doctors who entered the country after 1997 from billing under Medicare for 10 years unless they worked in areas of need, often in rural towns.

At the heart of the system are the Australian Medical Council and the Medical Board of Australia. Both are unapologetic, defending the need for strict standards to protect patient welfare.

The council's chief executive, Ian Frank, concedes the process can be complex, creating stress and frustration for doctors involved.

''Nevertheless,'' he told the committee, ''the assessment and registration of medical practitioners is a high-stakes process where individual failures, as evidenced by the Patel case in Queensland, can be very costly for the Australian community and lead to a loss of confidence in the regulatory processes … not to mention adverse clinical outcomes for individual patients.''

The chairwoman of the medical board, Joanna Flynn, said the process had to be stringent to ensure only qualified people were registered. She insisted the complaints did not reveal a systematic failure by the board and associated bodies.

''We try to make a good judgment call between the need to provide medical services to the community and the need to ensure that everybody is appropriately qualified,'' she said. ''I believe that most of the time we get that right.'' But Dr Flynn said more effort could be made in explaining the process. The board and the medical council were looking at ways of reducing duplication, possibly with an online repository of documents so doctors do not have to provide separate certificates to different agencies.

A central grievance of foreign doctors is the Medicare rule and their complaint is backed by major professional bodies. Former Australian Medical Association president Andrew Pesce said lifting the 10-year moratorium was the best way of supporting foreign doctors. He said the rule raised significant human rights issues, while allowing governments to avoid their responsibility to train enough local doctors and provide incentives for them to work in regional areas.

The system meant foreign doctors were conscripted to work in the bush, Dr Pesce said. Given the lack of support and the nature of rural practice, there ''could not have been a worse place'' to send doctors unfamiliar with Australia.

The Rural Doctors Association of Australia says overseas-trained doctors have prevented a catastrophic collapse in the medical workforce in rural and remote areas but it too wants the ''unconscionable'' 10-year moratorium phased out.

Ms Roxon said she did not want to pre-empt the inquiry's findings. In a written response to questions from The Sun-Herald, she appeared to rule out lifting the 10-year rule.

Overseas-trained doctors had ''proven to be a very effective way of improving workforce shortages in the areas of greatest need, which tend to be located in rural and regional Australia, and the government has no current plans to change this'', she said

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/sick-system-keeps-doctors-out-of-practice-indefinitely-20111119-1nods.html#ixzz1eCOamPwF

COURTS STOP FORCED DEPORTATION

2011-11-19T10:25:00.000+11:00

Well done Ian Rintoul and Shane Prince!!

Kirsty Needham, SMH

19.11.11

THE federal government's plan to deport an Afghan asylum seeker by force for the first time has been stopped by the courts.

Afghan Hazara man Ismail Mirza Jan, 27, wept in the Sydney Federal Magistrates Court yesterday as a temporary injunction blocked his forced removal from Australia to Kabul.

The injunction, in place until a full court hearing, is the latest in a series of judicial curbs on the Gillard government's refugee policies. The High Court injuncted the removal of asylum seekers from Christmas Island to Malaysia on the eve of the first transfer, and later permanently blocked the Malaysia refugee swap.

Advertisement: Story continues below About two-thirds of rejected refugee claims from boat arrivals are being overturned in the Federal Magistrates Court because of a lack of procedural fairness.

''Federal Magistrate [Shenagh] Barnes granted our client an injunction, stopping our client departing tomorrow on the basis our client has an arguable case that he was denied natural justice in relation to a decision that it was reasonably practicable to remove him to Afghanistan,'' his lawyer George Newhouse said.

''It is a sound decision based on a universal principle of law which protects all Australians and those who come within our borders. Our client … is still living with the uncertainty that he may be removed in the future.''

A directions hearing for Mr Jan's case is set down for next month. A refugee activist, Ian Rintoul, said it was likely the case would not be heard until next year. It is believed that travel documents issued by the Afghan government will expire at the end of January.

Mr Jan fled Afghanistan a decade ago as a teenager and his family now live in Pakistan. He fears for his safety if returned to Afghanistan.

He arrived in Australia by plane in 2010, having spent years moving between European countries. His claim for refugee status was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

A spokesman for the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, said: ''It's a fundamental part of our immigration system that if people are found not to be genuine refugees that they should be removed.

''People are only removed where their refugee claim has failed at multiple levels of assessment. This government is committed to a proper and robust assessment of asylum claims as a signatory to the Refugee Convention.''

The Afghanistan expert William Maley and Amnesty International have cautioned against deporting anyone to Afghanistan as the security situation in Kabul deteriorated.

A second legal front was opened in the Federal Court yesterday. The barrister Shane Prince commenced legal action seeking time to appeal an earlier court decision which had upheld the rejection of Mr Jan's refugee claim.

Although the Afghan government has issued travel documents, it has publicly indicated it is unhappy at the forced return of its nationals under a controversial agreement struck with the federal government.

As war against the Taliban continues, Afghans continue to be the largest group of asylum seekers worldwide, with the number of Afghans applying for refugee status leaping 20 per cent in the first half of this year, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Asylum claims reached their highest level since 2002 in the most recent quarter measured by the UNHCR.

The Immigration Department had planned to take Mr Jan from the Villawood detention centre today and escort him by plane to Kabul, charging him $32,000 for his removal.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/court-stops-forced-deportation-of-asylum-seeker-20111118-1nnds.html#ixzz1e6PLXmAY

VICTORIAN NURSES DISPUTE

2011-11-13T14:12:00.001+11:00

All,

I hear the government and employers are backing away from a lockout of Victorian nurses because they have received legal advice that they would be liable for any adverse events during a lockout. But this is going to be a tough dispute and should be followed closely. Hopefully the health unions nationally are ready for this. The loss of the ratios in Victoria would set a benchmark for nurses nationally. We should be prepared to defend the ratios in Victoria by national action.

Jenny Haines

The Age

Kate Hagan, 12.11.11

ON THE job over the past couple of days, thousands of Victorian nurses have worn T-shirts emblazoned with the words ''respect our work''. It is the bottom line for many in their latest round of negotiations with the government over the enterprise agreement that governs their pay and conditions.

About 30,000 nurses are seeking an 18.5 per cent pay rise over the next three years and eight months. The Baillieu government is offering them 2.5 per cent. Any further pay rise, the government has said, will need to be offset by productivity gains.

Victoria's nurses are among the lowest paid in the country. But what they do have on their side are mandated nurse-patient ratios that ensure minimum staffing levels for different categories of patients. For a general surgical ward at a major metropolitan hospital, one nurse is rostered for every four patients during the day and one for every eight at night. Fewer nurses are rostered on for the same ward in a country hospital. And there are variations between wards - more nurses are needed for intensive care patients, and fewer for those undergoing rehabilitation after a spinal or brain injury.

Advertisement: Story continues below Nurses like ratios because they give some protection against overwhelming workloads. Several NSW nurses quit Albury hospital to work for less at Wodonga after Victoria introduced them in 2000 following a landmark decision in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

Other states have since adopted models that provide a minimum level of nursing care for patients, depending on their needs. But the government says those models are more flexible - and that only in Victoria are there fixed ratios that must be applied every minute of every day regardless of how busy a ward is, or how sick its patients.

A spokeswoman for Health Minister David Davis says the government supports ratios but wants ''local flexibility for staff allocations that provide more nurses at the busiest times and fewer nurses during quieter times''.

The state secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, Lisa Fitzpatrick, counters that there is already ''extraordinary flexibility'' in ratios, and that nurses are busier than ever. She says ratios are the reason that Victoria, unlike other states, does not have a nursing shortage. In other states, shortages have been used to make a case for lesser-trained health assistants. Both measures - more flexible ratios and the introduction of health assistants - are at the heart of ''productivity improvements'' proposed by the state government as part of its EBA negotiations with nurses. A leaked cabinet document this week revealed that the proposals, which are opposed by nurses, could save $104 million.

Austin Hospital chief executive Brendan Murphy argues that employing health assistants to perform personal care tasks such as feeding and bathing patients is common sense. His hospital has recently completed a two-year trial in which 30 health assistants were employed to work on acute wards, under the supervision of registered nurses. He says the feedback from nurses and patients has been overwhelmingly positive, and that assistants have been employed at the hospital permanently. ''What we're trying to do is supplement the nursing workforce where appropriate and use people to the best of their skills. We shouldn't be wasting our incredibly precious and well-trained nurses doing basic tasks.''

The model has been evaluated by consultants, in a report being considered by the government. That rings alarm bells for Fitzpatrick, who is adamant that health assistants - who have about 80 hours' clinical experience compared with the 1000 hours of a registered nurse - have no place on an acute ward. She recalls one nurse telling her about a health assistant who was having difficulty understanding that a patient listed as ''not for resuscitation'' wanted only pain relief and to die in peace. ''Many nurses would deal with that every day of their working life. But this health assistant couldn't accept that … The nurse had to spend three hours with her over the next few shifts trying to talk her through it.''

Fitzpatrick says ratios providing for a minimum number of registered nurses are vital for safeguarding patient care. She says hospital chief executives hate ratios because they lock up a portion of their budgets. ''Our [staffing] budget can't get hived off to pay for a new MRI [machine].''

A decade ago, ratios were crucial in bringing nurses back to Victoria's public health system after thousands of them were made redundant under the Kennett government. Now they have got ratios, nurses are determined to hold on to them. With patients becoming sicker as the population ages - perhaps with diabetes or a chronic lung disease in addition to the fractured hip that has brought them to hospital - nurses are pushing for the ratios to be improved. But every three years when their enterprise agreement comes up for renegotiation, they find themselves fighting simply to maintain the status quo.

Neurosurgical nurse Rachael Duncan tells, in Suzanne Gordon's book Nursing against the Odds, of routinely caring for 10 patients - four of them in a high-dependency area - at the Austin Hospital before ratios were introduced.

''You left work feeling like a wet rag. There was a very poor skill mix on the floor. A lot of casual nurses were making up the numbers. Nursing is always hard work, but you never got ahead, you were always chasing everything. You never felt like you'd done your job [and] everyone was stressed,'' she said.

Returning to work after maternity leave, following the introduction of ratios, Duncan said she would leave for the day feeling she had done her job well. In one instance she had to drop everything to stabilise a patient who had developed a life-threatening blood clot in the lung and rush him to intensive care. She returned two hours later to find her colleagues had given her other patients their medications, taken their vital signs and changed their dressings - something she says never happened before ratios.

Louise Gates, 26, did not work in the hospital system before ratios - but even with them, she found the workload high, the responsibility immense. After three years at university to qualify as a division one nurse, she left the profession after just 18 months. She says many of her friends did the same.

''For me, there wasn't enough incentive to stay in nursing. I didn't feel valued enough, and I didn't think the remuneration was adequate for the responsibilities nurses have,'' she says. ''You get home from a shift absolutely exhausted, and then you're on the very next morning, waking up at 5am.''

That said, there was much in the job that she enjoyed. ''There's great parts about nursing: you form such great friendships and have a sense of purpose. I definitely miss the daily interaction with patients, and the medical side of things.''

Not everyone is convinced that ratios are the answer. Monash University researcher Virginia Plummer, while agreeing that they have restored control to nurses and brought them back into the Victorian system, says that as patient care becomes more complex, a far more sophisticated approach is needed. She believes that computer systems that crunch data on peaks and troughs in clinical workloads (based on patient numbers and complexity), and roster nurses across a hospital accordingly, can save money, improve patient care and result in fairer workloads. But, for now, she says, in Victoria, ratios are ''absolutely entrenched''.

Plummer says Victoria was in ''dire straits'' in 2000 when nurses left the system in droves because they could not bear to see the quality of nursing deteriorate. The introduction of mandated ratios was so successful, she says, that nurses will reject anything that threatens that system. ''It made them come back… and it made them trust their workplace. We hope that in time other systems will be accepted. But it's not the right time. The memories are still there.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/when-taking-care-is-a-numbers-game-20111111-1nblk.html#ixzz1dYFJBgiR

ASYLUM SEEKER SCRABBLE

2011-11-08T09:41:00.000+11:00

Asylum seeker Scrabble

Kerry Murphy.

November 07, 2011

Eureka Street

Last week there were three significant events affecting refugees including, tragically, more deaths.

Yet another detainee killed himself after a prolonged period in detention and while awaiting a security check. It has never been satisfactorily explained why these checks take so long. For more than 15 years, mental health professionals have been stating that prolonged detention can cause serious damage to a person's mental health. Yet the mandatory detention policy remains.

The second event was the passing of the Deterring People Smuggling Bill. The law ensures that a person convicted under people smuggling offences introduced in 1999 will not be able to claim that they did not commit an offence if the people they transported were later found to be refugees. The law was introduced into Parliament and passed within a day to defeat ongoing court proceedings.

Then there were more deaths at sea when another unseaworthy boat sank. The tragedy refuelled the debate about whether a Nauru or a Malaysia based 'solution' would more effectively 'stop the boats'.

The Government and Opposition will tighten the system when challenged, but refuse to accept that the flawed system of mandatory detention is in need of major reform.

The use of language in the debate is always striking. It has evolved and adapted over the years.

Previously, governments spoke of 'border protection' as a reason for mandatory detention and methods of deterring applicants who arrive by boat. Now the tactic is to speak about 'preventing deaths at sea'. However, the politics is still driven by a philosophy of border control. The human rights of asylum seekers and international obligations are secondary considerations.

In 2001 we had the 'Pacific Solution', which was a misnomer: it was not 'pacific', and warehoused refugees rather than providing a solution. We saw, too, the creation of 'excision', whereby islands formerly considered to be part of Australia were no longer so for the purposes of Migration Law.

The prize for legalese must go to 'offshore entry person', which is defined as a 'person who arrives at an excised place after the excision time and becomes an unlawful non-citizen'. Everyone who has arrived at Christmas Island since late September 2001 has been designated as such.
We now have 'offshore processing'. This, too, is a misnomer, when it is used for people held in Christmas Island or in detention in Australia itself — which is definitely 'onshore'.

The term 'offshore processing' was used in an attempt to pretend such cases were not subject to the same judicial scrutiny as 'onshore' cases. This fiction was destroyed in November 2010 when the High Court handed down its judgment in M61 & M69. All of the 'offshore processing' of 'offshore entry persons' was subject to judicial oversight, in a similar manner to onshore cases.

Then, in August 2011 the High Court scuttled the misnamed 'Malaysian solution'. Again, it was not a solution, but a system of refugee 'warehousing'. No 'processing' of cases by Australia is involved at all, so again it is wrong for this to be called 'offshore processing'.
Since this decision and the political impasse over Nauru or Malaysia, we now have the 'Australian solution' — the processing of applications in Australia.

Sometimes language is used to demonise refugees, such as the term 'queue jumper' which persists despite the fact there are no queues (acceptance into Australia's offshore system is more like a lucky dip). In other instances, the language has adapted to avoid pejorative or inaccurate terms; for example, the term 'illegals' is less common now (it is not an offence to arrive without a visa).

Whatever the language used, it does not change the fact that the arrival of small numbers of people claiming asylum from some of the most dangerous countries on the planet continues to prompt both major parties to turn community fear to political advantage, rather than acknowledge our duty as a global citizen to contribute to refugee resettlement without moving our responsibilities offshore.

Meanwhile, people will continue to be damaged by this flawed system.

Kerry Murphy is a partner with the specialist immigration law firm D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers. He is a student of Arabic, former Jesuit Refugee Service coordinator, teaches at ANU and was recognised by AFR best lawyers survey as one of Australia's top immigration lawyers.

MY PEOPLE SMUGGLER, MY HERO

2011-11-06T10:43:00.000+11:00

SMH, 6.11.11

David Sygall.

FOR Les Murray's parents, there was no queue to jump, immigration officer to plead with or process to follow. Nor was there a destination, other than to flee Hungary, where Soviet soldiers were crushing the 1956 uprising, in which his father had played a small but dangerous part.

Murray's parents, and the go-betweens who helped them cross the Austria-Hungary border one icy winter's night, risked everything to give their boys freedom. They succeeded.

It is why the demonisation of so-called people smugglers today prompts mixed feelings in the veteran broadcaster. He does not defend traders in misery. But he knows well that to escape persecution, smugglers are essential. Murray's smuggler, who he remembered only as Julius, remains his hero. In August, after 55 years, Murray sought to find him.

''When people discuss people smugglers, they often group together those who conduct the slave trade with those who legitimately help refugees,'' says Murray, born Laszlo Ü¨rge. ''One is despicable. The other has its dark side, too. But the point is, in order to successfully negotiate an escape through many dangers, you need help.''

About 200,000 people escaped Hungary in two months in 1956. Some smugglers expected payment. Others didn't. Murray's family was poor and perhaps offered some old jewellery. He remembers Julius as warm, caring and sympathetic. ''He held mine and my brother's hands across the border,'' he says. ''Then he kissed us all, turned around and disappeared. He told us which way to walk to an Austrian village and we were free. My people smuggler was always my hero.''

There was a haunting footnote. Another family, the Kereszteses, had conspired with the Murrays to escape, but their dash came unstuck. Imprinted on 11-year-old Murray's brain ever since is the image of two machinegun-carrying Soviet soldiers ushering them back. Until this year, Murray knew nothing of their fate. ''My parents had made inquiries but we got no information,'' he says.

When Murray went back to Hungary in August, he learnt that the parents of the Kereszteses had died. But, remarkably, he found Andor, the then four-year-old son. ''He told us the security police had interrogated his father, beat the crap out of him, then let him go,'' Murray says. ''That's what would have happened to my father if he'd been caught.''

Julius, Murray's smuggler hero, died in 2005. But he found his son, also Julius, and grandson, Balazs, who had known nothing of Julius's deeds. ''The reaction was immense pride and emotion. Finally I could thank Julius, thank him through his son and grandson,'' Murray says.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/my-people-smuggler-my-hero-les-murray-20111105-1n14g.html#ixzz1csSpo5wd

BOB FENWICK'S DEATH

2011-11-06T10:31:00.000+11:00

SMH, 6.11.11.

Paul Bibby Courts

A PSYCHIATRIC patient who believed chiropractors could bring dead people back to life was not properly diagnosed or treated in the months before he fatally stabbed a nurse manager at a country hospital, a court has heard.

Matthew Peter Loughrey was a voluntary patient suffering from acute schizophrenia at Bloomfield Hospital in January when he walked into a ward and attacked 20-year-old junior nurse Stephanie Pritchard with a knife.

When Ms Pritchard's manager, Bob Fenwick, 63, intervened, Loughrey stabbed him several times in the chest and the arm, causing fatal injuries.

Advertisement: Story continues below Mr Loughrey, 33, has pleaded not guilty to murder and attempted murder on the grounds of mental illness.

Yesterday, the NSW Supreme Court heard that Mr Loughrey had not been given a firm diagnosis while at Bloomfield, was placed on a low dose of anti-psychotic medication and placed in a low-supervision cottage.

''He was left to manage as best he could with the low level of supervision that this cottage provided,'' Justice Elizabeth Fullerton said.

''It does appear from the collective view of the psychiatrists [who assessed Mr Loughrey after the stabbing] that the accused wasn't properly or adequately diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia and his manifest behaviour on the day is explained by that confluence of factors.''

The trial, being heard by Justice Fullerton without a jury due to Mr Loughrey's mental state, heard that his behaviour had been increasingly disruptive before the attack.

He had attributed this to the reduced dose of medication he had been given. He was reportedly angry and unhappy at the level of treatment he was getting at Bloomfield.

Earlier, the court heard that he believed that his victim could be brought back to life by the local chiropractor, whom he thought was a witch doctor.

He was reported to have told police: ''I believe in chiropractors … I think they're witch doctors.''

''He believed people who he hurt wouldn't suffer, that they could be revived and not suffer any nasty injuries,'' Justice Fullerton said.

Ads by Google

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/angry-at-care-level-before-stabbing-20111104-1n00u.html#ixzz1csPrdWyz

RALLY AT ALP NATIONAL CONFERENCE

2011-11-05T10:04:00.000+11:00

** REFUGEE ACTION COALITION SYDNEY ANNOUNCEMENT**

Dear refugee supporter,

The government has been forced into a temporary suspension of offshore processing, but the situation of refugees in Australia is as desperate as ever. Last week's suicide of a Tamil asylum-seeker in Villawood – the sixth in detention since September 2010 – has highlighted the chilling human cost of the government's commitment to detention, a commitment that shows no signs of relenting. The harrowing recent 'Four Corners' expose of conditions in the detention network adds to the urgency with which we must demand change. In addition, this week's tragic drowning of eight asylum seekers off Indonesia has reignited calls from both sides of politics for offshore processing. The Malaysia option has been abandoned for now, but not forgotten. Both sides of politics have indicated that they will legislate to allow some form of offshore processing at the earliest political opportunity. (For more information on all these facts, see the press releases on the RAC website, refugeeaction.org.au.)

The ALP National Conference to be held at Darling Harbour in December provides an ideal opportunity to publicly call on the government to change its cruel and unnecessary policies. The Refugee Action Coalition is organizing a large demonstration outside the conference on December 4, already endorsed by ChilOut, Labor for Refugees, and several unions.

Please put this date in your diaries and join us to show the government and the ALP the support that exists for giving Australia the humane refugee policy that it, and refugees, have needed for so long.

Please circulate this message to friends and families, RSVP on Facebook, and download the rally poster and leaflet from the 'Resources' section of our website, www.refugeeaction.org.au.

Nick Riemer (for RAC)

RALLY AT ALP NATIONAL CONFERENCE
12pm Sunday December 4
Meet Sydney Town hall to march to the ALP conference at Darling harbour
End mandatory detention— Refugees are welcome
Not in Malaysia, not in Nauru— No offshore processing
Initial endorsements: Chilout, Refugee Action Coalition, Labor for Refugees (NSW), National Tertiary Education Union (NSW), Australian Services Union (NSW & ACT (Services))

www.refugeeaction.org.au
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=148598601884673

POLICE ASBESTOS SCANDAL

2011-10-30T11:14:00.001+11:00

The Editor,
SMH.

Whatever happened to the managers duty of care to their employees? The conscious decision to bury Property Reports because of the cost of repairing or replacing police accommodation can never be justified by the Nuremburg Defence, “I was only following orders.” This is the life , and health, and safety of police officers families at stake here!! If any member of these families is affected by asbestos, they could die agonising deaths. Apart from their duty of care, do these managers in the Police Service have no conscience?? Or do they reassure themselves that they will be long gone from their positions in 20 - 30 years time when members of the police officers’ families have developed asbestosis or mesothelioma? Thank heavens for the Police Association bringing all this to light. Who says unions are no longer relevant!

Jenny Haines

Trail of deceit as emails expose asbestos scandal

Eamonn Duff

October 30, 2011
.
AN INTERNAL email chain has exposed key police personnel who deliberately kept thousands of officers and their families in the dark about asbestos and other poisonous hazards in stations and houses across NSW.

Embarrassed by the biggest police scandal since the Wood royal commission in the 1990s, the force's chiefs instigated a witch-hunt, tracking all related emails, memos and hard-drive files.

The resulting report was never meant to be made public, but The Sun-Herald has obtained the document that identifies the former general manager of the Police Property Group, Emmanuel Varipatis, as the person ''largely responsible'' for the ''conscious decision'' to bury hundreds of safety audits that identified threats in police houses and stations.

But The Sun-Herald has already exposed an internal report that admitted the force had ''$0'' to fix more than 200 hazardous properties, work that would cost tens of millions of dollars.

Mr Varipatis said: ''I was just following orders.'' He said he withheld the safety audits because he was told to. ''I sought advice from our experts and I followed that advice. I couldn't open up the reports because there would have been an avalanche [of complaints].''

The Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, told a police budget estimates hearing in Parliament on Thursday he was unaware of the problem until he received a call while on annual leave in July.

''Can I say, in terms of my being advised, was I happy? No,'' Mr Scipione said. ''Have I indicated, if you like, that I am to the point where I actually apologised? Yes, I have. The requirements of legislation in NSW make it very clear. We should have been advising police officers … when it came to asbestos. We did not.''

Mr Varipatis has acknowledged a ''conscious decision'' was made to deliberately keep officers and their families in the dark about hundreds of stations and houses contaminated with lead and asbestos.

Mr Varipatis and other key figures were implicated in the cover-up after the Police Force conducted a covert internal investigation into the decision-making process.

The report uncovers a ''fundamental failure across all parties involved in the management of the Police Property Portfolio'' to ensure the workforce was briefed about the risks. It names Mr Varipatis as being ''largely responsible'' for withholding hundreds of risk assessments from concerned employees due to a concern they would be ''misinterpreted and misunderstood''.

IN ONE email exchange, the Police Safety Command director, Julie Wills, points to a legislative loophole which means the force is not technically required to disclose the full reports about hazardous police housing - because the homes were not regarded as workplace buildings.

Mr Varipatis replies: ''Many thanks Julie, you're a champion … I will stay firm on not releasing the reports. If down the track in 2012 the legislation makes the home the extended workplace, we will need to reassess.''

Both Mr Varipatis and Ms Wills have since left the police force.

Mr Varipatis, who holds a senior position at Fire and Rescue NSW, told The Sun-Herald on Friday: ''I was just following orders.

''There was a chain of command and the instructions I received from the NSW Police Safety Command was not to release the reports to the workforce because it would cause undue panic.

''I was told that in nearly every case, every report, there was no danger. You have to understand these reports are very technical and if you're not trained to know what they mean, it can cause undue stress. I sought advice from our experts and I followed that advice. I couldn't open up the reports because there would have been an avalanche.''

In 2008, the Police Force commissioned private consultants Coffey Environments to conduct a safety audit of almost 1300 properties across NSW. Nearly 48 per cent of houses and 52 per cent of stations are more than 40 years old.

That ageing portfolio is co-ordinated centrally through the NSW Police Property Group and, since 2006, it has been managed externally through a company called United Group Limited. When the Coffey inspection reports began to filter through in April 2008, the results were alarming. The Sydney Police Centre Firing Range received an A1 risk rating, as did the Firearms Registry at Murwillumbah.

Hundreds of police homes across the western region were also affected, but officers and their families were repeatedly denied access to the reports until their union uncovered them in August.

LAST week, The Sun-Herald received a copy of the internal investigation into the cover-up.

Commissioned by the Deputy Commissioner for Corporate Services, Catherine Burn, the document has yet to be seen by either the Police Minister, Michael Gallacher, or the NSW Police Association's executive committee. For the first time, a clear chronological picture has emerged of what went wrong.

On September 19, 2008, United Group's Patricia McCann emailed a colleague about the disturbing reports being received: ''I was asked by the Police Property Group to inform Coffey not to discuss the audit findings with any police personnel, as this could lead to IR issues.''

But by November of the same year, police officers were inundating the Police Property Group with formal written requests for the ''asbestos audit'' relating to their properties. Those requests were systematically declined and in a ''response report'' dated January 9, 2009, the Police Property Group's liaison officer, Alan Baines, stated: ''It is not policy or usual practice to provide a copy of this type of report to the workforce.''

On October 22, 2009, minutes from a meeting revealed 900 sites had by now been assessed with an estimated repair bill of $32 million.

Around the same time, Mr Varipatis exchanged several emails with senior police in Bathurst about a senior constable who had suddenly quit his job because of ''a chronic inability to provide safe housing conditions which has had direct health effects on my family, including drinking water, lead paint, heating and sewage''. In his resignation letter, the officer accused his employer of withholding ''numerous tests results'' despite his repeated requests for them.

By February 2010, the Coffey audits were complete. In all, 460 properties were found to contain asbestos, lead or both - and the repair bill had skyrocketed to $45 million.

Of those, 63 were deemed high risk and required up to $20 million to fix. When those findings were rolled into a NSW Property Portfolio Strategic Plan, a report that addresses funding options, it stated there was ''$0'' available to make 205 hazardous properties comply with safety standards.

On April 27, 2010, internal memos revealed that Portland policeman Scott Bolton had been waiting almost eight months to obtain the results from a site audit for potential lead paint hazards at his station. At one point, he was snubbed with the following line: ''PPG Policy is that all reports and results are to remain with UGL and the Property Group.''

Even after he threatened legal action, the Property Group still refused to forward him the full report, choosing instead to provide limited detail. He was told: ''no hazardous materials detected''. The claim, however, was wrong and contradicted United Group field manager Gary McDonald's email on March 15, 2010, which stated: ''5.2 per cent lead paint content'' identified.

BY MAY 3, 2010, Mr McDonald had handed all ''hazmat'' (hazardous materials) reports to the Property Group's Jared Watson and advised him, via email, that he would ''need to liaise with the general manager, Mr Varipatis, to find out if and how this info will be handled''.

In the same email chain, frustration had begun to show at United Group, where Patricia McCann vented her dismay to Mr McDonald about the police's ongoing stance to hide the crisis from its workforce. After having held several meetings with Police Property Group decision makers, Ms McCann: ''PPG have not got their heads around how they are going to deal with all the ignorant phone calls regarding asbestos and lead paint poisoning. Numerous meetings have been held … therefore the decision was made not to have them [the reports] on-site, until the NSWPF can properly educate their employees.''

With threats of legal action and dozens of complaints mounting, the Police Property Group faced a challenge. Would it reveal the truth? The answer was no. In a May 10 email exchange circulated among Police Property Group bosses, Julie Wills, director of Police Safety Command, told Mr Varipatis that, based on her interpretation of the Occupational Health & Safety regulations, he might not have to release the full ''hazmat'' reports to police employees, ''just all the information necessary''.

When Mr Varipatis was asked yesterday whether he wished he could have done things differently, he said: ''You've put me on the spot. The police minister has called for an Ombudsman's inquiry so I assume they are going to ring me eventually. I will tell my side of the story then.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/trail-of-deceit-as-emails-expose-asbestos-scandal-20111029-1mpez.html#ixzz1cDegHGhh

IT'S WAR ON THE SIDELINES

2011-10-29T11:11:00.001+11:00

The Editor,
SMH.

Industrial disputes are taking longer to resolve and involving many issues. There used to be a system of conciliation and arbitration until the Howard Government abolished it. Now, the same business and employer representatives who applauded the Howard Government, are whingeing they can’t get industrial disputes solved. Well suck on it I say! Be careful what you wish for!! Of course, the Howard Government plan for the abolition of centralised conciliation and arbitration was that it was supposed to take place in the context of disempowered unions, where workers and union members would do what they are told by their employers, and where the executives of companies could make decisions in their own interest with no questioning. Good on the unions for getting organised, and utilising the system to get the best outcome for their members.

Jenny Haines

Lenore Taylor, SMH.

29 October 2011

With unions, bosses and politicians in dispute, old laws and new agendas are being tested.

Air travel crippled by striking pilots, engineers and baggage handlers, angry scenes at the Qantas annual general meeting, rowdy protests by striking unionists on the ports, public servants and teachers downing pens - Australia's current industrial landscape looks like a montage of the most bitter workplace fights from decades past.

And, as always, the characters are anything but bland - the feisty Qantas chief executive, Alan Joyce, the outspoken Transport Workers Union national secretary, Tony Sheldon - who also happens to be a candidate for the federal presidency of the ALP - and even veterans of earlier battles, such as stevedoring executive Chris Corrigan.

The only thing that has been missing from the daily dose of union claim and employer counter-claim is the politicians; no latter-day Bob Hawke taking on the pilots, no John Howard and Peter Reith helping to break union power on the wharves.

The Gillard government and the unions insist the lack of political engagement is because there is no systemic industrial problem at all.

They say the noise is coming from a large number of three-year industrial agreements in key sectors that happen to have come up for renegotiation at the same time, among them the agreements at the centre of the particularly bitter Qantas dispute.

And they claim the shouting is obscuring the facts, with figures showing industrial disputation at all-time lows.

Still smarting from the rout of Work Choices in 2007 and focused entirely on regaining power, the federal Coalition is only just tip-toeing back into the industrial relations fray that has historically been one of its defining issues.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, yesterday backed two conservative state premiers in demanding that the federal government intervene in the Qantas dispute, a course of action the Coalition's former minister and industrial relations crusader Peter Reith deplored as ''old thinking''.

But the Coalition isn't prepared to say much at all about what it would do in government, just that Labor should be doing more.

Employers insist emboldened unions are pushing the limits of the two-year-old Fair Work Act, using its powers to bargain harder and on new issues that strip away powers that managers need to run competitive businesses in a global economy.

Over time, that could have serious consequences for the economy, they say. And tourism and retail businesses, in the almost-stalled lane of the Australian economy are desperately worried.

Some observers say the corporate complaints are in part aimed at encouraging Tony Abbott's Coalition back to the barricades on industrial relations reform. But increasingly the costs and inconvenience are real.

In this latest chapter in Australian workplace law it seems everything is being tested: the new laws, the reach of the unions, the resolve of the employers, the patience of the government and the courage of the Coalition's ideological conviction.

The government and the unions have statistics on their side.

In the two years since the Fair Work Act took effect, an average of 3.6 working days have been lost per 1000 employees per quarter, compared with an average of 13.5 days per quarter over the Howard decade. Even the rise in disputes in the June quarter is lower than the rise three years ago when these same agreements were last up for renegotiation. Wages growth is not high, and the Reserve Bank says ''upward pressure on wages is tending to ease''.

''There was a slight uptick in disputation in the last quarter and there probably will be this quarter as well but disputation is still at historical lows … and I think the downward trend will continue,'' the Workplace Relations Minister, Senator Chris Evans, says.

But the Qantas dispute is worrying him. He says ''economic damage has already occurred'', that he and the Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, have been meeting regularly until recent days with the company and the unions and ''we are making it very clear that patience is wearing thin''.

''We have made it clear … the time has come for this matter to be resolved and the government will consider using its [intervention] power [under the Fair Work Act] if we think that is necessary,'' he says.

But he dismisses calls by Liberal Premiers Barry O'Farrell and Ted Baillieu for the government to immediately step in as ''a stunt'' and points out that government intervention does not guarantee resolution and is a step the Howard Government had also been very careful about taking. Besides, he says, the only lasting resolution is one genuinely reached by the parties.

In any event, Evans says, while the dispute is about the ''clash'' of Qantas's business plan and the unions' concerns about job security, it has nothing to do with the Fair Work Act or any broader industrial crisis.

But his critics are not claiming a crisis, just that we could be heading for one on current trends. And they think the ''clash'' at Qantas has a lot to do with Labor's new laws.

''We are not saying the nation's economy is about to grind to a halt,'' the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Anderson, says.

''There is certainly a cyclical element to this … but we are also seeing unions testing the boundaries and using the new laws to start making demands about how businesses are structured, whether contractors should be used, and that is particularly worrying from an economic point of view.''

The Qantas disputes (which began after the company announced it would cut 1000 jobs and increase expansion into Asia) are ''a direct pushback against corporate restructuring'' and the disputes on the waterfront are ''all about a company's right to organise domestic and foreign labour''.

''It adds to a drag on our productivity, directly through the industrial action and, of even greater concern, it feeds into the low levels of business confidence and consumer sentiment caused by the problems in Europe and the political uncertainty at home,'' Anderson says.

The University of Melbourne economist Professor Judith Sloan agrees ''you can't tell yet whether this is cyclical or a new trend'' but adds ''it's looking pretty ugly''.

''This is very union-friendly legislation … [the unions] are trying to go beyond the normal wages and conditions issues and insert themselves into management decisions, they call them job security issues which is a joke … it is often about restricting the use of contractors and labour hire firms and the like, which have all been non-allowable matters for a long time.''

The result, Sloan says, will be to shrink employment. ''It is absolute madness,'' she says.

But Adelaide University's Professor Andrew Stewart says ''almost none of the disputes has anything to do with the Fair Work legislation … these disputes are like the ones we have seen before and will see again''.

The competing views about what is going on and whether any fault lies with the legislation will be aired at an independent review of its effectiveness starting in January. Evans says it will be practical, rather than a ''rehash of ideological positions''.

The Coalition, cautiously, says it will also be guided by what it finds.

Having begun the year insisting it would make no change to the new laws, it was pushed by business leaders and some pointed interventions by Reith and some Liberals on the current backbench to shift to a position contemplating unspecified change ''within the architecture of the Fair Work Act''.

Unlike the government, the opposition spokesman for workplace relations, Senator Eric Abetz, does see some real, systemic problems.

''It does look like we are slipping back to where we were before the waterfront reforms …,'' he says.

''I do have some difficulty with unions trying to act as de facto business managers, telling companies when they can or can't employ contractors …

''That does not allow for the degree of flexibility that you need as a workplace waxes and wanes.

''Many businesses are concerned about the rate of industrial action that we are seeing and the unwillingness of trade union negotiators to talk about productivity. That needs to be addressed because we cannot afford wage increases above [inflation] without productivity trade-offs.''

And he says the Coalition also thinks ''the government should be looking at why the individual flexibility agreements allowed for under the act are not being taken up''.

Evans says he suspects the ''Coalition has made a decision that rather than formally return to individual work contracts they will try to amend the existing laws to achieve the same thing by another name''.

If he's right the new Coalition policy would be welcomed by Peter Anderson who says business intends to ''carry the argument'' that over time the new laws will have to change to re-establish individual contracts.

And according to Andrew Stewart, the task of ''carrying'' that argument to the ears of the Coalition is amplifying business's current industrial relations complaints.

''You have to understand the real audience the employer groups are targeting. Publicly they direct their comments to the government, but they know this review will not re-examine the foundations of the Fair Work Act and that these current disputes would be pretty much the same under the old laws. The real object of their lobbying efforts right now is the internal debate in the Liberal Party,'' he says.

''They had thought they had lost the debate for the forseeable future, but now they see the prospect of a Liberal Government … and the opportunity to rekindle the torch of industrial relations reform … the pragmatists within the Liberal Party are still holding sway but business is pushing as hard as they can to get the Liberals to adopt a more radical policy.''

The ACTU president, Ged Kearney, agrees. ''The employers are leaping at anything to say the Fair Work Act is not working,'' she says. ''That is not the case, this is a normal bargaining process, it is just mischief making.''

However, Sloan believes ongoing industrial disputes will strengthen the case for change.

''I think the Coalition should wait until the pendulum has swung and people realise what is going on,'' she says. ''They have no incentive to flesh out their agenda until much closer to an election …''

With the Qantas dispute dominating the headlines, there are both immediate economic and broader policy reasons for the government to try to steer it towards resolution.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/its-war-on-the-sidelines-20111028-1mo9x.html#ixzz1c7nfmYrL

SA ALP CALLS FOR GILLARD TO ABANDON PEOPLE SWAP

2011-10-25T09:37:00.000+11:00

SA Labor convention calls on Gillard government to permanently abandon people-swap

• by: Michael Owen
• From: The Australian
• October 23, 2011 6:35PM

THE South Australian ALP convention has called on the Gillard government to return to Labor's national platform and permanently abandon its Malaysian people-swap deal.

A motion passed unamended at the convention this weekend at Adelaide's Festival Centre that "directs the federal government to realign its immigration policies, consistent with the ALP's National Platform".

The motion said federal Labor was obliged to "treat people seeking our protection with dignity and in accordance with the core Australian principles of fairness and humanity".

"Protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian territory. The assessment and review of protection claims must be independent and free from any political or diplomatic interference," the motion said.

"Labor recognises that people residing in the community should not be arbitrarily deprived of the right to work while their claim is being processed.

"Under Labor's policies, the presumption will be that persons will remain in the community while their immigration status is resolved: persons will be detained only if the need is established.

"Detention that is indefinite or otherwise arbitrary is not acceptable and the length and conditions of detention, including the appropriateness of both the accommodation and the services provided, would be subject to regular review.

"Detention in immigration detention centres is only to be used as a last resort and for the shortest practicable time."

Since the Malaysian deal fell over, the federal government has been forced to revert to onshore processing, a move immigration officials have warned could lead to as many as 600 people arriving by boat every month.

Two other motions related to immigration policy, slightly amended, were also passed by convention with little fuss.

A motion was amended to withdraw an expression of "disquiet with the failure of the federal Minister for Immigration to articulate a policy of compassion with regards to asylum-seekers who arrive in Australia by boat".

The amended motion passed with calls on Chris Bowen to set a mandatory detention limit of 30 days, after which asylum-seekers should be allowed to live and work in the community while their claims were processed.

The Adelaide Hills is home to the 400-bed low security Inverbrackie detention centre, used mainly for family groups seeking asylum.

ALP state president and federal MP Steve Georganas said in his opening address to the convention that a proper debate was required about immigration policy.

"Over the last decade it has been a difficult issue for the party to grapple with because of the varied and wide view both within the party and the community," Mr Georganas said.

"We need to have a full and frank discussion. Can I say, in the years that have gone by we have been successful in this area.

"Afterall, we successfully accepted over 100,000 Vietnamese refugees in the 70s and 80s, many of them landing on our shores as unauthorised boat arrivals seeking asylum. This is a discussion we must have."

New South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill said the matter was an "incredibly difficult public policy issue".

"I think we should behave humanely to people who come to this country, but there are other issues at stake," he said.

VIC ALP ON REFUGEES

2011-10-09T09:33:00.002+11:00

ASYLUM SEEKER RESOLUTION CARRIED OVERWHELMINGLY AT VICTORIAN
STATE CONFERENCE ON SATURDAY 8 OCTOBER 2011

State Conference calls on the Federal Labor Government to uphold our platform and values by abandoning the current fixation with offshore ‘solutions’ and establishing a just and humane approach for people seeking asylum. The High Court’s recent ruling on the Malaysia solution presented a definitive turning point in the way we treat people seeking asylum in Australia. Federal Labor must respect the decision of the High Court and act consistently with the principles established in that decision.

Conference believes that the only humane and effective deterrent to the secondary movement of people is to ensure individuals have access to protection in countries of first asylum and transit. This will require the establishment of a multi-lateral regional protection framework under which countries of first asylum and transit countries in our region provide protection, support and settlement to people fleeing from terror and persecution. Punitive measures, be they indefinite detention in Australia or removal of people to offshore processing are neither humane nor likely to act as an effective deterrent.

As a country, we must adopt just and humane policies on refugees and asylum seekers and in doing so raise the level of debate and treatment of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. Only then will Australia be able to hold its head high in the international community as a nation with a commitment to human rights and a deep appreciation of the plight of people seeking a safe haven from persecution and a better way of life.

Victorian Labor reaffirms its commitment to the National Platform which in particular;

• Commits that protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian territory, and;
• Recognises that Australia has obligations to also settle refugees and asylum seekers who cannot access Australian territory.

The Victorian State Conference calls on Federal Labor to:

• Adhere to the principles of the High Court ruling. Indefinite detention and sending asylum seekers to uncertainty in other countries is inconsistent with our international obligations and is an unjust response to people fleeing persecution and in need of our protection;

• Commit that protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian territory;

• Immediately rule out offshoring processing and only detain asylum seekers where there is a discernible health and security risk to the community, while ensuring the prompt processing of protection applications and that children are not detained in Immigration Detenion Centres;

• Increase our refugee and humanitarian intake in the region and honour the commitment to resettle the 4000 refugees from Malaysia;

• Pursue a regional protection framework as a matter of urgency. Conference notes the positive progress achieved through the Bali process this year towards this goal;

• Assist our regional neighbours develop their capacity to assist displaced people, including by –
a) increasing Australia's support for the UNHCR,
b) increasing our humanitarian intake, and
c) developing alternative immigration pathways to Australia for individuals seeking protection including skilled migration

Victorian Labor calls on all parliamentarians and party members to promote informed and genuine discourse on our responsibilities to people fleeing war and terror. By counteracting misinformation and spin from the Coalition we can move towards a political climate where racist fear campaigns like those driven by Tony Abbott are unable to gain traction in the community.

Conference rejects all politically motivated attempts to simplify Australia’s obligations to displaced people by unduly focusing on maritime arrivals.

Finally, Conference notes the importance of the candidates pledge and adherence to the Platform to the integrity of the democratic structures of our party. Labor Parliamentarians must adhere to the party platform. Victorian Labor looks forward to engaging in a genuine debate on Labor’s platform and policies at December's National ALP Conference.

M: Michele O'Neill
S: Zoe Edwards

LIBERALS FACE OFF OVER CONTRACTS

2011-09-26T09:47:00.002+10:00

Source: The Daily Telegraph, 26.9.11

A FIERY showdown is believed to have erupted in Tony Abbott's office as senior frontbenchers demanded an explanation for his promise not to re-introduce individual workplace contracts.

It is believed Julie Bishop and Joe Hockey ordered Mr Abbott's staff to leave before confronting him over the confused industrial relations policy last Wednesday.

It came after Mr Abbott ruled out the return of individual workplace contracts as part of any IR law reform in an interview the previous night.

"They both got stuck right into him," a senior Liberal source said.

"Only Barnaby (Joyce) was in there to defend him."

Mr Abbott - already facing pressure within the party room to commit to changes to the Fair Work Act which would provide more workplace flexibility - had failed to inform several members of his leadership group about the sudden change in policy.

Another Coalition source confirmed the confrontation and said Ms Bishop and Mr Hockey were furious.

"They all went to the trouble of getting their lines right on the issue, saying we would announce policy before the election and it would be based on pragmatism, then the leader walks out and just announces there will be no individual contracts," they said. "It was the first we heard of it."

Liberal backbenchers Kelly O'Dwyer and Jamie Briggs have both clashed with Mr Abbott over the refusal to engage on IR policy, calling for the debate to be had in the party room.

ALP OVERHAUL

2011-09-26T09:25:00.001+10:00

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, SMH, UNPUBLISHED.

While there are several people in the Left of the ALP who deserve commendation for their principled stance in support of party values over the asylum seeker issue, it is not fair of the SMH to purely characterise moves within the party for greater democracy as only coming from the Left. There are many, many people in all factions of the party very disturbed about the direction of the party on refugees, asylum seekers, and human rights. Calls for greater democracy and action to open up democratic channels inside the party are being instigated by those who would be traditionally associated with the Right, as much as the Left . The ALP needs renewal and one thing that needs to be done is to stop the easy labelling of people and events as being of the Right or the Left.

Jenny Haines

SMH, 26.9.11

THE left wing of the ALP will launch a nationwide campaign today aimed at mobilising the grassroots to push for greater democracy and policy reform in the party.

Emboldened by the Left faction finding its voice over asylum seekers and other issues, the Labor renewal campaign will have at its core the reforms to the party's rules and structures recommended in the election review by party elders John Faulkner, Steve Bracks and Bob Carr.

Ten days ago, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, sanctioned a full-blown debate at the December national conference over the proposed reforms.

Advertisement: Story continues below She proposed a handful of measures she would like to see. She left open to wider changes by calling for the party to embrace ''the party members' empowerment reforms proposed in the Faulkner-Bracks-Carr review''.

The Left took this as a sign to push for the direct election of a greater proportion of delegates to the national conference, which is the ALP's premier policy deciding forum. The renewal push, to be launched today, will include the direct election of national conference delegates and changes to the way candidates for elections are selected.

A petition to be circulated among the rank-and-file nationwide calls for the driving of new policy agendas ''by embracing new policies and ideas grounded in solid Labor values''. It demands the party always puts Labor's values first.

''By making sure that whether we are elected members of parliament, trade unionists, policy committee activists or branch members, we always keep our unique Labor values at the core of our work and put the party's interests as a whole first,'' it says.

The ALP has been wrestling with its conscience in recent weeks as it grapples with direction over asylum seekers.

The Left has begun to speak out openly, both in and out of caucus.

RED DOG - A REVIEW

2011-09-23T11:35:00.001+10:00

A Film Review of Red Dog

by Jenny Haines, 23.9.11

The success of Kriv Stenders film "Red Dog" demonstrates that when filmakers and investors in Australia are prepared to put their money behind a good story, and a great rollicking rock music score, a film can be a success with the public. Apparently Red Dog is this seasons "Kenny" in terms of box office returns. And no wonder! It is a wonderful heartwarming and heartbreaking story of Red Dog, a dog well known to the northwest of western Australia in the 1970s.

Red Dog was a stray picked up by the local publicans on the way into Dampier to take over the local pub, but Red Dog, a very intelligent, loving and playful dog was everyone's dog until he met his chosen master, John, a drifter who rode into town one day to become the local bus driver. John meets Nancy, and love and jealousy thrive in the relationship between the couple and the dog. But tragedy strikes and Red Dog goes on a hitch hiking trail that takes him all around the north west, up to Darwin and down to Perth, and finally back to Dampier. His travels become the stuff of pub legends which are told throughout the movie. We meet the human characters of the north west in the 1970s too, people running from other lives, making huge amounts of money mining iron ore, "drinking and whoring" (as described by the near caravan park owner) but living their lives through the fun and enjoyment of their community, and their union. Red Dog is awarded the title of mascot of the local branch of the TWU.

There are some interesting sub texts in this movie - it would appeal to the nationalism that is sweeping Australia at present and nostalgia about the past, but care needs to be taken by those who assert that this was all Anglo Saxon White. The town of Dampier in the 1970s was a multi cultural as they come, men, mainly from all over the world who had come to make money out of mining iron ore. Missing in the movie was much of a reference to the local aboriginal tribes, long since pushed out of the mining areas, but there was a recognition in the titles at the end that the movie was made on the ground, and with the permission of local tribes.

A wonderful movie. If you get chance, go see it. For a trailer http://www.reddogmovie.com/.

Note the Screen Test of Koko at the bottom of the page - beautiful!!

WILL ANYONE CROSS THE FLOOR ON REFUGEES

2011-09-23T11:09:00.000+10:00

BY JENNY HAINES

AS PUBLISHED IN NEW MATILDA, 21.9.11

Julia Gillard is pushing a policy that contravenes the party platform and Labor MPs are beginning to speak out. Party members like Jenny Haines will back any politician who takes a principled stance.

Is there another way for ALP on refugees? There’s an easy answer to this question. Yes, there is another way. But it requires political courage, something which sadly seems to be lacking in the current federal government. And it requires an understanding of the ALP’s National Policy and Platform. And for those in factions who voted for party policy at the last National Conference to argue for that policy in Caucus, and to vote for that policy on the floor of the House.

Does this all this in turn require Labor politicians to cross the floor? If they do, and the Coalition refuses to support Gillard’s Malaysia Solution Mark 2 legislation, the amendments are dead in the water. Gillard and her Cabinet will have egg all over their faces, but no refugees will be damaged further by being sent to Malaysia.

Any Labor politician considering crossing the floor of the House has to take many factors into account, including whether they are taking such action is against the decision of Caucus. To cross the floor in those circumstances is an expellable offence.

In a research note issued by the Parliamentary Library, ‘Crossing the Floor in Federal Parliament 1950 to 2004’, the researchers noted that crossing the floor is a gesture unique to Westminster style parliaments. A government or opposition member of parliament refuses to vote with his or her own party in a particular division and crosses the floor of the parliamentary chamber.

In the period that these researchers studied, 1950 to 2004, there were 14,243 divisions in Australia’s federal parliament. Of these 439 (3 per cent) were identified as divisions in which members of parliament (MPs) crossed the floor. The floor crossing divisions in each chamber were:

• Senate: 297 (67.7 per cent)
• House of Representatives: 141 (32.1 per cent)
• Joint Sitting: 1 (0.2 per cent)

The MPs crossed the floor over a range of subjects. Taxation was the major issue being the subject of 43 floor crossing divisions. This was followed by legislation on referendums (26), the environment (23), issues relating to the parliament (21), parliamentary entitlements (21), primary industry (19), committee establishment and referral (17), civil aviation (14), electoral law (13) and human rights (12).

The act of crossing the floor does not appear to have adversely affected all floor crossers’ careers. The number of floor crossers who went on to become ministers, parliamentary secretaries or presiding officers is substantial (43 per cent) and compares favourably to the number of all MPs who attained such office (30 per cent). The study also notes, "The last two Labor MPs to cross the floor — Senator George Georges in 1986 and Graeme Campbell MP in 1988 — were both suspended from the party for their actions".

Doug Cameron, representing the Parliamentary Left Convenors, has so far said that he will vote against the proposed amendments to legitimise the Malaysia Solution in Caucus, but will be bound once Caucus has made a decision.

However there is a complication here. Where Caucus has made a decision that is contrary to National Conference Policy and Platform, Caucus members are not bound by that decision. Following this logic, Caucus has no authority to make the decision to endorse the Malaysia Solution Mark 2 because to adopt a position that directly conflicts with the party’s platform is in violation of Paragraph 5 (d) (ii) of Part B (Rules) of the ALP’s constitution which reads:

"The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party shall have authority in properly constituted Caucus meetings to make decisions directed towards establishing the collective attitude of the Parliamentary Party to any question or matter in the Federal Parliament, subject to:
"(iii) no attitude being expressed which is contrary to the provisions of the Party Platform or any other decision of National Conference or National Executive."

Paragraph 5 (b) of Part B (Rules) of the Constitution of the Australian Labor Party reads:

"(b) The National Conference shall be the supreme governing authority of the Party and its decisions shall be binding upon every member and every section of the Party."

Several Labor politicians have publicly expressed their disquiet with the government’s direction over asylum seekers — such as Melissa Parke, Anna Burke, Janelle Saffin and John Faulkner — but whether they are prepared to cross the floor to vote against the Gillard/Bowen legislation is yet to be seen. Certainly there are plenty of party members urging Labor politicians to do all they can to stop the government going ahead with the Malaysia Solution Mark 2. The Refugee Action Coalition is actively debating, lobbying and rallying to all they can to stop Malaysia Mark 2 — including encouraging Labor politicians to cross the floor if that is what is necessary.

But apart from the rules and legal issues, the moral question here is this: if a politician crosses the floor to defend party policy and platform, are they justified? And should not party members actively defend any politician who takes a principled stance in support of party policy and platform?

It is becoming very clear that the Gillard Government, desperate to pacify voters in marginal seats and focus group members, has boxed itself in to a corner on refugee policy. As Gillard and her ministers abandon this country’s commitment to the Refugee Convention, Doc Evatt, who worked so hard to help establish the United Nations, and to write the Refugee Convention, must be rolling in his grave!

It is still not too late for the Gillard Government to turn back to Labor Party Policy and Platform. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Immigration and all Labor MPs have signed a pledge as parliamentary candidates: "To do my utmost to carry out the principles embodied in the platform".

The ALP National Platform states, Chapter 7, Paragraph 157: "Protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian territory", which is a clear endorsement of onshore processing.

Julia Gillard, there is a way out of the box!

Go back to the party policy and platform. Abandon the proposed legislation, re-read the High Court Decision, listen to your Party, and process refugees fairly onshore giving effect to Australia’s human rights obligations.

GILLARD IN A CORNER

2011-09-19T09:14:00.000+10:00

My letter as published in the SMH Monday 19.9.11 -

The Editor,
SMH.

It is becoming clear that the Gillard government has boxed itself into a corner on refugee policy. We now see the opportunist Tony Abbott as the advocate of human rights, with Gillard and her ministers abandoning this country's commitment to the refugee convention.

It is still not too late for the government to make a turn towards Labor Party policy and platform.

The ALP national platform states, chapter 7, paragraph 157, ''Protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian territory,'' which is a clear endorsement of onshore processing.

Julia Gillard, abandon the proposed legislation, reread the High Court decision, listen to your party, and process refugees onshore, giving effect to Australia's human rights obligations.

Jenny Haines Newtown

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/bowen-and-abbott-both-out-of-touch-with-reality-20110918-1kg8k.html#ixzz1YLcnFnUP

MALAYSIA SOLUTION - NOT IN OUR NAME

2011-07-27T17:58:00.000+10:00

Malaysia Solution 'Not In Our Name'

New Matilda, 26.7.11

By Jenny Haines

The Gillard Government has this week undermined the Labor Party's long tradition of fairness and social justice. Enough's enough, says party member Jenny Haines - and she's not the only one

Labor Party members are fed up. They are sick of being ignored, especially over refugee and asylum seeker issues. The divide between the politicians in government in Canberra and the party rank-and-file is growing.

At the last National Conference of the ALP in 2009 the conference adopted a policy that amended Section 157 of the National Platform to say that claims for asylum made in Australia would be assessed here. It reads:

"Protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian Territory. Those found to be owed Australia’s protection under the Refugee Convention and other international instruments will be given permanent protection under the Migration Act 1958 and will be provided with appropriate settlement and support services."

Section 158 of the National Platform adopted by the 2009 National Conference goes on to say:

"For the Australian people to have confidence and trust in the integrity of our migration system, protection claims made in Australia should be assessed and reviewed in a manner which balances efficient decision making with procedural fairness and ensures that our international human rights obligations are met."

This policy was supported at the time by the National Secretary of the AWU, Paul Howes, a participant in the coup that installed Julia Gillard not long after this conference. Even Bob Hawke was quoted in the context of the 2010 federal election as saying "We are all bloody boat people".

So where did the decision to send 800 refugees to Malaysia for processing come from? If the ALP is a political party, and National Conference is any sort of decision-making body about policy, then the decision of the conference should be respected and implemented by those in power in government.

As Robin Rothfield from Labor for Refugees Victoria wrote in a press statement issued on the weekend: "How can party members have any interest in participating in the forthcoming National Conference in December 2011 when a key policy decision made at the National Conference 2009 can be so blatantly ignored?"

This does not mean that refugee advocates inside the party will not be at the next National Conference, but it is a valid question about how the party now functions. No other decision of the National Conference in 2009 seems to have been so blatantly ignored, so what is it about the refugee and asylum seeker issue that causes political blindness?

ALP members joined the party because they wanted Labor to make a difference in government — to bring about a fairer, more just and equitable society. Much is being done by the Labor government in Canberra to achieve those ends, a lot of it under-reported by the media, but when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, all of the party’s traditions of fairness and social justice fall away in the face of public hysteria about "boat people". Where there is such hysteria, party members expect their government to lead by example and to educate the public, not be influenced by uninformed voters in marginal seats and focus groups.

Labor Party members are not fools, and throw up their hands in despair at government announcements with no initial substance, which lead to the appalling polls that Julia Gillard and her team now face.

As Shane Prince, the Right faction convener of Labor for Refugees in NSW, has said:

"The NSW disease is rampant in this Federal Government and it will have the same effect on Federal Labor as it had on NSW Labor. There is absolutely no difference between the breach of the Platform by the Gillard Government on refugees and the attempted breach of the Platform on the privatisation of electricity in NSW. These people seem intent on tearing the party apart by tearing up its rules."

Of course, one of the proposals being discussed by those pushing for reform within the party is that federal Labor politicians no longer be required to be bound by party policy as decided by National Conference. It seems pointless having a party if that becomes part of the rules!

Labor Party members want their party back, a party that is committed to fairness and social justice for all — including refugees and asylum seekers. Clause One of Chapter 7 of the Party’s Platform says: "Labor believes that every Australian should have the opportunity to reach their potential and to participate fully in the economic and social life of the nation … We have always stood for equality."

Why shouldn’t this apply to refugees and asylum seekers?

Enter your comments here

David Grayling 26/07/11 5:46PM
We live in a world where the right-wing of politics is always ready to pick up support where they can and enlarge their odious ranks.

Why is the left-wing of politics in Australia trying to emulate the right-wing, trying to outdo them in brutality and cruelty towards refugees?

This Malaysian solution is bizarre and does great discredit to the Labor Party and what it is supposed to stand for AND to our country.

Perhaps you could send the refugees to one of Australia’s many uninhabited islands, Julia, let them fend for themselves?

That’d learn them, eh!

www.dangerouscreation.com

jackal01 26/07/11 10:36PM
I don’t think the left is so much trying to follow the right. The problem is that no one realy understands the Australian working and middle classes anymore.
I heard a discussion on Radio and there was talk on how we helped the Vietnamies etc..way back then and how did Australians become so cruel now, so anti Refugees. Its not the people that have changed, its the circumstances. You see, way back then we still had Government departments that labour or the Liberals, but mostly Labour could stack full of Unemployed people. It is Privatisation, Rationalisation or what ever they called it and Casualisation of the working classes coupled with a shortage of and high housing costs that has changed the future of peoples hopes.
GIO gone, CBA gone, Gov. Printers gone, Railways partly Privatised, Telstra gone, Public works Dept gone, RTA torn apart etc. etc.

Their is no where left to hide a few thousand unemployed. In the old days working for a Government Dept. used to be known as working for the Dole, now you have to walk along the road and pick up pieces of paper, you don’t learn anything anymore, there is no more Training. Prisoners don’t even make number plates anymore. All we have left is, move the Deck chairs about on the Titanic so that they look as if their Employed even if it is for just 2 days. Junee used to be a thriving Railway Town then Governments killed the Railways and that killed the town and they did all that bull so that they could destroy Unions, Union Influance, so that the rich and famous could get back what they had before the 1930 Depression and actually caused it.

The GFC came about because Clinton removed the GLASS, SEGALL ACTS in 1998??? they were put in place to stop the 1930 Depression coming back.
Greed is back and so is the Jack Boot of our masters and when your down trodden the last thing you need is even more, down trodden. So think on this, Politicans caused this mess, will the old Australia ever come back, no, we are now a dog eat dog world, where people struggle and get angry and direct that anger at Refugees. I Pox on both their houses, bring in the Greens, these idiots have been around for far too long, their like stale bread.

GocomSys 27/07/11 7:15AM
Thinking outside the box!

Let’s say we have a current government that tries, often in a very clumsy way mind you, to make a difference. On the other side we have the others who for their own devious reasons are continuously undermining it.

The current OZ government avoided the GFC. We know what and why they did it. We know it worked.
The current OZ government is putting a price on pollution. Is it a perfect scheme? Of course not but it is a start!
The current OZ government is attempting to stop the people smuggler trade. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not! Is it a sincere attempt in a very small way to improve the seemingly intractable worldwide refugee crisis situation? Yes it is!

I urge everyone to stop knocking, to look at the broader picture and become positive and pro-active.

We can do without armchair critics.

jennyhaines 27/07/11 9:28AM
GoComSys - you will note that I gave the Gillard Government credit for implementing a lot of underreported initiatives in the article. I am an active member of the Labor Party and take great interest in the political life and achievements of government. I hate to think what an Abbott led government would have done to this country when the GFC hit. And Abbott is nuts on carbon pricing - doesn’t know what he thinks!
But politics is not just about the doing, it is also about the ideas that underpin what is done, and the morality and ethics of what is done, and when the Labor Party comes together and debates and updates progressive policy in party forums and conferences that is as important in political life as the putting in place of strategies to address issues. If we become a valueless party, we are nothing. I hardly think that the National Conference of the party in 2009 counts as armchair critics. Nor do the concerned members of the party who have joined Labor for Refugees.

Mairi 27/07/11 2:17PM
Here for what it’s worth is one ALP grassroots member who supports the policy, on the grounds that its primary objective is deterrence, therefore it’s likely that nobody will suffer negative effects.
In the event that some do, then I take a utilitarian viewpoint that it will benefit more people than it disadvantages.

FIRST TEST LOOMS FOR MALAYSIA SOLUTION

2011-07-27T17:53:00.001+10:00

First test looms for Malaysia asylum solution

Mark Dodd and Paul Maley

From: The Australian July 27, 2011

THE first asylum-seekers who will be sent to Malaysia under the refugee swap deal were last night thought to be already on their way to the Australian territory of Christmas Island.
The Australian has been told Border Protection Command had information on Monday that at least one boat could have left Indonesia for Christmas Island.

The 380km journey from Java to Christmas Island has been known to take as little as 30 hours in a fast boat with GPS. But some asylum-seekers have told The Australian they were at sea for as many as 11 days from Indonesia trying to reach the Australian territory. News of the first boatload of asylum-seekers to be subjected to the terms of the Gillard government's deal with Malaysia came as Labor supporters angered by the deal vowed to take a policy to the ALP's national conference in December that would ensure asylum-seekers were processed in Australia.

Labor for Refugees (Victoria) is a rank-and-file party group with more than 180 members supported by several federal MPs. About 75 state branches are affiliated with the group and former ALP national president Barry Jones is a member.

Secretary Robin Rothfield, a member of the party's socialist Left faction, said yesterday the refugee deal was a repudiation of traditional Labor values and needed to be changed.

"If ministers can so blatantly ignore the party platform, what is the point of having a national conference -- writing up a platform -- when they're just going to ignore it?" Mr Rothfield said.

Under the Malaysia deal, Australia will be able to send 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia in return for 4000 UN-assessed refugees over the next four years.

Malaysian government sources yesterday told The Australian responsibility for organising the transit accommodation to be used to house transferred asylum-seekers for the first 45 days of their stay rested with the Australian government.

The Australian has been told three sites are under consideration. One is a former hotel, described by one official as "run down". All three sites are in the vicinity of Kuala Lumpur and its airport. But as The Australian reported on Monday, the government has yet to sign a single lease for any of the transit facilities.

International human rights watchdog Amnesty International yesterday slammed the deal, warning that refugees in Malaysia are "frequently caged in appalling conditions, exploited and caned".

In Malaysia, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen played down safety concerns saying Malaysian authorities would uphold protection guarantees for asylum-seekers sent by Australia.

"With the assistance of the International Organisation for Migration, they'll move into the community," Mr Bowen said. "They will have the right to self-reliance, including work rights, they'll have the right for children to attend schools and they'll have the right to basic healthcare. And they'll receive Australia and Malaysia identification to establish their legal right to be in Malaysia, as is very clear in the arrangement."

The Law Council of Australia remained unconvinced. "There are significant shortcomings . . . in particular a lack of detail about unaccompanied minors and legal assistance for transferees," it said.

LABOR MPs MAY REVOLT

2011-07-05T10:41:00.000+10:00

Anna Patty, SMH.

5 July 2011.

LABOR'S rank and file vow an open revolt against Sussex Street powerbrokers if their calls for reform are rejected at the party's annual state conference in Sydney this weekend.

More than 100 members, including ALP branch secretaries and presidents, have signed a strongly worded letter threatening an ongoing war against party bosses if they reject genuine reform and fail to give members a greater say in how the party is run.

''If conference chooses not to endorse any increased powers for members, it will be an unmistakeable repudiation of the will of our party's rank and file,'' the letter says.

Advertisement: Story continues below ''Such a snub has the potential to provoke rank and file members across the state into a campaign of open revolt against the party's current hierarchy.''

The letter says the executive's proposals ''provide no road map at all for how to halt and reverse the devastating shrinking and ageing of our membership base over the next three years''.

Among the letter's signatories is Paul Pearce, president of Labor's Bronte branch and former MP for Coogee.

In a scathing account of the party's massive failure at the state polls in March, he criticised the ''ideological straitjacket of public-private options, or outright privatisation'' of services.

He said "ideologues in the cabinet and Caucus" - including former Treasurer Michael Costa and numbers man Joe Tripodi - pushed power privatisation in a "brutal and uncompromising manner.''

In his confidential submission to a review of the ALP defeat by former minister John Watkins, Mr Pearce, of the party left, said the power privatisation "was a step too far for even those members who were generally open to private sector involvement, yet numbers were brutally crunched, personal abuse became a tool of trade, and coherent argument ceased". Mr Pearce said Mr Costa had undermined the authority of the former premier, Morris Iemma, who was later forced to ''fall on his sword''.

''The final nails in the coffin came with the ill-advised and, to the public perception at least, arguably incompetent exercise by the former Treasurer to proceed with the partial privatisation of the electricity assets,'' Mr Pearce said in his submission

LIBERALS ON WORKPLACE REFORM

2011-06-28T08:50:00.000+10:00

Reith blasts Abbott on IR reform

Michelle Grattan, The Age

June 28, 2011

FORMER Howard government workplace relations minister Peter Reith has accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of dragging his feet on industrial relations reform.

In a stinging criticism of the man whose vote cost him the Liberal Party federal presidency, Mr Reith has compared Mr Abbott's conservative position unfavorably with the bolder approaches on workplace issues taken by Ted Baillieu in Victoria and Barry O'Farrell in NSW.

Writing in The Age, Mr Reith points out that Mr Baillieu and Mr O'Farrell both backed him in the Liberal presidency ballot, while Mr Abbott and Western Australia's Colin Barnett - both workplace relations conservatives - voted for incumbent Alan Stockdale, who won 57-56.

Advertisement: Story continues below ''It seems that the reformers on workplace relations were also supporters for party reform; once a reformer, always a reformer,'' Mr Reith writes.

A Reith campaign for the Coalition to take a robust industrial relations reform program to the next federal election will irk Mr Abbott because it will encourage those within the party who believe the opposition must advocate change. They include senior frontbenchers Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb and a ginger group of younger backbenchers.

Mr Abbott wants to play down industrial relations as much as possible, fearing Labor's ability to frighten voters about a possible return to WorkChoices.

Reverberations from the bitter Liberal presidency contest continued yesterday, with Reith supporters insisting Mr Abbott had encouraged Mr Reith to run. A senior source in the Stockdale camp, meanwhile, said Mr Abbott had indicated several times that he would vote for Mr Stockdale, to whom he showed his ballot paper.

The Liberals are gearing up for a battle over how much to implement of Mr Reith's blueprint to bring more democracy into the party. The blueprint criticises the ''fiefdom'' at the top, with a tight exclusive relationship between the leader, president and party director, Brian Loughnane.

In his article in The Age today, Mr Reith writes that he promised Mr Abbott that, as party president, he would suspend public advocacy of workplace reform, thinking this was the best way he could support Mr Abbott and ''quietly encourage good policy''.

He had been more than surprised to find after the ballot that Mr Abbott had thrown his support behind Mr Stockdale. ''I have no idea why,'' he writes.

The Liberal Party has to take responsibility for labour market reform, Mr Reith writes.

These issues ''are at the heart of productivity and, in the end, about living standards. Australia's productivity performance has been poor in recent years. We cannot pretend that this problem does not exist''.

In a line going to the heart of Mr Abbott's fears, he says: ''Too many people are too worried about WorkChoices.

''If we jump in fright every time Nick Minchin says the ALP is salivating at the thought of the Liberals doing something necessary, then Australia's prospects are not looking good.''

Senator Minchin, backing Mr Stockdale, warned Labor would be able to rev up a damaging campaign on IR if Mr Reith became president.

Mr Reith points out that Mr O'Farrell and Mr Baillieu have not been deterred from industrial relations initiatives by Labor reprises of the WorkChoices bogyman. ''Luckily these two premiers will not be deterred by a scare campaign and they will act in the public

interest. By addressing practical problems with specific reforms, these premiers are demonstrating an approach that Tony could emulate,'' Mr Reith writes. He says Mr Abbott's current policy is that the workplace issue ''is dead, buried and cremated''.

''The ambivalence about workplace relations reform on show at the Liberal meeting is a continuing concern not just for me but for a growing number of Australians running businesses large and small. The Liberals must win at the next election but winning is not enough.

''Let's aim higher than a rerun of the Fraser years. In the same way that Baillieu and O'Farrell have put aside fears about the bogyman the next federal government also needs to be pro-reform''.

He welcomes Mr Abbott's call for the business community to make the case for reform but adds pointedly: ''I hope he means it''.

SHOULD PUBLIC SERVICE PAY BE CAPPED?

2011-06-26T09:55:00.000+10:00

SMH, 25.6.11.

Four experts debate the merits of curbing the pay for the state’s nurses, teachers, fire fighters and bus drivers.

THE ECONOMIST: JEFF BORLAND

One of the big changes in the Australian labour market in the past 20 years has been the shift towards decentralised wage-setting, tailored to individual workplaces and industries increasingly exposed to international trade, new technology and changing patterns of employment.

Against that background the new public sector pay policy in NSW is a step back to the past. Of course, that does not necessarily make it a bad step. Having a centralised wage-setting system was for many years a good policy. It allowed wage increases during inflationary periods to be managed on an economy-wide basis, while providing equity in wage outcomes.

Advertisement: Story continues below So perhaps the NSW pay policy can be justified on these terms – as a way of seeking to control a wage break-out. The data suggests not.

First, there is no indication of rapid growth in public sector wages in NSW. Over the past 15 years, wages of public sector and private sector workers in NSW have moved closely together. Australian Bureau of Statistics data on the average weekly earnings of adult workers in NSW (working full-time ordinary hours) show that in the first time period for which data is available – August 1994 – the ratio of earnings of public sector to private sector workers was 107 per cent; in the last time period available – February 2011 – the ratio was also 107 per cent. In the past two years average earnings of public sector workers have increased at a slightly higher rate than private sector workers, but most of this relative growth occurred a year ago. In the past six months the ratio of public sector to private sector earnings in NSW has decreased.

Secondly, it doesn’t seem that wage increases in NSW overall have been excessive compared with the rest of Australia. For example, in the two years to February 2011, average weekly earnings of adults in NSW (working full-time ordinary hours) increased by 5.1 per cent a year, compared to 4.8 per cent in all Australia.

If there is little benefit to centralised wage-setting for public sector workers in NSW, what are likely to be the costs? There may be several. If you try to hold wage increases of public sector workers below the size of increases obtained in the private sector, you will lose talented workers to the private sector.

Also, a uniform wage increase for all public sector workers reduces the scope for responding to particular circumstances in specific public sector labour markets, thereby reducing efficiency. Where workers respond by adjusting their effort and working hours to what they think is fair based on their wages, you also get a lower quality of public services.

Jeff Borland is professor of economics at the University of Melbourne.

THE ACADEMIC: JOHN BUCHANAN

When setting pay for public sector workers the NSW Industrial Relations Commission has performed its function professionally and effectively.

Contrary to assertions from NSW Treasury, there has been no public sector wages ‘‘blowout’’. Research by Yury Andrienko and Serena Yu at Sydney University’s Workplace Research Centre confirms that when factors like education levels and time in the job are considered for NSW public sector workers, they are paid almost identical wages as their private sector counterparts.

Research I have undertaken shows that senior teachers, police officers and nurses are paid roughly the same as their interstate colleagues. If this policy had been in place since 2000, people in these positions would be between $9000 and $17,000 a year worse off. And this in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the country.

The courts give great weight to treating like cases alike when settling disputes. Consistency in the treatment of people in similar circumstances is widely recognised as the key feature of a civilised society that values fairness.

Allowing Treasury and not the independent umpire to set wages is unfair. More importantly, it is inefficient. Fair wages are crucial for maintaining motivation and underpinning a sustainable approach to recruitment and retention.

People with good teaching, nursing and policing skills are in high demand. If the NSW government does not reward them competitively, we will have big trouble staffing schools, hospitals, police stations and a host of other services with the personnel needed to provide quality public services.

The global financial crisis proved treasuries around the world are incapable of delivering policies that achieve sustainable, stable economic development. Why should we believe they have the answer on public sector pay?

There are problems in our economy today. It’s time to get serious about ending systemic tax avoidance. The tax support provided to high income earnings with private superannuation now costs more than all government expenditure on the public pension. Fiscal problems arise from problems in taxation as much as from public expenditure.

Arbitrarily capping wages is an easy way of saving public money in the short term. But at what long-term cost? Let’s have an informed, widespread debate on how to meet budget challenges and move beyond ill-informed, simple-minded public sector bashing.

Dr John Buchanan is director of the Workplace Research Centre at the University of Sydney Business School.

THE ADVISER: JOHN EGAN

From a government’s perspective, this question is about cost and efficiency. Is the issue wage levels or the rate of increase? Should the discussion extend to more highly paid professional and technical staff, as well as senior executives in public service?

There is a significant diversity of jobs in the public sector, from senior executives, professional, technical and administrative staff providing community services through to operating business enterprises. Many of these roles require well-trained and dedicated people deserving of fair pay and recognition of their contribution to the national good.

From the perspective of cost and efficiency, the challenge is broader than base-pay levels or pay increases and embraces terms and conditions of employment, including rostered days off; overtime payments; productivity; and the quality of leadership.

A key weakness of tribunals adjudicating on this diversity of public sector employees is, just like the private sector, that one size does not fit all. If a pay increase of 2per cent, 3per cent or 4per cent is considered appropriate for the least well-paid to meet living costs, should that flow through the entire workforce?

At what level of pay should performance be a more significant determinant of wage levels and wage increases?

Productivity is clearly a challenge in the public sector. If a commitment to efficiency and continuous improvement is not an embedded principle in government workforces, taxpayers are often paying more than they should for service and other outputs. As in the private sector, budget constraints lead to an audit of resources and an examination of staff performance.

Given the pressure on the Australian economy, with low unemployment, some of these cost pressures and wage challenges may well be addressed by the government considering the outsourcing of contracts and the sending of jobs offshore, releasing public servants to pursue more satisfying opportunities in the private sector.

Clearly one of the challenges in the public sector is meeting round-the-clock demand when employees have two to five weeks of RDOs available, plus personal carer’s leave, plus public holidays, plus annual leave. In a national workforce of one million this is likely to require governments to employ an extra 100,000 people, adding between $5 billion and $7 billion to the nation’s wages cost.

It is unlikely the challenge is one of wage levels or wage increases alone but more likely to be one of quality of leadership, clarity in government of accountability and training to ensure efficiencies are comparable to the best-run private companies.

John Egan is an adviser on executive pay.

THE UNIONIST: JEFF LAWRENCE

It is an attack on rights at work.

Public sector employees are no different from the rest of the workforce.

They are teachers, nurses, bus drivers, firefighters, park rangers, office workers and the countless others who keep public services in NSW running. And they face exactly the same cost of living pressures as everyone else.

The latest measure of employee living costs from the ABS shows these rose 4.9per cent in the past year.

An arbitrary cap on wages – whether public or private sector – bears no relation to the economy, nor to the necessity of maintaining the real value of earnings.

Imagine if your employer came to you and said: “Next year, I’m capping your wages at below inflation. No ifs, no buts, no negotiation. Take it or leave it.”

That’s effectively what the O’Farrell government’s 2.5per cent public sector wages cap will do. It will result in pay cuts for hundreds of thousands of people and their families.

But let’s not be fooled. The O’Farrell government’s Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011 is not a wages policy. It is not a fiscal policy. It is an attack on rights at work, dressed up as a wages policy.

And for this reason, reversing these laws matters to every Australian worker and their family.

The O’Farrell government has been eager to portray its changes as identical to the wages policies that state Labor governments also adopt.

But this is a con job because it glosses over a crucial and central distinction. Unions regularly have stoushes with state governments – Labor and Liberal – over pay. And similar disputes are taking place in Europe and some US states over government austerity programs.

But it is a long accepted principle – and a requirement of international law – that the final outcome of any wage claim is a matter of negotiation and bargaining.

The O’Farrell government is not sitting down with their workforce to reach an agreement. It is changing the law – not only to dictate wage increases below the cost of living but also to cut important workplace conditions.

In no other state or territory has the government sought to implement a wages policy by stripping away workers’ rights.

No person or party who cares about working people, about Australian jobs or about the services in our community could support these laws.

Jeff Lawrence is secretary of the ACTU.

BLIND TO THE SUFFERING

2011-06-26T09:38:00.001+10:00

Blind to the suffering

Paul Daley

June 26, 2011 Sun Herald
.
NOT too many years ago as you emerged from the English Channel on the Eurostar at the French town of Calais you would see them - hordes of men, and a few women, milling close to the giant security fences beside the railway tracks.

They were would-be asylum seekers - people who had come to live in squalid camps all around Calais from all over the globe, and who were willing to risk anything for a chance to get across the channel, somehow, to Britain.

A few days ago, while en route to the European Western Front of the First World War, I looked out the window as the train screeched out of the darkness. But I couldn't see any of the desperate people who had previously been such a familiar sight.

Had they stopped coming?

No. They are still living, in increasing numbers and desperate circumstances, in Calais and the surrounding countryside. But increasingly intense security (even more so after discussions this month between French and British ministers) means that none get anywhere near the tunnel these days.

Well that's the theory, anyway.

Last year 6535 asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat compared with just 1553 this year. More than 34,000 unauthorised entrants sought asylum in Britain last year. Last year French and British authorities thwarted 10,000 illegal attempts to cross the Channel. So far this year 3500 such attempts have been thwarted.

Many more are arriving, having escaped brutal regimes in Libya, Tunisia and Syria. Now that is a genuine, large-scale asylum seeker problem.

Australia has a refugee issue. But the only crisis that exists is the inability of Australian politics to deal with it honestly, maturely and compassionately. But hey, it's not all the politicians' fault. Maybe they're just giving us what we deserve. Others are, thankfully, less willing to let public and media sentiment shape political response.

The member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, said recently: ''I've received thousands of emails about cows and sheep and their terrible treatment … I haven't received thousands of emails concerned about people getting into leaking boats and drowning. So I just find it a funny debate where people don't get things into I suppose the perspective I have on them.'' Well said.

Like so many who watched ABC's Four Corners program that exposed the terrible treatment of our livestock in Indonesian slaughterhouses, I felt sick and angry.

The program sparked a viscerally emotive reaction of the type rarely seen in Australia. Our politicians had to react meaningfully. It's worth pondering here precisely what would have happened had the Gillard government not done so, albeit somewhat tardily. My bet is we'd have seen protests in the street.

The government acted because it correctly read the mood and sidestepped the public emotion that it knew would quickly transmogrify into political destruction.

Good governments do that. Not that the Gillard government deserves, by any measure, to be termed good. But its response on this occasion was, initially at least, appropriate.

By the same token, good governments should steadfastly refuse to be moved by public sentiment when the principle behind that mood is ill-founded or morally abhorrent.

Which brings me back to Burke and her comments that, I believe, held a mirror up to a not altogether palatable truth about Australians.

For many years there has been a compassionless and caustic edge to the most vocal proponents of the toughest punitive measures for asylum seekers. I'm no longer sure if they are just a vocal minority. I can't tell you the number of conversations I've had with politicians and opinion-makers who have said that the penny dropped for them when the Four Corners show went to air.

Why? Because it coincided with the latest episode in our unedifying tough on law and order-style political auction on asylum seekers.

''I really started to wonder if we actually care more about animals than we do about asylum seekers. I realised when I saw that show that we as a country have really lost our way,'' a senior Liberal told me.

Many Australians were deeply upset by the tragedy at Christmas Island last year. Some blamed the government. Some rightly blamed the people smugglers. But a number of politicians will confide that they also detected, with great unease, a hard of heart sentiment among some that the asylum seekers themselves were to blame. Serves them right, right?

Desperate, uninvited human beings? Abused animals? For whom do we care more?

Ugly question, that.

JAILED AND CANED

2011-06-25T10:07:00.000+10:00

Tom Allard, SMH, 25.6.11

A YOUNG Burmese refugee was rounded up, sent to prison for three months and lashed three times with a rattan cane last year even though he possessed a coveted refugee card supposed to offer protection from persecution in Malaysia.

Kap Lian's account of his arrest, incarceration and punishment, the first by an actual holder of a refugee card, raises new questions about the federal government's guarantee that no asylum seeker it sends to Malaysia will be abused under its proposed refugee swap deal.

Malaysia and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees insist protections of refugees have improved substantially in recent times. In a significant development, it was announced on Thursday that the feared volunteer corps, known by its Malay acronym RELA, has ceased operations against irregular migrants since March.

Advertisement: Story continues below But Mr Kap Lian's nightmare occurred when the UNHCR was supposed to have an arrangement with the police and immigration authorities that any genuine refugees would not be detained, let alone punished with caning.

It all began, Mr Kap Lian tells the Herald, when RELA cadres stormed his apartment block in Kuala Lumpur in the early hours of March 11 last year.

''There were 20 of us picked up and six of us had UNHCR cards,'' says Mr Kap Lian, a quietly spoken 20-year-old from the persecuted Chin ethnic minority. ''We showed them the cards, but they just took them from us and kept them … and then took us to prison.''

After 14 days, Mr Kap Lian was taken before a court. But, he says, they had no legal representation and could not understand what was happening because they did not speak Malay. ''The sentence was three months and three hits with the cane. It was the same for all six of us.''

Trussed up and naked except for a blindfold and a small piece of cloth to cover his genitalia, Mr Kap Lian said he took three hits across his buttocks from the long rattan cane. The pain was like no other he had experienced.

''It was very bad,'' he says. ''For one week I couldn't sleep. For two weeks, I couldn't sit down.'' He was given medicine just once.

Mr Kap Lian's story could not be independently verified with the UNHCR but the young Chin bears the scars of his ordeal. He explained he couldn't contact the UNHCR because his card, which contained a hotline number on the back that he could call for help, was confiscated. Guards at the detention centre also refused to let him call community leaders who might have been able to help him, he said.

As a 14-year-old, Mr Kap Lian says he was intermittently pressganged by Burma's military, and forced to serve as a porter. At 18, told he would have to serve full-time, he left to join 40,000 other Chin in Malaysia.

As he waits for resettlement, he works illegally as a construction worker, earning about $15 a day.

''If I could come to Australia, well, it would be better than Malaysia,'' he says. ''Even better, though, would be if the government changed in Burma and I could go back.''

REFUGEES SHOULD NOT BE LOCKED UP

2011-06-22T10:28:00.000+10:00

Refugees shouldn't be locked up and should live in the community, argues Susie O'Brien.

Source: Herald Sun, 21.6.11

LIFE isn't easy in the outer suburbs. There's not much work, little public transport and nothing much to do.

Everywhere is more expensive, and it seems like everyone is trying to rip off hard-working families.

Racism is an issue, because there's lots of pockets of new Australians who don't speak much English, and don't seem to want to fit in.

And so we lash out at the most desperate, pathetic group of foreigners of all - those who arrive here by sea seeking refuge.

But don't blame these asylum seekers, who are doing nothing more than coming here lawfully, seeking a better life.

They're nothing more than scapegoats in boats.

What do you think? Blog all day with Susie at The Big O

Instead, blame successive governments for not doing enough to help Aussie battlers get by.

And blame them for creating fear and loathing in our community towards asylum seekers.

It's a political con, and too many Australians - particularly those living in multicultural outer suburbs -- are falling for it.

And so we believe it when they tell us that these foreign dark-skinned people are going to harm us if they're allowed to roam free in the community.

It's got so bad that we don't want them in our suburbs, and so we lock them up in our deserts. And we're going even further with offshore processing, now making sure they don't even make it here in the first place.

Sadly, the scare campaign is working and 85 per cent of Australians in a recent poll said they didn't want Australia to allow more boat arrivals.

But I don't blame individuals, I blame successive governments who have used asylum seekers as political pawns.

It's no wonder many people - especially those who are doing it tough themselves - are scared of asylum seekers and what they represent.

We're told we're being swamped by boat arrivals - even though we're not.

We're told they're getting more generous welfare handouts than us - even though they don't.

We're made to feel like they're a threat to our Aussie way of life - even though most of them are just people like you and me who need somewhere safe to live.

We're told they're queue-jumpers, even though there are no orderly migration queues in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq, and only 1 per cent of refugees worldwide are in UN "queues".

But trust me, everyone looks like a criminal when they're viewed from behind razor wire in the middle of Australia's most hostile locations.

However, during Refugee Week, I think it's time to get smarter than that, and to expose some of the myths and lies circulating about asylum seekers. And we need to end the twin evils of mandatory detention and offshore processing.

FACT: Mandatory detention isn't working as a deterrent, so why do we persist with it?

In 2001, 43 boats containing 5516 asylum seekers arrived. In 2000, it was 2939 people on 51 boats, and the year before that, 3721 people on 86 boats.

Clearly, mandatory detention, brought in by the Keating Labor government in 1992, hasn't been any sort of real deterrent for boat arrivals.

Yes, the number of boats coming to Australia is high at present, but the number of refugees around the world is at a 15-year high.

FACT: Offshore processing isn't reducing the number of boats coming to Australia.

The number of unauthorised boat arrivals dropped after 2001, when the Howard government introduced offshore processing. But that doesn't mean it worked. The policy continued under Labor, and in 2009 the number of arrivals suddenly jumped from 161 in 2008 to 2726 in 2009.

The simple fact is that the number of onshore arrivals has waxed and waned over the years according to the wars, famine and conflict around the world.

FACT: Genuine refugees from the Middle East don't pose any safety risk to law-abiding Australians.

The vast majority of those arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees, who go on to be productive members of our community. Around 99.7 per cent of Afghans are found to be legitimate refugees, but only 42 per cent of those from China are.

FACT: Air arrivals are less likely to be genuine refugees.

Only 40 per cent of unauthorised air arrivals will be found to be refugees, compared with 94 per cent of all those who arrive by boat.

But no one is making a fuss about these people who arrive with a valid visa, then are given a bridging visa and allowed to stay in the community until their protection visa has been processed.

FACT: Australia is not being swamped by illegal immigrants.

Throughout 2010, 134 boats containing 6500 asylum seekers came to Australia. Yes, it sounds like a lot, but it's just a fraction of the 400,000 people who come to live in Australia each year from other countries. And it's just a fraction of the world's refugee population.

It's time that Australian people demand an end for the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and to the policy of offshore processing.

Those who pose a safety risk, or cannot be identified easily, should be detained until their security status can be ascertained. Others should be housed in the community, at a fraction of the cost of detention centres.

We really have nothing to be afraid of.

After all, between 1948 and 1992, when the Keating government brought in mandatory detention, around 450,000 refugees lived peacefully in the wider community while their claims were being processed.

No one wants people to die on leaky boats en route to Australian shores. And no one wants people smugglers to win. But we can do more to crack down on this deadly industry without detaining innocent refugees.

Don't forget: when governments spend most of their time and money fighting an imagined enemy, they're not improving the quality of life for the rest of us.

WORLD REFUGEE DAY 2011

2011-06-20T09:41:00.000+10:00

Red News Readers,

Doug Cameron is not speaking in accordance with Labor Policy here, nor the policy of Labor for Refugees

Jenny Haines

Thousands turn out for World Refugee Day

ABC News, 20.6.11

The World Refugee Day rallies on Sunday saw about 1,000 people protest in Melbourne, another 1,000 in Sydney, 100 in Adelaide and a smaller crowd in Darwin.

In Melbourne, prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside warned Australia will take a huge step backwards if the Government's Malaysia solution goes ahead, while in Darwin, a man being held in detention there jumped the fence to talk to protesters.

The single Iraqi father, who introduced himself as Raheem, carried his young daughter to meet the small group of people gathered outside Darwin's Airport Lodge.

The hotel is used to house asylum seekers who do not fit into the city's overflowing detention centre.

Raheem told the group he suffers insomnia after almost a year in detention.

"Ten months. No mother. Problem for baby. No sleep tonight. Problem," he said.

"What have they done wrong?" he said, referring to children in detention.

'Groundhog Day'

In Melbourne and Sydney, thousands turned out to protest the Government's asylum seeker deal with Malaysia.

The UN refugee agency has criticised the deal that will see 800 asylum seekers who arrive by boat in Australia transferred to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australian plans to take 4,000 people already granted refugee status in Malaysia.

Prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside told Melbourne's World Refugee Day rally that 10 years after the Howard government's children overboard incident, nothing had changed.

"Welcome to Groundhog Day," he told the crowd.

"Here we are at the start of refugee week about to take an enormous step backwards with the Government's idea of the Malaysian solution."

Mr Burnside said the Malaysia solution was worse than the Opposition's alternative to reopen Nauru "only in the sense that garrotting is worse than hanging".

He said anyone who fled war and was forced to live indefinitely in Indonesia without legal access to a job or schools would become desperate enough to make a dash for safety across dangerous seas to Australia.

He said he wanted to ask Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott what they would do in that situation.

"If (Ms Gillard) were in that position, what would she do? What would you do? Wouldn't you want to make a run for safety? Wouldn't you want to get your kids to safety, wouldn't you want to do what it takes to get yourself to safety and make sure you have a life," he asked the rally.

"If you got an honest answer from (Tony Abbott) ... he might say that he'd make a dash for it as well, because Tony Abbott, like all of us, has the human impulse for survival and that's what refugees are all about.

"So why do we have to mistreat the people who do nothing more than what we would do if we were unlucky enough to be in their shoes."

'Playing politics'

Also in Melbourne, Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt tried to turn the tide by harking back to the golden days of Australian immigration.

"What would Carlton be like if we didn't open our arms to refugees? What would Richmond be like," he said.

He told the rally allowing people to live in the community while their asylum claims were processed was the humane, practical and cheap alternative to detention.

"No-one's ever accused me of being an economic rationalist before but what is very clear is that it's also the cheapest alternative when we have a Government spending a billion dollars on offshore processing while we can't find enough money for schools," he said.

Mr Bandt said now was a great time to have a seismic shift in Australian politics and to end mandatory detention once and for all.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Sydney rally the Federal Government should stop jumping at the ghosts of the former Howard government with its asylum seeker policies.

"Don't simply brush this off as another political fight. It's time that politicians started acting with decency, respect, compassion, spine and stopped playing politics with people's lives," she said.

Labor left

Earlier, Labor Senator Doug Cameron reiterated the party's left faction will only support the Federal Government's proposed asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia if it is backed by the UN's refugee agency.

The Government is still negotiating the terms of the agreement with the Malaysian government and says it is working with the UNHCR to make sure asylum seekers taken to Malaysia are treated humanely.

Senator Cameron says it is vital to get the UNHCR on board.

"What we've said is that any Malaysian agreement must include the UNHCR. They have to sign off on it, it has to be consistent with our international obligations," he told Sky News.

He also dismissed the Opposition's plan to reopen the detention centre on Nauru, which unlike Malaysia is in the process of signing up to the UN convention on refugees.

"Sending people to Nauru, putting them out of sight out of mind for five years until they end up mentally disturbed, is not the way we want to go," he said.

- ABC/AAP

PROTESTORS DESCEND ON SYDNEY

2011-06-16T10:09:00.001+10:00

SMH 16.6.11, AAP

Thousands of furious public sector workers have descended on Sydney's CBD, blocking off the street as they gather outside NSW Parliament House.

Nurses, police, firefighters and other frontline workers stopped worked today to attend the rally, turning Macquarie Street into a sea of flags and banners.

A group of at least 6000 people chanted "Back off Barry" and "Two, four, six eight, Barry O'Farrell you have no mandate".

Advertisement: Story continues below They were also holding banners that read: "Barry O'Farrell workers' rights are human rights".

Earlier, NSW president of the Fire Bridge Employees union, Darin Sullivan, addressed hundreds of firefighters from the top of a fire truck outside St Mary's Cathedral.

"We don't take this sort of action often," he told the gathering.

"We've left ourselves a lot of room to escalate should we need to, this is just the first step."

Organisers revised the number of protesters upwards to 1200 shortly before 12.25pm.

Their ranks were swollen by stonemasons, port workers and other public sector employees who marched from the Opera House.

Premier Barry O'Farrell's controversial industrial relations changes are expected to be debated by the lower house this week, possibly as early as tonight, after they were passed by the NSW upper house yesterday.

Politicians, mayors and possibly magistrates could also have their pay rises capped at 2.5 per cent, as the government attempts to dilute criticism of its crackdown on the wages of nurses, teachers and firefighters.

The government bill strips the NSW Industrial Relations Commission of its powers to set wages and conditions for all frontline public servants.

The mostly male group marching from the Opera House were carrying red and while CFMEU banners and yelling: "What do we want, fair wages, when do we want it, now!"

Paul Connell from Public Works NSW said the conditions under the government's bill, which is set to be rubber stamped by the Coalition-controlled lower house, would not keep up with the cost of living.

"It doesn't keep up with the cost of living which more around 4 per cent and we can't argue for anything more than 2½ per cent," he said.

Mr Connell said without the avenue of Industrial Relations Commission, it would be harder to protect workers' current conditions.

"They are already going after family, community services leave," he said.

Mr Connell is concerned that the changes would make it harder to attract new stone workers to a craft that has already seen its numbers decline.

"There's a limited supply of stonemasons as there is, we find it very difficult to get stonemasons and these changes don't create any sort of incentive for people to work with the NSW government."

The stonemasons and port workers' march was one of several to State Parliament.

Speaking on the sidelines, Unions NSW secretary Mark Lennon said the NSW government should listen to the thousands of workers rallying and "withdraw" the legislation.

"You can see from the turnout here today that there is a lot of anger out there," he said.

"We've already filled Macquarie Street, this shows how upset and outraged the public sector workforce is about this proposed legislation."

Mr Lennon said the ball was in the government's court.

"The government still has the opportunity to rethink this legislation and withdraw it," he said.

Rain failed to dampen the spirits of the workers, who continued to chant and cheer.

Unions NSW president Marilyn Issanchon spoke to the crowd as the rain pelted down.

"No one is going to rain on our parade," she said to cheers.

"We will fight for our rights at work."

She thanked workers for coming from as far as Dubbo and the Riverina.

"The whole of NSW is represented here today," Ms Issanchon said.

Addressing the swelling crowd on Macquarie Street, ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence raised the unions' successful Your Rights at Work campaign, which led to the death of the Howard government's unpopular WorkChoices laws.

"Five minutes after being elected into government, without a hint to the electorate who voted them in only three months ago, the O'Farrell Liberal government has waged an attack on workers the likes of which we haven't seen since WorkChoices," he told the rowdy crowd.

"We are standing together today because these laws are so wrong. It's in the interests if every working person in Australia to see them gone.

"We can't allow these laws to be passed, and if they are, we've got to continue to fight to get rid of them.

"Every member of Parliament who votes for them today or tomorrow must be held to account."

Mr Lawrence called on federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to lobby his NSW counterpart Mr O'Farrell to scrap the public sector wage changes.

"Tony Abbott thinks he doesn't have to take a stand, he thinks he can hide behind the fact that this is a state issue," Mr Lawrence said.

"I challenge Tony Abbott today to tell Barry O'Farrell to get rid of these laws, and if he doesn't you can only conclude that this is a template for what a coalition government would do federally if it gets half a chance."

Mr Lennon ended the rally by reading out letters of support from union movements in Western Australia and the United States.

He thanked the crowd for their attendance saying it was the biggest worker rally on Macquarie Street "in over 20 years".

Mr Lennon urged workers to continue their efforts until legislation was repealed.

"People have questioned what level of concern there is about these laws," he said.

"Well there's no question today."

He warned that future action would follow, saying "this is not the first time our movement has come under attack".

The workers joined in song to mark the end of the protest, singing in unison "we shall not be moved".

AAP

NSW IN DEBT - PUBLIC SECTOR PAYS

2011-06-13T11:04:00.007+10:00

Red News Readers,

The O’Farrell Government is worrying the financial markets not because the government has alienated the public sector so early in its term of government (what do the financial markets care about that?) but because of its borrowing program of $11.5 billion next year to fund infrastructure building. State Treasury is now forecasting that the State Debt will balloon to $80 billion over the next 4 years, up from $60 billion. Apparently what worries the financial markets is that this level of debt is being incurred without it being clear what the O’Farrell Government financial plans are.

Well now we know, at least in part. They plan public private partnerships wherever they can despite the fact that in opposition they were most critical of the Labor Government’s relationships with the private sector. To achieve all this infrastructure building , and repay debt, it seems that public sector wages hours and working conditions are going to be slashed, either by legislative control of wage increases, or contracting out the work of public servants to private contractors, not a worry to the O’Farrell Government as they don’t see public sector workers, particularly unionists, as part of their voting power base. But a very big worry to those public sector workers affected.

In my profession, nursing, how are we going to maintain wages and working conditions that recruit and retain quality staff? This is the big question that plagued the Labor Government and the Industrial Relations Commission over the past 16 years. Awards ratified by the Commission in that time were mostly consent awards between the Government and the Union, intent on addressing the nursing shortage, and the quality of care issues in the health system. The O’Farrell Government has most unfairly placed the blame for what they call the blowout in public sector wages under the Labor Government squarely on the shoulders of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, but the truth of the matter is that as the awards made were consent awards, and the blame , if there is a need for blame, should be sheeted home to the negotiating parties.

All of this means a lot to the 12,000 public sector workers who gathered in Macquarie Street today. It would have been interesting to see how many public sector workers attended had there not been the level of intimidation and harassment in the workplace by managers who instructed public sector workers that they were not to attend the Rally, despite the fact that those workers were members of a union, and entitled under this country’s recognition of the freedom of association to attend. Where did the instructions for this level of intimidation come from?

The O’Farrell Government has started a war with the public sector unions. The Labor Opposition and the unions must be thanking O’Farrell for the organising gift that has been given to the labour movement which will unite and gel around a vigorous defence of the public sector. What the O’Farrell Government needs to consider very deeply, is what quality do they want to have in the provision of services traditionally provided by the public sector? Now that the Government has got the public sector’s back up, they can hardly expect that public sector workers are going to put their noses to the grindstone and make it all happen for a Government that has made it clear that it does not value the public sector. But obviously the big stick that is going to be held by the O’Farrell Government over public sector workers and unions is, do what we say, or we will contract your work out to the private sector.

Jenny Haines

NSW government to reassure backers

Eric Johnston. smh

June 8, 2011
.
THE O'Farrell Liberal government will attempt to reassure New South Wales's biggest financial backers this month amid growing uncertainty about the scope of its infrastructure spending spree.

The meeting between Treasurer Mike Baird and the bond investors comes as the government pushes ahead with an $11.5 billion borrowing program over the next year, on the heels of last year's record $12 billion debt issue. Much of the latest funding issue is to roll over existing debt.

Figures from the state's financing arm, NSW Treasury Corp, revealed the state's debt is likely to balloon to as much as $80 billion within four years, up from about $60 billion.

Much of the increase is expected to come from increased investment by power generators. As well as raising funds from global and Australian investors to fund the budget, NSW Treasury Corp also raises funds on behalf of government enterprises such as EnergyAustralia and RailCorp.

With the O'Farrell government not scheduled to hand down its first budget until September, investors have expressed concerns about buying debt without knowing what its financial plans are.

This could push up the borrowing costs, particularly as problems with some debt-laden European governments are causing global credit jitters.

Economists have speculated that the government's infrastructure spending spree could see its borrowing program over the next year blow out by as much as $5 billion.

''There still remains a high level of uncertainty over the priorities for fiscal policy in the coming year in light of the clear mandate to increase infrastructure delivery at the March election,'' said ANZ's head of interest rate strategy, Tony Morriss.

The government has raised suggestions that it could call in the private sector to help fund its centrepiece project, the north-west rail link, which will cost about $8 billion. But its first step will be to thrash out with banks and finance houses ways of paying for it through a public-private partnership.

Last month the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's reaffirmed NSW's AAA rating, saying the state was in a sound financial position.

Separately, the new head of the federal government's financing arm yesterday raised the prospect that the Commonwealth could become a big investor in bonds issued by state governments.

The chief executive of the Australian Office of Financial Management, Rob Nicholl, told an economics forum there was ''nothing to prevent us'' buying state bonds once the Commonwealth government started running budget surpluses. Such a move would make it easier for states with big funding needs to borrow.

UNIONS AT WAR WITH O'FARRELL GOVT

2011-06-13T10:39:00.002+10:00

Unions declare war on Premier

Alexandra Smith, smh

June 13, 2011
.
Them's fighting words ... unions representing nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers are preparing to launch a campaign against Premier Barry O'Farrell's wage reforms.

THE national union movement has thrown its weight behind a campaign against Barry O'Farrell's plans to overhaul wages for public servants in NSW and plans a week of protests against the contentious bill.

Nurses, teachers and firefighters will be joined by unions from across the country in a rally outside Parliament House on Wednesday as they step up their campaign before the wages bill goes to a final vote in the lower house this week.

The bill states that wage rises of more than 2.5 per cent will be paid only after they are matched by employee-related savings. The Industrial Relations Commission will be stripped of its powers and will have to abide by the policy.

Advertisement: Story continues below Police were given an exemption from the policy after a deal was reached between the crossbench MPs, who hold the balance of power in the upper house, and the government but the unions have vowed to step up their opposition.

In a letter to Mr O'Farrell on Friday, the ACTU secretary, Jeff Lawrence, said the Premier had no mandate to introduce the changes, which Mr Lawrence described as a ''clear breach of international law''.

"Australian unions will campaign to make sure that all NSW working people and their families know that their rights at work are worth fighting for, and worth voting for," Mr Lawrence said.

He said the bill would remove the right to bargain or take industrial action to secure better wages.

''This would not only be unjust, but it would be a clear breach of international law and Australia's obligation to respect human rights, which include labour rights,'' Mr Lawrence's letter said.

The NSW Nurses Association has warned the government that it should brace itself for rolling statewide strikes after its members voted to start industrial action on Wednesday with a mass rally in Macquarie Street.

The secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Lennon, said unions would not stand by and watch the government's ''outright attack'' on the rights of workers and their families.

"This unfair attack will mean nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers will have the weakest workplace rights in the nation," he said.

"The ACTU's intervention shows the gravity of the situation. It's heartening to know that the entire Australian trade union movement is behind us as we take our campaign into the community.''

The Greens' industrial relations spokesman, David Shoebridge, said the proposed changes would put pressure on the federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, to state his position on workplace laws.

''This is a real test for Tony Abbott. Will he distance himself from the NSW Coalition's radical new IR laws or will he embrace them and risk having a fresh federal battle on industrial relations,'' Mr Shoebridge said.

''Despite all its flaws, even under Work Choices unions could approach the Commonwealth Industrial Relations Commission to set minimum entitlements without being threatened with a veto by the government.

''Under O'Farrell's new laws, all bets are off, and the government of the day will get the power to veto wage rises, and cut back on conditions, by simply issuing a regulation.''

A spokesman for Mr Abbott would not be drawn on the issue and said wages for public servants were an issue for Mr O'Farrell but the Premier should ''be supported in doing what he thinks is the best for NSW''.

When asked what Mr O'Farrell's plans meant for the federal Coalition, the spokesman said the opposition had not moved from its position that ''Work Choice was dead, buried and cremated''.

The government maintains it needs to rein in public sector wages and says the legislation will save taxpayers $1.96 billion over the next four years and still allow for fair wage rises if public servants can make more productivity savings.

UNIONS PLAN PROTEST

2011-06-06T09:46:00.000+10:00

Unions plan protest rally against new salary cap

Anna Patty, Alexandra Smith

June 6, 2011

PUBLIC sector unions will step up their campaign today in protest against the state government's controversial wages policy, which will cap salary increases at 2.5 per cent.

Unions, including those representing 70,000 teachers, 36,000 nurses and 45,000 public sector workers, will meet today to plan a strategy against the wages policy, which Parliament is expected to pass next week.

The president of the Public Service Association, Sue Walsh, said she would propose staging a rally in opposition to the policy, which will require public sector workers to make savings before any salary increases above 2.5 per cent are awarded.

Advertisement: Story continues below ''There is no doubt in my mind we will step things up and there will be a huge protest against the O'Farrell government,'' Ms Walsh said.

The associaton, which has 45,000 members, has a wage case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Ms Walsh said she expected this would have resulted in an increase of 3.5 to 4 per cent.

The NSW Nurses Association, which has 35,000 members in public hospitals and 1200 in disability services, is also negotiating an increase in penalty rates for night staff. Nurses who work in disability services and aged care will also negotiate a new award this month.

They had expected to achieve the 3.9 per cent already awarded to public hospital nurses this financial year as part of a three-year agreement. The agreement will deliver 3 per cent from July and 2.5 per cent the following financial year.

The general secretary of the Nurses Association, Brett Holmes, said disability nurses faced getting a 2.5 per cent increase ''while their colleagues across the road in hospitals get 3 per cent at the end of this month''.

''We have this bizarre situation where police were able to lobby the Shooters and Christian Democrats, but we didn't get in to see them, so we are not going to have the same rights, it appears,'' Mr Homes said.

Police are the only public sector workers who have been exempted from the 2.5 per cent cap.

The Christian Democrats MP Fred Nile said he pushed the government for the exemption because the police had a wage case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Asked why he had not requested the same exemptions for disability nurses and the Public Service Association, he said they had not approached him.

The president of the Police Association, Scott Weber, said the crossbench MPs had listened to the concerns of police, but the association was not convinced it could take the government on its word.

''Before the election, Barry O'Farrell said we would retain our right to an independent umpire. But less than two months after the election, he tried to take it away,'' Mr Weber said. ''How can we trust this government again?''

The government released a statement on Saturday that said the wages bill had passed the Legislative Council, but a spokesman for Mr O'Farrell yesterday conceded this was premature.

The spokesman said the bill would need to return to the upper house for the third reading on June 14 and would then go to a vote in the lower house before it becomes law.

WORKCHOICES ALL OVER AGAIN

2011-06-05T12:07:00.000+10:00

A policy Liberals love but dare not speak its name

Paul Howes From: The Sunday Telegraph June 05, 2011

AS the saying goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same. And last week, when it came to conservatives and industrial relations, that saying couldn't be more relevant.

First we had NSW's Barry O'Farrell introduce legislation that John Robertson rightly called "worse than WorkChoices" that goes further than even John Howard dared to - and there was not one whisper of it before the election.

Then we had the Liberal's federal workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz announce he would look at reviewing the Fair Work Act in 2012 - despite his own pre-election promise to the contrary.

And, finally, we had the usual suspects from the employer lobby make baseless claims about union "boogy men" and how Labor's IR system was the end of the world as they knew it.

Abetz was responding to yet another policy paper from the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The chamber, like many other employer lobby groups, blabbed on about how hard it is for employers to be fair and reasonable under Labor's Fair Work legislation and tried to paint a picture of massive industrial unrest because of Labor's laws.

A day after they released their report, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their own quarterly update of industrial disputes, which showed workplace unrests had fallen to new record lows.

The ABS figures destroy the credibility of employer groups who claim the Fair Work system has given rise to some kind of industrial "anarchy".

Abetz, a man who never lets the facts get in the way of his own twisted ideology, still seized on the chamber's report to announce he will push for a full review of Fair Work in 2012.

That is strange considering the federal election isn't until 2013, but maybe it signals that for the first time the Coalition will be open and honest about its plans for industrial relations before an election.

Despite Tony Abbott's "dead, buried, cremated" promise on WorkChoices during the last election, the reality is the Coalition still wants to return to its beloved policy so the bosses hold all the cards.

And despite there being no mention of changing NSW's industrial relations system during this year's state election, Barry O'Farrell is still trying to ram his own personal version of WorkChoices through the state parliament.

We shouldn't be surprised about O'Farrell not mentioning his plans during the election campaign - after all, John Howard never mentioned WorkChoices during the 2004 federal election, yet he still claimed he had a mandate to introduce the hated legislation less than 12 months later.

Some people may say that such tactics are no different to those used by Julia Gillard over the carbon pollution scheme. But of course, these people are wrong.

There's a big difference between re-negotiating pre-election policy positions in a minority government, as the prime minister has done, to whacking stuff through just because you have a record majority, as O'Farrell has done.

It's the same folly that brought Howard unstuck when he used his Senate majority to push through WorkChoices after the disastrous "Latham election".

I'll give them one thing - these Liberals are as brave as they are silly. Nobody could accuse them of learning from their past mistakes.

Towards the end of last week, Labor and the Greens launched a valiant effort to defeat NSW WorkChoices. MPs warned of the Bill's dangers and how it will rip away the hard-won rights of the state's frontline public servants.

The new laws will deny workers rights "guaranteed" under international law, such as the right to freely bargain and collectively organise. It attacks police officers, nurses, and teachers. O'Farrell thinks they're all overpaid.

But, as we have seen this week, you just can't trust the Liberals when it comes to protecting industrial rights.

Whether they are in Canberra or Macquarie St, WorkChoices is ingrained deep in the DNA and psyche of every Liberal MP.

It's the love that dare not speak its name. It's their very reason for being.

There's a real sense of dejavu in politics at the moment. It feels like 2004 and the "Your Rights At Work" campaign all over again.

But then, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union

MY TRIBUTE TO BOB GOULD

2011-06-05T11:27:00.000+10:00

Red News Readers,

This is my Tribute to Bob Gould, read at his Funeral on Thursday 26th May 2011. For further Obituaries and Tributes, go to the Ozleft Website.

Jenny Haines

TRIBUTE TO BOB by Jenny Haines

BOB’S FUNERAL – 26.5.11

Thank you all for coming today. Bob would have been really pleased to see friends and foes, Labor, Green and Far Left supporters all in the same room and he would have been trying to figure in his head how it could all be turned in to a political force and not just a gathering at his funeral. One thing he wanted to see in his lifetime was a resurgence of the Left and he could only see it ever happening through supporters of all the parties and groups putting aside their differences and working on the commonalities.

You could go through the dictionary and the thesaurus pulling out adjectives to describe Bob. He was an Australian of Irish Catholic origin and very proud of his heritage, but he never drank beer, smoked cigarettes or went to the footy. Bob’s achievements were of the mind and the brain and the heart. One of his old school mates once told me that they tried to have him play footy at St Pat’s but he was so poorly co-ordinated they had to sit him on the sidelines where he read books, voraciously. Bob had a fierce intellect. He was reading the works of major Catholic intellectuals in his teens, then, as he moved past his faith into political beliefs, he moved into reading Marx and Lenin and Trotsky. Old compatriots of Bob who ended up in other factions of the ALP remember Bob coming to meetings of Young Labor in his school uniform and even then impressing many with his idealism and his commitment.

Bob had many friends and many alliances some of which lasted, some did not. He was an idealist in a post-idealistic world, particularly in his later life. We need more idealists. Bob worked in partnership with Jim and John Percy in setting up the Third World Bookshop in the City, an enterprise that had a stormy relationship with the law over censorship. I remember telling an art historian when I was travelling in Europe in 1987 that the police had raided a store in Sydney in the 1960s and taken away a picture of Michaelangelo’s David as being pornographic. She was stunned with disbelief.

The partnership with the Percys fell apart and Bob went on to take over the book business, building it into an empire. He opened 12 shops and closed 11. On paper at some stage he may have been a millionaire but he never had the cash flow of a millionaire, and in more recent times struggled against the perils of the Global Financial Crisis. Bob put his money where his mouth was, much to the chagrin of his family and friends. But there are thousands of workers and trade unionists across Australia who owe Bob a debt of gratitude for the wise counsel and political experience he gave to rank and file trade union campaigns and party members. A number of those trade union campaigns were successful in obtaining office in a union. One of the campaigns that he was most proud to be associated with was the campaign run by the rank and file in the wharfies union to save the building from being sold for a song to redevelopers, saving union members millions of dollars. He was also proud to be associated with the campaign run by the Nurses Association in the 1980s in opposition to the cuts to mental health funding proposed in the Richmond Report. This was a campaign that the union ran among its members and took to the floor of the NSW ALP State Conference, achieving significant changes to the original proposals with a significantly better funding base than first proposed.

But his greatest effort and greatest achievement was the Vietnam Action Campaign. Mairi Petersen his then wife can tell you stories of their house being turned into a mailing centre. There was no internet then. His role as Secretary of the Vietnam Action Committee, challenging the Communist Party and its friendly organisations, was central to the campaign against the Vietnam War in Sydney. Bob and Wayne Haylen and others, led some of the first sit downs in the streets against the war that gave inspiration to thousands of others later to march against the war. Bob always said that one of the proudest days of his life was the day the North Vietnamese took over Saigon. But Bob had a heart and when the South Vietnamese took to rickety boats to get out of South Vietnam, he welcomed them coming to Australia against the protestations of many in the Labor Party. Some may see that as contradictory, but that was Bob, full of contradictions! And he understood his contradictions and could explain them. He knew that life is full of contradictions that can tear us apart or make us better human beings if we understand them.

I first met Bob at a rank and file conference in 1980. He did not impress me much at first, but when he and his then compatriot Paul Ford talked about scientific socialism, it sparked my interest. I went to some of his Sunday afternoon meetings in the George Street Shop where he and George Petersen talked passionately about labor history. Bob and I became close friends and have stayed close friends to this day. Economic rationalism was becoming popular with governments and we set up the Defeat the Health Cuts Campaign, a Labor Party rank and file campaign . This led to nurses, disgusted with the lack of leadership by their union on the health cuts, and award changes, setting up the Nurses Reform Campaign. The Nurses Reform Campaign were successful in the 1982 elections. I was elected Secretary of the Union and Bronwyn Ridgway Assistant Secretary. We stayed in office for five turbulent years, and although we did not achieve all we set out to achieve, those years and the subsequent years I spent as a Delegate in the Nurses Association, candidate in elections, along with the commitment of many, many nurses who were polticised by the events, were important in building the Nurses Union into the leading force that it has become. We could not have done any of it without Bob’s inspiration, and Janet Bonser’s typesetting skills. What we learned from our experience is that unions, like parliaments, need a government and an opposition to thrive. Bland boring consensus kills unions. My old friend Terry Muldoon, now deceased, once told me that after I left office in the union, that my successor Pat Staunton once told NSW Health that they may have thought they had trouble with the Nurses Reform leadership, but she was going to give them hell if they did not concede what she wanted. And if they wanted the Nurses Reform leadership back she could arrange that! They conceded. Good cop, bad cop, and that is what unions need to negotiate effectively.

In his later years Bob wrote as well as read voraciously. He and Ed Lewis set up a website, Ozleft, which is an online record of Bob’s writings. He never did get to write his autobiography that we urged him to write but his online work on Ozleft is a wonderful collection of his writings on politics, society and religion. Ed Lewis his partner in setting up Ozleft, has , in the last couple of days opened some pages on Ozleft where anyone who wishes can place tributes or obituaries. Just Google Ozleft and it will readily come up if you wish to contribute.

I will miss him. We had an unusual life, spending time together mostly in the mornings and then he went to work in the shop and I went to work in nursing and now at the university. When we ate together I could look up and he would have discarded the Murdoch media with disgust, and could be reading anything from medieval history to engineering books to sci-fi novels. One of the signs of his declining health in recent weeks was he stopped reading and just sat with the newspaper. We travelled together, mostly to book fairs where we bought the books that stock the shop, but we tried to take diversions and have a bit of time just away from the city. The 60s and 70s were Bob’s time and he felt brushed aside and forgotten in more recent years, one of the curses of growing older.

I could go on and on but I just want to read a poem that I heard read a couple of years ago and it stopped me in my tracks as it reflected what I thought I would save to say at Bob’s Funeral, whenever it was to be. I had hoped there would be more years of his life before I had to read this , but that was not to be

WH Auden Twelve Songs, National Poetry Day, 7.9.99

Stop all the clocks

Cut off the telephone

Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone

Silence the pianos and with muffled drum

Bring out the coffin let the mourners come

Let the aeroplane circle moaning overhead, scribbling on the sky

He is dead.

Put great bows around the white necks of the public doves

Let the traffic policeman wear black cotton gloves

He was my north, my south, my east, my west

My working week and my Sunday rest

My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song

I thought that love would last forever

I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now – put out every one

Pack up the moon, dismantle the sun

Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood

For nothing now can ever come to any good

HISTORIC LOSS FOR UNIONS

2011-06-05T11:16:00.001+10:00

Red News Readers,

I started this blog as a means to convey information against the Howard Government's Workchoices. This blog hasn't been as active as it should have been due to my busy life, but it now looks like there is another campaign building against O'Farrell's Workchoices, and this blog is going to need to be revived. This loss for the unions is only the first round, but now the struggle begins for public sector wage justice in NSW.

Jenny Haines

Historic loss for unions

Alicia Wood, smh.

June 5, 2011
.
BARRY O'FARRELL delivered a historic blow to the union movement yesterday, as the upper house all but passed controversial industrial relations changes that have been likened to Work Choices.

The legislation will come before the Legislative Council again next week, for a final read, before it moves to the lower house.

The Premier said the changes would save NSW about $2 billion.

The move came about after the Minister for Roads, Duncan Gay, invoked an obscure rule, last used in 1906, to torpedo debate on the legislation, which had already run for 29 hours.

Under the government's changes, public sector workers would have their wage rises capped at 2.5 per cent. Higher increases would have to be matched by savings.

The bill removes the Industrial Relations Commission's power to set public sector wages and hands it to the government.

Unions NSW and the opposition called it ''worse than Work Choices'' and said the government should have gone to the election with the policy.

Labor said the legislation would prove the government's undoing. ''The revival of NSW Labor will stem from this legislation passed today … We won't be the lazy, pea-hearted opposition you were for 16 years,'' Labor MP Luke Foley screamed.

The Opposition Leader, John Robertson, said he would speak to workers this week to explain the implications and encourage them to put pressure on their local MPs.

''Workers have fought for more than a century to secure the wages and conditions they have today in our schools and hospitals, our fire stations and other public sector workplaces,'' he said. ''What's taken 100 years to achieve has been overturned by the Premier in a single day.''

The government insisted it was merely implementing a policy devised by the Labor Party.

Unions were furious last night and had begun plotting a campaign of marches and stop-work meetings. ''Everything is on the table right now,'' a source said. ''The level of anger is intense.''

Mr Gay said he ended the three-day filibuster because Labor and Greens MPs were being ''juvenile''.

''I took a historic step, one that I thought long and hard about … they were playing university politics games,'' Mr Gay said.

''We're not shutting them down; we're giving them a chance to analyse the legislation, rather than having boys' and girls' games with who can speak the longest.''

He rejected claims that his move amounted to the last government's proroguing of Parliament to avoid scrutiny into the electricity sale.

Greens MPs David Shoebridge and John Kaye each spoke for almost six hours on the reforms. Five opposition MPs clocked a total of 13 hours.

Mr Gay said the bill was not complex enough to warrant the amount of debate, which began on Thursday. In a move that further provoked furore, the government locked MPs in until the bill was passed.

This led to a stream of formal questions by opposition MPs about when they would go to the toilet, how they would take medication, and what would happen if a fire alarm went off.

The marathon three-day sitting of the Legislative Council tested the patience and stamina of MPs, many of whom slept in their offices on Thursday and Friday nights. The strain was evident, with members on both sides of the chamber trading personal insults.

Labor's Mick Veitch made an emotional appeal to his colleagues, and cried when he said: ''I've been troubled by where we are.''

The Nationals' Melinda Pavey flew her daughter Emily, 8, down from Coffs Harbour on Friday evening when she realised she would not get home for the weekend. Emily slept in her office until after 11pm on Friday night, when debate was suspended.

REVIEW OF CONFESSIONS OF A FACELESS MAN

2011-01-30T14:21:00.000+11:00

REVIEW OF CONFESSIONS OF A FACELESS MAN BY PAUL HOWES, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2010.

Paul Howes has come a long way in trade union politics in a relatively short time, from his teen years in the Democratic Socialist Party to National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, succeeding Bill Shorten after he went into Federal Parliament. In that time Paul’s politics have moved from the Far Left to the NSW Right, or at least one part of the NSW Right, and now the Victorian/ National Right.

Paul has become a national figure through his outspokenness on issues like more tolerance of refugees, and the rights of workers in the workplace, but it was his role in helping roll Kevin Rudd from the Prime Ministership and his assistance in installing Julia Gillard in the job that is the subject of Confessions of a Faceless Man. This book which Paul was Adlerised into writing by Louise Adler of Melbourne University Press, is a racy account of the 2010 Federal Election and the events immediately preceding the election. At times it has elements of a political thriller, though thankfully no one dies, not literally, but perhaps there are some political “deaths”. You may not like Paul’s right wing politics, and I don’t, but it is a witty account of the machinations behind the scene in that election, although I doubt that he tells us everything. Along the way he educates the reader on the role of the National Secretary of the AWU in national ALP politics and his union. He unashamedly advocates the role of the union in national politics, not forgetting its important work in protecting its members. At a time when there is so much union bashing, Paul’s honest advocacy on behalf of unions is a breath of fresh air.

Paul makes no secret of his dislike for Kevin Rudd and his style of government. He offers the reader his unvarnished and unapologetic explanation for being part of the coup against Rudd. He is frank with the reader about Rudd’s apparent role in the Federal Election although even he comes to respect some of Rudd’s actions in supporting the election of the Labor team over and above his personal hurt. Paul spares no words in his assessment of Mark Latham and his role in the Federal Election and records an amusing but scary conversation with Chris Minns, ALP National Assistant Secretary, about Latham “Mate”, Chris Minns says, “it wouldn’t surprise me if that guy is out there murdering backpackers on the weekend –he is completely unhinged.”

But it is his assessment of Tony Abbott that is spot on, and Paul, unlike many journalists during the campaign, reports full and frankly on his view of Tony Abbott. Paul draws out Abbott’s inconsistencies, his hypocrisies, and his conservative weirdness, several times questioning Abbott’s ability to be leader of a party, much less leader of the country, and his excitement and relief when Abbott is not given the support that he needs to take government by the Independents is palpable. Paul writes “And the thought of Abbott representing Australia overseas, accompanied by his joke of a Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious....Social policy, the environment, a republic, reconciliation, equality – all would take a back seat as an Abbott led government slowly but surely reshaped the country in the man’s own 1950s, white, monarchist image.” That’s about as close as Paul gets to setting out what he thinks should be the agenda for the Gillard Government, but if it is the agenda now, then they are not selling it all that well.

Paul is a young man in a hurry at the senior levels of the trade union movement. He writes a good read. I look forward to future accounts of his political life as it proceeds. I think there is a lot in his book that could be used to educate the current younger generation who are interested in labor politics and political science in this country.

Jenny Haines

THE PRIVATISATION OF ELECTRICITY

2011-01-17T14:28:00.000+11:00

As placed on a Crikey Blog, 17.1.11, by Jenny Haines.

As someone who was at the last State Conference of the Labor Party where delegates overwhelmingly voted against the privatisation of the State’s electricity assets based on the proposals that were then before the government, I am interested that there has been so little comment from the party and the trade unions on the sale process that has proceeded. It may be that they think this is the better option, as a least the power stations stay in State hands, and their employees remain State employees, at least for the first few years. But the Liberal National Coalition are a bunch of opportunists. Despite their position in opposition, Blind Freddy and his dog know that in government they would privatise the lot and deregulate the conditions of electricity system workers. I am constantly amazed that journalists and commentators let the Liberal National Coalition get away without being questioned closely on what they would do if they were in government. I disagree with the sale process that has happened. I think it is a mistake and one that we will live to regret. But the elelphant in the room needs addressing. The Liberal National Coalition are ideologically and practically committed to privatisation of everything not nailed down in NSW and if that means that workers get hurt, that is collateral damage for them. Voters in the coming State Election beware!

EXCELLENT LETTER - SUPPORT RATIOS!!

2011-01-06T12:44:00.002+11:00

SMH, 6.1.11.

So many acute needs, not enough time

I am a registered nurse working in a state hospital.

Carmel Tebbutt's comments that using a nurse-to-patient ratio as a staffing tool would lack ''the flexibility that is often needed to staff a modern hospital'' made my blood boil (''Nurses shut hospital beds in last-ditch attempt to reinstate talks on staffing ratios'', January 5).

I have worked in many hospitals, private and public, over the years and experienced many different staffing tools. Any tool that states ''flexibility'' is one that can be manipulated to suit the management and is a great excuse for not recruiting new staff or increasing casual numbers at busy times of the year.

Many of my colleagues are suffering depression and anyone who works in a hospital knows the stresses are increasing. There used to be a cycle in the year where it was relatively quiet over the warm months and holidays and busier during winter months, so at least there were some easier times in the working year. This cycle seems to have gone and the acuity remains high all year round.

Nursing has always been a challenging job. It is not easy trying to decide a priority for your time some days when there are so many acute needs and there are increasing problems with patient aggression as mental health, drug and alcohol issues grow.

In my experience over 34 years, the only staffing tool that addresses the variable environment of the ward areas is a set ratio and the ''one-to-four" is the only acceptable way to meet increasing patient needs.

I feel guilty because my daughter has followed me into nursing and I would encourage her to look at a different career. She is already experiencing the frustrations of being short staffed. Many of our young nurses are leaving as it is just too hard.

Nurses are largely driven by their caring nature. It is becoming a common cry that we wish someone would care for us.

Catherine Butler Macmasters Beach

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NURSE DIES AFTER STABBING

2011-01-06T12:36:00.004+11:00

Experience at issue, Letter published SMH today, 8.1.11.

The outcome of the inquiries into the fatal stabbing of a nurse at Bloomfield Hospital will be interesting reading (''Three inquiries into fatal hospital stabbing,'' January 7).

Of note here is that the deceased was an experienced nurse coming to the rescue of a new graduate. I wonder how much the new graduate knew about searching new patients? I wonder how much orientation she was given to the unit and its OH&S policies? I wonder what the staffing levels were like in the unit? With three inquiries under way, hopefully we will get some answers to these questions, because I suspect that these factors contributed to the situation.

Mental health nursing requires specialist knowledge. It is not something anyone can do. Shortages of qualified mental health nurses in recent years have left units reliant on younger and more inexperienced staff. In these circumstances there is a greater duty of care on the employer to ensure that these staff members are safe. It is not just a matter of covering the numbers on management staffing sheets. It is about people, and standards of care, and quality and safety, for patients and staff.

Jenny Haines Newtown

Yahoo 7 News, 6.1.11.

A nurse has died after an alleged stabbing at a hospital in central west NSW.

Police were called to the unit in Orange yesterday afternoon, where they found a 62-year-old male nurse with wounds to his chest and arms.

He was rushed to Orange Base Hospital in a critical but stable condition. He died this morning.

A 20-year-old female nurse was treated at the scene for lacerations to her hands and taken to Orange Base Hospital in a stable condition.

Police arrested a 33-year-old man at the scene and he is assisting officers with their investigation.

It is understood the incident happened at Bloomfield Hospital in Orange.

HOWES: HOW I WOULD FIX NSW

2011-01-02T10:10:00.000+11:00

How I'd fix up our state

02 January 2011

AWU National Secretary Paul Howes' opinion piece written for The Sunday Telegraph on 02 January 2011

I am a big fan of Kristina Keneally. Always have been.

I liked her long before she became NSW Premier. I've always thought she has the attributes required for good leadership.

However, I'll admit that lately it's become difficult to be much enthused about the NSW Labor government.

And while I'm a strong proponent of the notion that the worst Labor government will always be better than the best Liberal government, my partisanship has taken a beating in recent times.

For even its most loyal supporters (such as myself) it's hard to say exactly what NSW Labor has going for it right now.

The party has accomplished much in the past, which is probably why the people of NSW have put State Labor into power for 52 of the past 70 years.

However, for the past couple of years NSW Labor's stocks have been low and the handling of the Gentrader electricity privatisation hasn't helped one bit. But, if the Government is serious about at least trying to be re-elected, it's time the Premier began outlining and, more importantly, implementing plans to improve NSW. And there's a lot left to do.

So if I were to compile a wish list of things that I'd like to see a Labor government do in the event of it being re-elected, it might look something like this:

1 Build a rapid public transport system for Sydney.

The city's present heavy rail system dates back to around 1850, before which carrier pigeons were still the best way to send a message across town.

So although it has served the community well, it's time for it to join the 21st century or, if that's too ambitious, time it at least caught up with the 20th century.

Labor did have ill-conceived plans for a metro system which was rightly scrapped, but it can still begin planning a proper, well-designed, rapid mass-transit system.

After all, a metro doesn't mean abandoning our current CityRail network; it can complement and enhance existing links. It needn't take forever. The Shanghai Metro was opened in 1995and now has 273 stations and moves more than seven million people daily.

2 Build the M4 East to link the M4 with the City West link.

This must be the most obvious thing for a Labor government to do.

Sydney would have to be one of the only international cities where there is no motorway linking its two major business centres (the CBD and Parramatta in Sydney).

Not only would this make sense, but it would also be a great piece of infrastructure servicing the city's western suburbs.

3 Link the F3 Freeway with the Gore Hill Freeway.

Surely it's about time we were able to drive from Newcastle and the Central Coast to the Sydney CBD on a motorway.

Having to hop off the F3 at Hornsby and struggle along the Pacific Highway to the Gore Hill Freeway provides yet another reminder of the many black holes in Sydney's infrastructure.

4 Build more light rail.

I've never been able to understand the hostility to light rail. It's cheap, effective, popular and quick.

You can literally build a light rail line in a matter of months.

Thankfully, Labor has begun extending the existing light rail network to Dulwich Hill from Lilyfield, but it should go further.

A line from Central up Anzac Parade to UNSW or even Maroubra would alleviate huge pressures on the roads in the eastern suburbs.

It could also go from Central to Circular Quay and even right up the middle of Parramatta Rd from Central to the Parramatta CBD.

A similar system has been achieved in Adelaide, so why not in Sydney?

5 Amalgamate the councils.

It amazes me that we still have micro-governments making major planning decisions which, if the outcome is wrong, can take decades to rectify.

Most other states have managed to reform their local government structures to create sustainable, well-resourced, professional councils that are able to engage in long-term decision-making. NSW is crying out for this type of reform.

6 Create an independent infrastructure authority to achieve growth in regional NSW.

Living in Sydney, it's easy to forget that NSW is a big place and that NSW doesn't stand for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.

But if we're going to take full advantage of the potential of regional NSW, we need to do more to encourage growth in the State's regions, much like Victoria has.

An independent planning body, similar to Infrastructure Australia and working in tandem with properly amalgamated councils, could see regional NSW really prosper.

7 Allow an inquiry into the sale of the electricity assets.

Several weeks ago, I wrote that I was unhappy with the way in which the State's electricity assets were being privatised.

Since then, my concerns have only increased. But if the Government has nothing to hide, and I'm sure it doesn't, there is nothing to stop it allowing the Upper House to investigate the sale. Of course, all this may well be too little, too late.

But with three months of this term of government still left to run, it may be time to show people what Labor can really do. After all, what has NSW Labor got left to lose?

LIBERALS ON DISMISSALS

2010-12-26T12:48:00.001+11:00

Tony Abbott's famous phrase, that WorkChoices was dead, buried and cremated may need a new coda according to this piece in The Age ...

Fire at will: Liberals flirt with no-fault sacking

Date: December 26 2010

Josh Gordon, The Age

SENIOR Liberals are ramping up a push for an industrial relations overhaul - including a no-fault dismissal system to end arbitration that decides the fairness of sackings.

Despite Tony Abbott's declaration that WorkChoices is ''dead, buried and cremated'', the Coalition's post-election policy review is working on an industrial relations policy to take to the next election to replace Labor's Fair Work system.

One plan is to replace unfair dismissal laws - blamed for discouraging small business employment - with a radical system modelled on the concept of no-fault divorce that replaced the antiquated Matrimonial Causes Act in 1975.

The idea has been floated by industrial relations consultant Grace Collier in a paper to be published next month in the IPA Review, the journal of the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

''Our current unfair dismissal system encourages Australians to behave like greedy whingers,'' Ms Collier writes. ''A no-fault dismissal system would set our heads right on the issue and provide for dignity of exit, allowing people to focus not on legal conflict but on managing departure in the chosen way whilst being encouraged to embrace the future opportunities that are always just around the corner.''

Under the proposal, being cautiously supported by influential Liberals, employers could sack workers with impunity, provided they offer compensation including a reasonable paid notice period, an assistance package and job transition services.

Ms Collier, a former unionist who now advises the hardline-conservative H.R. Nicholls Society, said a no-fault dismissal system would remove the need for costly legal argument to determine the fairness of a case, or whether it represented a redundancy or a dismissal.

Labor's new Fair Work system, which broadened unfair dismissal laws, triggered a 63 per cent increase in unfair dismissal applications in its first year, the paper says. ''Every working day, regardless of fairness, truth or the merits of their case, Australia employers collectively pay somewhere between $80,598.50 and $127,804.77 in 'go away money' simply to avoid government arbitration,'' it says. ''Is this a new tax on business and is anyone - other than employment lawyers - winning?''

Mr Abbott has been reluctant to revisit the industrial relations debate amid concerns it would be linked to WorkChoices, the Coalition policy that contributed to former prime minister John Howard's 2007 election demise. During the election campaign, Mr Abbott promised not to touch Labor's industrial laws for at least one term if he won.

But opposition industrial relations spokesman Eric Abetz, a recent guest at the H.R. Nicholls Society's annual dinner, in Melbourne, told The Sunday Age that although he did not want to comment on the merits of the proposal, ''it is a concept I would be willing to look at''.

Backbencher Liberals Stephen Ciobo and Jamie Briggs and frontbenchers Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb have also made comments in recent weeks suggesting a need for the party to reconnect with its history of industrial relations deregulation.

Mr Briggs, a former industrial relations adviser to John Howard, believed Ms Collier's idea would be part of the Coalition's policy review headed by Mr Robb.

''The current laws are badly flawed and they prevent people from getting a chance of a job,'' Mr Briggs said.

''The idea that Grace [Collier] has put up is something that will be discussed.''

IPA executive director John Roskam believed the system was now even less flexible than when the former Howard government took office in 1996, blaming it for creating a ''grievance culture''.

''There are clear problems with the current system and for the Liberal Party to stand back while these problems exist and while people are losing their jobs … is wrong,'' Mr Roskam said. ''The system should not be set in stone.''

This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited; its use here is for the purposes of fair dealing.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/fire-at-will-liberals-flirt-with-nofault-sacking-20101225-197jm.html

NEVER REVISIT HOWARD'S REFUGEE POLICIES

2010-12-21T13:10:00.001+11:00

We must never revisit the horror of Howard's policies

Amalina Wallace's Letter to the Editor, SMH, 21.12.10

Tony Abbott has described the Christmas Island boat disaster as an ''unspeakable horror'', and called for the reintroduction of the Howard government's policies. I am a former refugee decision-maker who has interviewed asylum seekers at Woomera, Port Hedland, Derby, Villawood, Nauru and Manus Island, and it is his words that fill me with unspeakable horror. The scenes I saw at Woomera and Manus Island in particular have left shocking memories of people who suffered cruelly.

Under the Howard government, Australia introduced a process of "screening out" refugee applicants, so that hundreds of people were put into legal limbo, denied access to lawyers and separated from family members, with no information about what happened to them or why.

The first time I entered Woomera, people were crying and screaming. An interpreter told me they were calling out "where am I?" "what's happening to me?", "when can I ring my family?" and "please help me".

The heat and harsh conditions led to significant mental problems, ranging from chronic depression and self-mutilation to hysteria and attempted suicide. I still recall the shock of interviewing people a few months after hundreds of decisions had been frozen at the end of 2001.

I had previously seen refugees with scars from cigarette burns or mutilated faces from torture in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan; now I was seeing people who were going mad. I interviewed a man with large, curved, thickened scars on his arms and torso, not from torture in one of Saddam Hussein's prisons, but from throwing himself repeatedly from the roof of a building at Woomera onto the razor wire. Some people were so chronically depressed they were unable to make it to the interview room, their chance of telling their story to gain release.

The people from the "children overboard" boat were tricked into going to Manus Island, where they were held in concrete bunkers left over from World War II, with water for cooking and bathing that had worms in it.

It is a huge error that such abuses were not investigated properly, and those responsible dealt with according to the law. By sweeping things under the carpet, no responsibility has been taken, and as a result politicians seek to further their ambitions by calling for the return of such a regime.

We must never forget what happened, and never allow it to happen again.

SIGN THE WIKILEAKS PETITION!!

2010-12-15T15:16:00.000+11:00

Red News Readers,

To sign the Get Up Wikileaks petition, go to the link:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/WikiLeaksWidget

Jenny Haines

NURSE RATIO IS DOUBLE SAFE LEVEL

2010-12-01T14:33:00.000+11:00

Nurse ratio is double safe level: union

Louise Hall, SMH.

December 1, 2010

NURSES in public hospitals are caring for up to eight patients each, double the ratio the nurses' union says is needed for safe patient care.

A study of staffing in 332 hospital wards, commissioned by the NSW Nurses Association, found the ratio in general wards at most major hospitals averaged one nurse to 5.3 patients.

However the number of patients assigned to each nurse varied widely, with those on evening shifts often caring for seven patients each, and those on nights looking after more than eight.

Advertisement: Story continues below The study, by nursing workforce experts at two Sydney universities, comes as the state government agreed to consider mandated staffing ratios in return for a halt to industrial action planned for today.

The minimum ratio sought for general wards at most major hospitals is one nurse for four patients plus a registered nurse (RN) in charge of morning and evening shifts. At night, the ratio could rise to one to seven.

The general secretary of the association, Brett Holmes, said: ''Just one extra person on a shift can make the difference between a ward coping really well and a situation where there's lots of near-misses.''

The Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbutt, has said staffing ratios are a ''blunt'' and ''inflexible'' tool to manage workloads when patients' need for care in hospitals varied widely. The current nursing award had a workload calculation tool to determine staffing levels based on several factors, including patients needing acute care.

However, the report's co-author, Christine Duffield, said the tool had become largely redundant since its limited introduction to wards in 2004.

Professor Duffield, the director of the Centre for Health Services Management at the University of Technology, Sydney, said ratios were important but it was vital that hospitals had the right ''skill mix'', the proportion of hours worked by the different classifications of nurses.

She warned that mandated ratios, if filled with higher proportions of enrolled nurses or assistants-in-nursing, would create a less safe environment for patients. Studies show a ward in which at least 85 per cent of staff are registered nurses will have lower rates of medication errors, falls, complications and deaths.

However, the survey found a skill mix as low as 46 per cent in some community hospitals.

Professor Duffield said the average skill mix of 66 per cent - with enrolled nurses or assistants-in-nursing making up the balance - reported in medical and surgical wards in second-tier hospitals such as Bankstown was also a concern.

PATIENTS BENEFIT FROM HIGHER STAFF LEVELS

2010-11-25T13:26:00.000+11:00

Patients benefit from higher staff levels

Julie Robotham, SMH

November 25, 2010

ADEQUATE numbers of well-qualified nurses make a demonstrable difference to the speed of patients' recovery and their likelihood of complications, a growing body of international research clearly shows.

In the latest study, published last month, researchers from the Connecticut Children's Medical Centre found premature babies in neonatal intensive care units achieved higher blood oxygen levels - linked to lower brain-damage risk - when there was a higher number of nurses to infants on the ward.

Earlier this year US doctors found intensive care patients were at higher risk of their ventilator tubes becoming dislodged if they were cared for at a ratio of one nurse to three patients instead of the more widely recommended 1:2.

Advertisement: Story continues below The NSW Nurses' Association's call for a ratio of 1:4 for most ordinary surgical and medical wards is based on a large survey of US hospital patients, by Linda Aiken from the University of Pennsylvania school of nursing.

Professor Aiken examined how patients nursed in a 1:4 ratio fared compared with those who shared one nurse between eight patients. She found people in the latter group were 30 per cent more likely to die.

But Christine Duffield, associate dean of research in nursing faculty of the University of Technology, Sydney, said the 1:4 recommendation, ''should only ever be the floor, not the ceiling,'' and higher numbers of more highly qualified nurses would inevitably benefit patients.

Professor Duffield's 2007 study of the state's nursing workforce found nurse-to-patient ratios were inconsistent between hospitals and across the working day - with as many as 12 patients for each registered nurse during the night shift.

But the situation was likely to have deteriorated since then, she said, because of NSW Health's policy of using a greater number of less-qualified enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing.

HOSPITALS FACE MORE ACTION

2010-11-25T13:24:00.000+11:00

Louise Hall, SMH, 25.11.10

NURSES have pledged to shut down hospital beds next week if the state government does not meet their demands for mandated nurse-to-patient ratios.

More than 4000 nurses walked off the job yesterday and voted unanimously to continue industrial action unless the government agrees to consider introducing nurse staffing ratios in medical, surgical, emergency and palliative care wards, rehabilitation and inpatient mental health units, operating theatres and community health.

The nurses' union says the mandated ratio of one nurse to every four patients introduced into Victorian hospitals 10 years ago resulted in a safer environment for patients, improved staff morale and reduced patient complaints.

Advertisement: Story continues below The assistant secretary of the NSW Nurses Association, Judith Kiejda, said while mandated staffing ratios were expensive to fund, Victorian hospitals ''have not gone broke''.

She accused the government of failing to meaningfully discuss the union's claim despite attempts to negotiate with NSW Health since June.

''If the government won't fund positions to appropriately staff the public health system, then we will reduce the public health system to cope with the staff they will pay for,'' Ms Kiejda.

Intensive care, critical care, paediatrics and oncology wards and emergency departments would be exempted from the industrial action, she said.

Yesterday's strike took place despite a ruling by the Industrial Relations Commission that it be called off and calls from the government for the nurses to return to the negotiating table.

The Health Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, said a wage rise of 3.9 per cent in the first year and 3 per cent in the second year was served on the association last month. The offer was based on continued use of a ''workload tool'' to determine staffing levels based on the number of patients on a ward and how sick they are.

''Ratios can be a very inflexible way of dealing with staffing and workload in a modern hospital,'' Ms Tebbutt said, but the government is ''willing to talk to nurses about all elements of their claim with regards to wages and conditions and workload''.

Yesterday's strike forced hospitals to defer about 500 patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery, NSW Health said. Of these, half have been given a new date before Christmas.

Ads by Google

NURSES AND PATIENTS NEED RATIOS

2010-11-25T13:01:00.000+11:00

Jenny Haines, former General Secretary,NSW Nurses Association 1982 to 1987.

NSW nurses need ratios. Nurses Australia-wide need ratios. Victoria has had ratios for the assessment of their nursing numbers per shift now for 10 years, and they successfully attracted 2650 nurses back to the nursing workforce in the first year of the ratios 2000/1.

The Californian Nurses Association, after a long running, and sometimes vindictive dispute with the Governator of Calfornia, Arne Scwharznegger, has ratios, and they in conjunction with nursing organizations in the other American states are taking their campaign for ratios nationwide. The Governator or Gropinator as the California Nurses call him, for his predeliction for close contact with women, tried at one point to close down the nurses registering body. Mind you, the California Nurses did try to sell Arne on eBay, and when it was pointed out to them that they couldn’t sell the Governator, they responded that he had already been bought and sold!!

Ratios in NSW will mean that medical surgical wards will be staffed according to the following ratios:

Morning shift: One nurse per four patients + RN in charge
Afternoon shift: One nurse per four patients + RN in charge
Night shift: One nurse per seven patients

The skill mix for each ward or unit will include a minimum of 85 per cent Registered Nurses for each shift. In terms of clinical support, the ratio specified above does not include the following positions or classifications: Nursing Unit Manager, Clinical Nurse Educator, Clinical Nurse Consultant, Nurse Practitioner, administrative support staff and wardspersons.

The current Secretary of the NSW Nurses Association Brett Holmes put it this way when launching the campaign for ratios in March 2010

"The extension of ratios into NSW is also a major initiative in terms of national healthcare reform. No real discussion about reform can occur without acknowledging the need to provide sufficient staff and funding for those required staffing levels. The issue goes to the heart of how any so-called national ‘efficient price' for a hospital service or procedure is set."

"Therefore, any work currently being done on costing public hospital services must develop scenarios that take this nurse-to-patient ratio claim into account. “

And patients need ratios. Patients need the reassurance that there is some science to the method of staffing wards and units and that it is not just based on whatever meager budget is left over for nurse staffing.

Those bureaucrats and politicians who go white at the mention of the cost of ratios for nurses - $400 million a year for the next 4 years - should consider this:

“Victoria’s public hospitals have recorded a combined financial surplus for the sixth successive year, Health Minister Daniel Andrews said today. “The hospital
annual reports, tabled in Parliament, confirm the Brumby Labor Government has positioned Victoria’s hospitals to continue delivering high quality services
to the community,” Mr Andrews said. “The hospitals are operating in surplus in the face of record demand.” (Statement by Victorian Health Minister, Daniel Andrews, 16 September 2010.)

Health system bureaucrats and politicians should also take into account the following factors:

1. The amount that has been saved by the downskilling of the nursing workforce over the last 10 -20 years.
2. The amount that has been saved through not providing adequate educational support to that downskilled workforce.
3. The amount that has been saved through the flattening of nursing management structures.
4. The amount that has been saved through the closure of too many beds in NSW.
5. The amount that has been saved through increased productivity and efficiency due to those bed closures and the need to expedite patient care within recommended guidelines.
6. The amount that has been saved through nurses working excessive overtime and never getting a chance to take time in lieu, which is supposed to be available under the award.
7. The amount that has been saved through the contracting out of ancillary services and the need for nurses to supervise the unskilled workers employed by the contractors.
8. The introduction of user pays for all services on hospital campuses and the costs to nurses for those services

The ratios are part of a wages and conditions package currently being negotiated by the NSW Nurses Association with the NSW government. There are to be as yet unspecified offsets in that package. I doubt that any of the above listed factors will be taken into consideration by NSW Health or the NSW Government, but they should stop and take notice of the enormous sacrifices being made by NSW nurses to keep the NSW health system running. It is just as well nurses are the nice people that they are. Wharfies and miners of old would have walked off the job years ago.

A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM

2010-11-12T11:45:00.000+11:00

Richar Ackland, 12.11.10, SMH.

The High Court in Canberra yesterday delivered two decisions that struck at the heart of Australia's most divisive and politically-pedalled fears: refugees and criminal gangs.

It was a big day for justice, freedoms and rights. As a consequence, you can be sure the political mugging will be even more unrestrained and distorted.

In the organised crime case, the court by a six-to-one majority struck down the key component of the South Australian bikies legislation. The reasoning was clear - the legislation sought to dictate what magistrates were required to do in implementing decisions of the state government.

This is an exhilarating warning to governments from the highest court - don't trample on the judicial patch.

The vice in the legislation was that it sought to turn courts into rubber-stamps for decisions of the attorney-general and police commissioner. Magistrates were required to sprinkle holy water over the executive's attempts to restrict people's freedom of association if they were deemed to be engaging in ''serious criminal activity'' (even if they weren't).

It was not so much the attempt to control people's freedom of association that concerned the High Court. After all, numerous bits of law do that. It was the obligation that the legislation imposed on the courts to make control orders at the behest of government that was so upsetting.

It goes to the heart of chapter three of the constitution, the provisions that guarantee the independence of the judiciary and quarantine the government of the day from making ''judicial decisions''.

At the moment, chapter three is all we have by way of a national charter of rights. It is limited and its application is far from consistent but in the past couple of years it has been relied on by the High Court in a number of provocative ways.

In February, the court put a big hole in the NSW Industrial Relations Act by striking down the provisions that removed the right to appeal its occupational health and safety decisions to the Supreme Court. In August last year, it struck down the Australian Military Court because the legislation required it to exercise judicial powers without there being proper constitutional underpinning. A year ago today, the court scuttled elements of the NSW criminal assets recovery legislation because it used the word ''must'' in insisting the Supreme Court make orders to restrain bank accounts and other assets without the affected person being put on notice.

NSW has a bikie case that is awaiting a hearing in the High Court. The South Australian act was supposed to be the ''model'' gangs law, and NSW rushed to draw on its framework after the bikie brawl at Sydney Airport in March last year. Even though the police already had sufficient powers to deal with criminals and criminal organisations, the government of ''Red Hot'' Nathan Rees wheeled out its anti-gangs act and got it through Parliament pretty smartly. It drew heavily on the language of the Howard era's terrorism laws, with control orders and decisions made by judges who were deemed ''eligible''. There's plenty of room for the High Court, if it's in the mood, to find that this law, too, flies in the face of the chapter three protections, but you just never know.

Who was the hold-out in the South Australia case? No surprises there - Justice Dyson Heydon, who is more conservative than the Duke of Wellington. His is the lengthiest and most fascinating judgment, and a variety of authorities are cited, including Lenin.

In the refugee case, the court (unanimously) said that the offshore processing of asylum seekers had to be conducted with procedural fairness and according to law. The fact that the former immigration minister Philip Ruddock had tried to deny legal rights to possible refugees by containing them in black holes like Christmas Island did not excuse the ministerial obligation to observe binding decisions of the Australian courts or the Migration Act itself.

Ruddock's invention, we recently discovered, was the result of some creative discussion around his family dinner table.

Already the court's decision is being flagged by the ''stop the boats'' brigade as an open invitation to asylum seekers and people smugglers to overrun our borders.

Not quite. The broader challenges to the Migration Act and the minister's discretion on granting protection visas were not upheld.

The way in which chapter three and rules of procedural fairness are applied by the High Court are far from consistent. After all, the court has held that it is perfectly legal to lock up a person indefinitely without charge. It has also held that secret evidence can be used by courts to make decisions and that can be done without showing the evidence to the party adversely affected and having it properly tested.

Chief Justice James Spigelman of NSW, who would have been chief justice of the High Court had it not been for Kevin Rudd, said something last month that we all know, but least expect judges to say publicly: ''It is all too easy to dress up a conclusion, reached on other grounds, by selecting from the smorgasbord of maxims and principles of interpretation those which assist the achievement of the predetermined result.''

Yesterday was an emphatic statement by the High Court led by Robert French. Further, ministers ignore the law and the judges at their peril. That both major decisions were scheduled to come thudding down from on high on the same day rubs in the points even more forcefully.

justinian@lawpress.com.au

JUDGES SAFEGUARD LIBERTY

2010-11-12T11:30:00.000+11:00

David Marr

SMH, 12.11.10,

UNANIMOUS decisions of the High Court are never an accident. Only every decade or so do all seven judges speak with a single voice on big issues of principle. It's their way of sending a blunt message to government. Their support for the Tamil asylum seekers M61 and M69 lays down the law about fair dealing for all refugees. But underneath it's about safeguarding liberty.

Everything in the case turned on the fact that they - like all boat people since mandatory detention was introduced by the Keating government in 1992 - were deprived of their liberty while their claims were assessed. One way of boiling down this dramatic decision to its essentials is this: the High Court will ensure the courts are always there to see that liberty is only lost according to law.

The judges appear to be making amends for what is widely regarded as one of the High Court's worst decisions. Five years ago a majority of the judges decided Ahmed Ali Al-Kateb, a Palestinian whose claim for refugee protection had been rejected, could be held in Australia in immigration detention for the rest of his life if no other country would take him off our hands. So shocking was that conclusion, that Al-Kateb was released from detention by the Howard government. They could not live with a rule they themselves had asked the court to make. Al-Kateb has since become an Australian citizen. But his name is in the law books marking an embarrassing low point in the High Court's valuation of liberty.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Asylum Seekers are transported to Christmas Island by barge. Photo: Allison Millcock

The tone and approach of the judges to the predicament of M61 and M69 could not have been more different. This was all about setting limits on governments acting alone to deprive people of their liberty.

A little history is required at this point. Back in 2001, Australia set up a deliberately second-class system for assessing refugee claims by boat people. About 14,000 have gone through that system which has never been fundamentally challenged until now. The architects of the scheme tried to exclude the courts by separating as far as legally possible the assessment of claims from the minister's role in granting visas. Assessments of visa claims were said to be "non statutory" investigations - hence outside the control of the courts - and only once they were complete did the minister enter the picture. Whether he granted a visa at that point was something said to be absolutely at his personal discretion. Once again, the courts were supposed to be excluded.

They might work, said the court, except that while each case was going on - and here the judges used italics to indicate the crucial importance of these few words - "the claimant was detained". And that changes everything. Loss of liberty, said the seven judges, can only be for lawful purposes. No one can be detained in ways beyond the supervision of the courts.

Technically, the High Court collapsed the distance between the assessors and the minister. The court found that despite claims to the contrary, the minister was there at the start directing the assessors to do their work. They are not independent of the law but caught up in the machinery of the Migration Act. The work of the assessors - but not the minister - can therefore be directed by the courts.

The ultimate upshot? Shock, horror: all asylum seekers have to be dealt with fairly and according to law. And governments of all persuasions are on notice that the court now takes far more seriously its traditional role as guardian of liberty.

MAINLAND DETAINEES

Darwin detention: 449

Alternative accommodation in Darwin: 448

Sydney detention: 164

Alternative accommodation: 29

Melbourne detention: 19

Alternative accommodation: 41

Brisbane detention 38

Alternative accommodation: 87

Weipa Qld detention: 291

Perth detention: 33

Alternative accommodation: 23

Leonora, WA, detention 199

Curtin, WA, detention 747

Port Augusta detention 59

Adelaide alternative accommodation: 2

* Alternative accommodation includes community detention and transit housing

SOURCE: IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AS AT NOVEMBER 5

Poll: Do you think asylum seekers who approach Australia by boat and are processed offshore should have access to Australian courts?
Poll form
Please select an answer.
Yes
No

View results

Yes69%
No31%
Total votes: 2243.

Would you like to vote? You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.

Poll closes in 3 days.
Disclaimer:
These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

NURSES PROTEST OVER BASHING

2010-10-22T13:01:00.000+11:00

Well may these nurses protest but they are several years too late, and so is the union. The decision made to mainstream mental health clients into the general hospital system was made by NSW Health knowing that there was a desperate shortage of registered nurses who were specialised in the care of the mentally ill and knowing that their facilities were not the best for the numbers of clients that were going to be processed through them. It appears that this nurse was working alone at night in contravention of NSW Health Policy. If we are ever to have enough nurses working in mental health services we need immediate action to address the very low numbers of nurses choosing mental health as their specialty. Why not build on the success midwifery has had with its direct entry bachelor's degree and have a direct entry mental health degree?

Jenny Haines

Nurses protest over bashing

Kate Benson

October 22, 2010, SMH

NURSES are considering taking legal action against the Health Department after a staff member was bashed by a psychiatric patient.

Nurses at Blacktown Hospital will hold a rally to demand the psychiatric emergency care centre be closed because it is inadequately staffed and its design makes it difficult for staff to escape dangerous confrontations.

They say the hospital's 34-bed mental health unit, where the emergency care centre is located, has 10 fewer nurses than it needs to be safe.

Advertisement: Story continues below ''By any decent standard this unit is understaffed and now a nurse on her own has been brutally assaulted, by a seriously ill patient, in a staff room from which she had no alternative escape route once trapped inside the one-door room,'' the general secretary of the NSW Nurses Association, Brett Holmes, said.

The assault on the nurse, who did not want to be named, happened two weeks ago after a patient asked to use the phone at 4am. She was dragged from behind the desk, punched and kicked in the head, face and ribs. She is on stress leave and is not expected to return to work until next year.

The union organiser for the area, Michael Whaites, said a doctor had also been seriously assaulted at the centre two years ago. ''There's no second exit point. The staff do carry duress alarms but management is now looking at whether that's appropriate.''

He said the union was deciding if it should prosecute the Health Department for putting staff in danger, but was concerned that once the unit was closed, NSW Health would withdraw funding for several nurses, which would cause bigger problems. The protest rally will be held on Wednesday.

HEALTH GAP WIDENS

2010-09-27T12:10:00.002+10:00

Call for greater social reform as health gap widens

Mark Metherell, smh

September 27, 2010
.
Source: CHA-NATSEM Report on Health Inequalities.

The Rudd government's health reforms failed to focus on what a new report shows is the biggest factor in death and disease in Australia - social and economic disadvantage.

An analysis commissioned by Catholic Health Australia has found that the 20 per cent of Australians on the lowest incomes died on average three years earlier than others because of illness caused by unhealthy lifestyles.

The most disadvantaged people were in some cases four or five times more likely to suffer chronic illness than the comfortably-off, the report found.

Martin Laverty, the group's chief executive, called on the new Parliament to press for renewed focus on improved early childhood support, education and welfare for disadvantaged people - an emphasis lacking in the Rudd reforms.

''Health reform in the last term of government focused on hospitals, not the drivers that cause people to end up in hospitals,'' Mr Laverty said. ''The then prime minister, Kevin Rudd, missed a major opportunity and left many health professionals disappointed with the health reforms.

''If this Parliament does not act on preventive and social determinants of health, health reforms will not be achieved.''

The analysis by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at Canberra University found the health gaps between the poor and well-off were often very large. Up to 65 per cent of people in public housing had long-term health problems compared with only 15 per cent of home owners.

More than 60 per cent of men in jobless households reported having a long-term health condition or disability, and more than 40 per cent of women.

Obesity rates were about three times higher among those in public housing than home owners. High-risk drinking among early school leavers was double the rate of those with a tertiary qualification. ''This is not about access to health services,'' Mr Laverty said. ''There is strong evidence that social determinants of health - such as income level, housing status and education level - are the factors more responsible for health inequities.'' The close links between low socio-economic status, illness and harmful lifestyles like smoking and unhealthy diet showed that more preventive health television campaigns would not solve the problem. ''This report shows that policies targeting behavioural change do not work,'' Mr Laverty said.

The health reforms now being implemented by the Gillard government needed to use the proposed new structures such as the local hospital networks and ''Medicare local'' organisations to assess health needs and advocate improvements in early childhood services, schooling and welfare support where necessary, he said. Any suggestion that the health reform was complete was wrong. ''It is far from it,'' Mr Laverty said.

The report, supported by the St Vincent de Paul Society and Catholic Social Services Australia, showed that thinking on health equity had to change, said Father Frank Brennan of the Australian Catholic University and Tony Wheeler, chairman of Catholic Health Australia's stewardship board.

''We have failed as a nation to properly consider the root causes of most illness and disease,'' they say in the report

STRIKE WAVE IN CHINA

2010-09-11T16:37:00.000+10:00

STRIKE WAVE STRENGTHENS LABOUR’S HAND
IN DRIVING A SOCIALIST PATHWAY OF DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA

by Wayne Sonter

A wave of strikes swept through China between May and July 2010, centred on, but not confined to the rapidly growing auto industry.

The strikes were triggered by a dozen suicides at the monstrous Foxconn plant in Shenzhen, where Apple iphones are made and hundreds of thousands of workers, nearly all young migrants from rural areas, work 60 or more hours a week in a sprawling complex of factories, under military-style management.(1)

Foxconn’s attitude towards its employers, typically, is that, “They are here to make money, of course they have to work hard. If they want a good life here, they will have to work hard for it. It's natural.” (2)

The suicides provoked sympathy and shame throughout China and stirred fellow migrant workers to take action, first at the Honda transmission plant at Foshan, (3) then at other plants owned by Honda, Toyota and Hyundai and their supplier firms (4)

The strikes mark a period of unrest and unsettled labour relations in China, as workers seek to wrest to themselves a ‘fairer’ share of the social product they create and to lessen their exploitation. As a striking worker at the Honda Lock plant (Zhongshan, Guangdong) stated:

China! It has been promoting low-cost competition and cheap labour. Our GDP keeps growing! However, this growth relies on exploiting our cheap labour. We have created all this wealth but only get very low wages in return.… Don’t we deserve to get better pay? With such deplorable wages, just how are we going to raise the overall level of our national economy? (5)

Those in revolt are the second generation of China’s ‘new’ industrial working class, created by China’s phenomenal economic growth in the last three decades, where hundreds of millions of people have moved from country to city seeking work, feeding a growth of 400 million people in China’s cities in the past 25 years.

They come to places like the Pearl River delta in Guangdong ‘one of the world’s densest industrial estates’ with its broad, low factories and ‘thickets’ of six-storey dormitories. Turnover of workers is high and most are young, few older than their early twenties and many still in their teens. Many manufacturing workers are women and almost all in the affected factories in Guangdong have attended vocational schools, meaning they have a relatively high level of education. (6).

These young workers are determined not to sacrifice their lives like their parents did, but to make a better life:

Our parents have suffered from this cheap labour market and now they are getting old. And now, do we, the post 1980 and 1990 generation, want to follow in footsteps of our parents? I believe no parent wants this. It is because they all once walked down this road and know how hard it is. We do not want to go this way either. Times have changed! So this kind of cheap labour regime must end! (7)

They are also more spirited, and combative in advancing their interests:(8)

“We are not as cowardly and afraid of trouble (as the older workers)”, said … a cheerful 20-year-old factory girl wearing a pink dress, gently mock(ing) an older colleague in his 30s who was among a group of around 10 others gathered in her room. "We don't think so much about things," she laughed. "The risk is worth taking. Now we've started, we must finish it." (9)

With modern information-technology the new generation of workers find it easy to discover, through school networks, mobile phones and internet bulletin boards what is happening from factory to factory. This fed into the strike wave, sweeping across industry and from employer to employer, in increasingly conscious industry wide action that indicates a capability to take action to a more general level.

China’s new labour laws have made it easier for workers to organise and bargain with their employer, and the huge debate among workers and in the media before they became law in 2008, raised expectations that they would provide workers better protection. (10)

But the strikes also exposed the inadequacy of the All China Federation of Trade Unions as a voice for labour, and the comprador role local governments play in backing capital in disputes with labour. As Anita Chan, University of Technology, Sydney, reported in the China Daily:
‘during the Honda strike, in the eyes of the workers the union was “useless” because it “blatantly sided with the local government, which in turn was on the side of the employer.”’ (1)

Employers and local governments have routinely appointed workplace delegates, with ACFTU compliance:

The ACFTU has for many years had “a policy of urging workplace unions to sign collective contracts with managements” and … the government supports “an enlarged trade union role” in negotiating contracts with management … however, in foreign-invested enterprises in the Pearl River Delta region in Guangdong, workers’ representatives are appointed by local governments and are expected to support their localities’ quest for foreign investment. (12)

The top levels of the Communist Party of China (CPC) are recognising the vital role of the young, migrant workforce for China’s future and the justice of their demands on employers for higher wages and better conditions. No less a figure than Chinese Premier, Wen Jibao recently told migrant workers in Beijing:

“You are the main army of the contemporary Chinese industrial workforce. Our wealth and our tall buildings are all distillations of your hard work and sweat. Your labour is a glorious thing, and it should be respected by society. The government and all parts of society should treat young migrant workers as they would treat their own children.” (13)

Yang Shiming, vice-minister for human resources and social security, reported to the National People’s Congress on the need to safeguard migrant workers rights and improve their working conditions, (14) while Wang Yang, the highest government leader in Guangdong, has encouraged the Guangdong trade union federation to “democratize” the trade union by experimenting with election of local trade union leaders. (15)

Some reports claim the words from senior CPC figures are backed by militia ready to enforce civil order. Their warnings almost welcome the prospect of suppression of workers revolt to ‘prove’ the system has failed, or capitalist restoration is complete. (16), (17), (18).

Some also read into these developments the possibility of a ‘solidarnosc’ type workers movement in China, or on the other hand are critical of the extent to which present developments are not leading to ‘independent’ trade unions. (19)

Nonetheless, young workers are directly taking power into their hands through strike action in the workplace, adding to pressure within the ACFTU to start to allow and encourage workers to directly elect workplace committees and representatives, rather than appoint them by the ‘usual’ methods:

“… under the impetus of the workers’ self-organization in the auto parts industry … President of Guangdong Federation of Trade Unions, Deng Weilong, announced creation of a trade union legal services department to represent workers and activists. He also announced the union’s intention to conduct democratic elections to replace management officials with workers as union chairpersons in workplace unions. The Vice-Chair of Guangdong Federation of Trade unions, Kong Xianghong … defended the legal rights of workers to conduct economic strikes. Unions must listen to the workers, support their legitimate demands and aspirations through collective bargaining.” (20)

Workers using their rights to organise in the workplace, accords with China’s constitution and is also the most likely and direct way to empower unions and through an ‘all-china federation’ extend workers’ power across the workforce. In other words, workers, using their collective power, can make the ACFTU itself a more effective force for developing the working class’s organising and management capability at workplace, industry and economy levels. The extent to which they can do this indicates how far the present framework can support an evolving social democracy. Such understanding seemed to emerge among ACFTU officials, in the course of the strikes:

The first strike at the Nanhai Honda Auto Parts transmission plant in Foshan City succeeded in winning wage increases for both “student interns” and permanent workers through courageous actions and strategically sound tactics, but had to overcome violent strike-breaking efforts by Nanhai district trade union officers sent by the local government. Nanhai workers elected their own bargaining representatives and demanded the right to elect their own enterprise union chairperson.... a fair election procedure has been promised them by … the Guangdong provincial trade union federation …

A wave of strikes triggered by the success of the Nanhai strike swept parts plants producing for Honda, Toyota and Hyundai, with roughly similar outcomes, negotiations resulting in major wage increases and promises that workers will have the right to select their local union officers in the future. Generally the striking workers regarded the enterprise and higher level trade unions as useless or irrelevant. At the Honda Lock plant at Zhongshan, after the strike faltered when management brought in scabs and threatened strikers with dismissal, some frustrated strike leaders were reported in the New York Times to be calling for an independent trade union.

However when the strike wave reached Honda Nansha in Guangzhou, the municipal trade union federation reacted positively and pro-actively. The trade union leadership encouraged election of worker representatives to participate in bargaining, and made a public statement that the union would be on the workers’ side and represent their interests. When the local labor bureau officer asked the local union to serve its traditional role as “mediator” in the dispute between workers and management, the trade union officer refused and insisted the government’s labor bureau play that role. The union official even resisted the customary “vetting” of the elected chairperson of the worker representatives by the local police.’ (21)

The Chinese actions are already inspiring workers around the world. For example Ken Lewenza, President, Canadian Auto Workers Union, whose members work for many of the same employers as do Chinese workers, has called for popular forces to look to Chinese strikers for hope:

“Chinese autoworkers who, against all odds and possibly severe repercussions, took to the streets in protest over insufficient wages and poor working conditions … exemplify the principles and fearless spirit of trade unionism … A strong, independent and united Chinese trade union movement can support and inspire unions and workers' movements globally … (22)

Support for the striking workers has come from within China and internationally, (23), (24), (25), including from veteran communists who have called on the ACFTU to clearly stand on the workers’ side and for the CPC to uphold the constitution and its basic principles, by restoring the working class to its leading position and socialist public ownership to its central role in the national economy. (26)

The upsurge in militancy amongst China’s workers is part of an emerging, world-wide ferment of discontent following the 2008-09 Global Financial Crisis (GFC), whose costs the world capitalist class blatantly intends to shove onto workers.

The global auto industry is a case in point. It has undergone an extended period of rationalisation, accelerated by the GFC and recession. Automakers are rushing to China both to exploit a ‘competitive’ labour market and to be inside the world’s largest and fastest growing new car market (27)

In doing this the global corporates have ruthlessly squeezed labour costs, driving hard bargains to enforce brutal work conditions on their own employees and forcing down to the bare bone the prices they give contractors, who are then doubly driven to undercut labour to the maximum extent. Many contracting firms work on margins of less than 5 per cent, so cannot afford any real increases in costs of labour.(28).

The current wave of strikes has succeeded in revealing to China’s young workers their power, particularly when they assert it against powerful multinational corporations in growth sectors of the economy.
They perceive that they are fighting for socialism, and opposing capitalism, which they equate with exploitation by global corporations:
Honda is a Japanese company and Japan is a capitalist country. But China is supposed to be a socialist country! The Japanese companies investing in China must follow the rules of China. Implement socialism! Do not give us capitalism! (29)

This is a new development. Industrial strife has simmered for the whole period of downsizing, bankruptcy and rationalisation of public sector industry, but labour is now exercising its power in an expanding industry sector, linked integrally to the global economy.

Challenges for a socialist pathway

This eruption of strikes starkly highlights some of China’s challenges in strengthening workers’ democracy and forging a socialist pathway of development.

Many features of the Chinese state are contradictory. The 2008 labour laws may have increased labour’s power to organise, but the 2004 Congress’s amendments to the constitution also protected private ownership of property and wealth, permitted private entrepreneurs to join the CPC and recognised the merit of ‘progressive’ capitalists among its principles. (30), (31)

Development in China since the 1980s has generated great inequality and a very wealthy elite, creating a potentially explosive situation. According to an article in The People’s Daily, quoted in the China Labour Bulletin:
“China’s Gini Coefficient, … an index that measures inequality, clocks in at 0.47 – very close to the 0.5 marker, which often signals risk of instability. … from 1997 to 2007 labour remuneration as a percentage of GDP went from 53.4 per cent to 39.74 per cent. Workers weren’t the only ones to lose ground. … In 1978 urban per capita income was 2.78 times higher than rural income. By 2009 that gap had widened to 3.33. Also, in cities, the richest 10 per cent controlled 45 per cent of the wealth, while the poorest 10 per cent only had 1.4 per cent. (32)

To the extent the top echelons of the party are founding dynasties who own private and privatised productive assets, work closely with foreign investors to ratchet up economic growth, and have inheritance rights, there is a mortal danger of the state turning into an apparatus that serves a capitalist class, one that concedes to workers only what it must, to maintain stability and growth of consumption in a market economy (33).

China’s last three decades can be characterised as a form of a New Economic Policy (NEP), as well as a sort of ‘market socialism’. It invites comparison with the early Soviet Union, when the young revolution needed a massive infusion of capital to develop industry and improve living standards, and also with the ‘marketisation’ that years later helped collapse the Soviet Union and the Comecon countries.

Lenin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union saw great danger arising from the influx of global financial and industrial capital into a young socialist state economy. Lenin stressed that capital flowing into the economy had to be accompanied by a maximisation of labour’s rights and resources, so it could resist superexploitation, exert a controlling force in workplace and industry and continue to develop its social-economic role:
“(where) a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control, are now being permitted and are developing; (and) state enterprises are being put on what is called a profit basis, i.e., they are in effect being largely reorganised on commercial and capitalist lines … (then) one of the main tasks that will henceforth confront the trade unions is to protect in every way the class interests of the proletariat in its struggle against capital. This task should be openly put in the forefront, and the machinery of the trade unions must be reorganised, modified or supplemented accordingly … (34)

Where now for workers?

The revolt by young Chinese workers has inspired labour around the world. Their actions have reverberated among corporate and ruling circles in a time of global ferment and discontent with the capitalist system.
Their decisive action has hastened increases in the minimum wage in provinces throughout China, (35) in a situation where, according to the ACFTU a quarter of Chinese workers had not had a pay rise in the previous five years (36)

Their commitment and strategic thinking is forcing the ACFTU towards accepting a more representative unionism in the workplace and to taking on a new role as labour ‘advocates’ rather than ‘mediators’ between labour and capital; and gained recognition from government of their vital role in the economy and the justice of their case.

Given this, workers’ gains in some cases were little more than the minimum wage increases municipal and provincial governments are now setting. Employers have reneged on deals once the strikers were back at work, intensified work and ramped up costs and penalties for employees. They are accelerating automation, seeking lower cost immigrant labour and preparing to move to lower cost labour markets –provincial China and lower wage countries such as Vietnam, Bangla Desh and Cambodia. (37).

Employers – especially foreign investment enterprises – are accustomed to, expect and demand that the Chinese government protects their investments in China. They perceive a common interest between businesses, both foreign and domestic, and governments seeking stability. On the other hand, those workers who have recently taken direct action against global corporations are a ‘thin sliver’ of China’s total workforce. They need to be vigilant, connected and organised to maintain their gains, avoid isolation and counter these pressures.

China employs a fifth of the global workforce. Its economy is inextricably part of the global market economy. The Chinese workers’ long march to emancipation against the forces of imperialism, including their own emerging capitalist class, is of vital concern to the global workforce. The labour movement worldwide needs to work in solidarity with China’s workers if it is to effectively challenge imperialism and the world capitalist class, transform society and bring about a civilised future for humanity.

Footnotes
1. ‘Billionaire Terry Gou sweats in fallout over 10 Hon Hai suicides’ Jason Dean and Ting-I Tsai, The Wall Street Journal May 27, 2010 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/billionaire-terry-gou-sweats-in-fallout-over-10-hon-hai-suicides/story-e6frg90x-1225872003166
2. ‘Special Report: China's new migrant workers pushing the line’ By James Pomfret and Kelvin Soh, Reuters, Mon Jul 5, 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6640QD20100705
3. ‘Honda Strikers Victorious in China’ Paul Garver, Talking Union, posted June 7, 2010. http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/honda-strikers-victorious-in-china/
4. ‘Auto Strikes Open Up Space for Union Reform in China’ Paul Garver, ibid, posted July 7, 2010 http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/auto-strikes-open-up-space-for-union-reform-in-china/
5. ‘A Honda Worker in China Speaks Out at Close of Historic Strike’, Labor Notes Staff, 06/02/2010. http://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2010/06/honda-worker-china-speaks-out-close-historic-strike
6. ‘Workers in China grasp the power of the strike’ Jonathan Watts, The Observer, Sunday 4 July 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/04/workers-china-power-strike-communist
7. ibid. ‘A Honda Worker in China Speaks Out …’
8. ‘China takes hands-off approach to labour strikes’ AP, Monday June 28, 2010. http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/6/28/business/20100628115055&sec=business
9. ibid. ‘Special Report: China's new migrant workers pushing the line’
10. ibid. ‘China takes hands-off approach to labour strikes’
11. ‘Labor unrest and role of unions’, Anita Chan, China Daily, 18 June 2010 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-06/18/content_9987347.htm
12. ‘The New Challenge of the Strikes Won’t Go Away’ Stanley Lubman, Wall Street Journal July 11, 2010, http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/07/11/the-new-challenge-of-the-strikes-wont-go-away/
13. ‘Echoes of workers’ struggle in apartheid-era South Africa in China’s factories today’, Geoff's blog China Labour Bulletin, June 14 2010. http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100805
14. ‘China's migrant workers see some gains on labor rights’, Violet Law, June 30, 2010, Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0630/China-s-migrant-workers-see-some-gains-on-labor-rights/%28page%29/2
15. ibid. ‘Auto Strikes Open up …’
16. ‘As Chinese premier urges “respect” for workers, police prepare crackdown’, John Chan, 18 June 2010,World Socialist Website.http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jun2010/chin-j18.shtml
17. ‘China strikers bypass union, organize with social media’, Michelle Phillips, June 27, 2010, Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/27/china-strikers-bypass-union-organize-social-media/
18. ‘UPDATE 1-Striking workers at Honda China supplier demand apology’, Doug Young; Fri Jul 16, 2010, Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE66F0BD20100716
19. .ibid. ‘Special Report: China's new migrant workers pushing the line’ “But the Communist Party, which traces its own heritage to a worker's movement, has faced a policy tightrope. It must also ensure that strikes don't proliferate and scare investors or ignite broader political confrontation that erodes Party rule. Few workers blame the government for low wages, but more and more say higher pay and a larger share of China's economic pie are only fair.
While the past few years have seen bargaining power shift in labor's favor, it's virtually unthinkable that Beijing would allow workers to form independent unions along the lines of those found in Japan or South Korea, which might undermine its one-party power. When workers of struggling state-owned factories in northeast China organized protests and voiced political demands in 2002, authorities arrested the leaders and jailed them on charges of political subversion.
China's leaders have studied the lessons from Poland's solidarity movement led by Lech Walesa, which saw an independent trade union morph into a powerful opposition force that played a key role in the downfall of Communism there and in other Eastern bloc countries.
20. ‘Auto Strikes Open Up Space for Union Reform in China’ ibid.
21. . ibid. ‘Auto Strikes Open up …’
22. ‘Look to Chinese strikers for hope’ Ken Lewenza, Jun 25 2010, The Star. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/828268--look-to-chinese-strikers-for-hope
22. ‘Time to defend Chinese workers' rights’ Li Hong, June 07, 2010, People’s Daily. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90002/96743/7014872.html
23. ‘Support Honda Workers in Foshan China’, 3 June 2010, Chinese Workers Research Network. http://chinastudygroup.net/2010/06/support-honda-workers-in-foshan-china/
24. Follow the Lead of China’s Strikers’, Jim Stanford June 27, 2010 http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2010/06/27/follow-the-lead-of-chinas-strikers/
25. ‘[Worldwide Scholars Petition]: Support Honda Workers in Foshan China’ Fri, 06/04/2010 China Labour Net http://worldlabour.org/eng/node/358
26. ‘Position Statement of Old Revolutionaries on Present Upsurge of Worker Action in China’ 13 June 2010, Li Chengrui, et al. http://chinastudygroup.net/2010/06/old-revolutionaries-on-the-present-upsurge/
27. Automotive industry, Worldwide Trends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry
28. ‘Apple's iPhone supply chain faces sharply increasing costs in China’ Josh Ong, 7 July 2010 http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/06/apples_iphone_supply_chain_faces_sharply_increasing_costs_in_china.html Also: ‘Secrets, Lies, And Sweatshops’ Business Week, 27 Nov, 2006
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_48/b4011001.htm
29. ibid. ‘A Honda Worker in China Speaks Out at Close of Historic Strike’
30. ‘Major Amendments to the Constitution’ China Through A Lens March 16, 2004 http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/90056.htm
31. ‘Chinese regime amends constitution to protect private ownership’, John Chan, 2 April 2004 World Socialist Website’ http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/npc-a02.shtml
32. ‘People’s Daily cites gap between rich and poor as most pressing issue in China, but solution still elusive’, william's blog 13 Jul 2010, China Labour Bulletin. http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100824
33. ‘In Who’s Interest does the State in China Serve and Why’ Mark Vorpahl, July 2, 2010 http://www.workerscompass.org/vorpahl_07-02-2010.html
34. ‘Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of the Trade Unions under the New Economic Policy’, V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, 1971. http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/DRTU21.html
35. ‘Provinces across China raise minimum wages’ People’s Daily, August 18, 2010 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90862/7108404.html Also:
‘China Provinces Raise Minimum Wages to Curb Disputes’ Business Week July 01, 2010 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-01/china-provinces-raise-minimum-wages-to-curb-disputes.html
36. ‘ACFTU: SOE senior Executives earn 18 times higher than grassroots workers’ People’s Daily, March 10, 2010 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6915167.html
37. ‘With Lower Garment-worker Pay, Bangladesh Moves In On China’Vikas Bajaj, Manilla Bulletin July 22, 2010 http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/268210/with-lower-garmentworker-pay-bangladesh-moves-in-on-china

BOB KATTER IS NOT MAD!

2010-09-02T18:04:00.002+10:00

Bob Katter is not mad. Just because he is able to offer a sustained and valid attack on the economic orthodoxies of our age, he is called mad! How dare he suggest that capitalism does not deliver for farmers and rural workers. How dare he remind those who have grown fat and rich, those who preach globalisation, economic rationalisation, and the dominance of the market economy, that after 12 years of Liberal Coalition Government there was one farmer suiciding in Australia every four days. How dare he fight to defend the members of his constituency by opposing the mining tax and advocating the greater use of ethanol for fuel. I disagree with him on the mining tax, but I defend his right to his view. Bob Katter has been returned to parliament by his constituency 7 times. How many other politicians can claim that? He is not mad, he is a politician doing his job for his electorate, however uniquely, and somewhat eccentrically.

Jenny Haines

CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM - A DANCE IN DUALITY

2010-08-25T13:37:00.001+10:00

Lucy Turnbull recently wrote a think piece in the Sydney Morning Herald triumphantly declaring that despite the Global Financial Crisis and the market excesses that led to that crisis, that capitalism is the only viable system we have for organising our economies. Well Lucy, I wonder if that is what those who survive by scrabbling for food in rubbish heaps in the Phillipines think? Or those in the townships in South Africa who have been waiting now for a very long time for better housing, education and health services? Or those in rural Australia who don’t get heard in the babble of an election contest when they try to talk about real issues, but the electorate is too busy wondering about Julia’s hair and Tony’s ears.? Bob Katter should have shaken the apologists for capitalism with his recent statement that after 12 years of Coalition Government implementing an economic rationalist and deregulatory agenda, there was a farmer suiciding every four days. What a great triumph for capitalism!

History tells us that capitalism is nothing without its opposite, socialism. Capitalism and Socialism should live in a perpetual duality, a balance. Socialism tempers capitalist excess. Capitalism can temper Socialism. Abolish, crush, abandon socialist ideas, and capitalist excess flourishes. Lucy simplistically talks about socialism as the command economies of Stalinism, but socialism takes many more forms and philosophies than the oppression of Stalinism. Interestingly in the first few years after the Russian Revolution, before the terrors of Stalinism took hold, the economy flourished, not just through the efforts of local Russian industrial, post war reconstruction but because of the co-operation with American and European Business. Not many people now remember that Henry Ford had a car factory in the Soviet Union in the 1920 and 1930s. The prosperity of the post war co-operative reconstruction was blown away by the terrible and stupid mistakes of Stalinism and the terror economy.

But socialism is much much more than this. Socialist ideas inspired the early trade unionists, and still inspire them today. Trade unionists know that they need a political party to take their demands forward in the realm of government, and so the Labor Party was formed. Socialist ideas underpin the formation of the Green Party. Small liberals in the Liiberal National Coalition espouse socialist ideas when they support welfare for the aged or single mothers. Without the regulation that socialism requires to achieve social objectives over economic rationalist objectives, deregulation allows the sharks and shonks of capitalism to rip people off. Greed is not good! And there is a price to pay down the track for all that greed, and we are now paying it. And there is more to come. The Global Financial Crisis is not yet over. On Four Corners on Monday 23rd August 2010, we were reminded that we are now living in the biggest bubble of all time. The PIGS countries, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are using borrowed monies to repay debts. The bubble is expanding. It is going to blow. And we are going to see the worst recession, if not depression since the Great Depression. And as Franklin Roosevelt taught us, the only way out of the coming recession or depression is the implementing of socialist based ideas and programs.

It is not fashionable to talk about socialism these days as the horrors of Stalinism in the 20th century equate socialism with death, destruction and economic decay. But socialism survives in all its inspirations and its forms. It must be defended, and so we must fight for the rightful place of unions in our society, and the achievement of the social democratic objectives of the left of centre political parties. The capitalist agenda of economic rationalism, globalisation and productivity and efficiency as the basis of the distribution of wealth have led us into the recent Global Financial Crisis and the coming Crisis. Unless we recognise the duality of Capitalism and Socialism there is a lot more pain in our economic life to come

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/capitalism-is-still-the-only-system-that-works-20100808-11q55.html

WE ARE ALL BOAT PEOPLE - BOB HAWKE

2010-08-13T14:37:00.002+10:00

Yahoo 7 News, 13.8.10

Bob Hawke says there is no way to "stop the boats" as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has claimed he will do to the asylum-seeking craft regularly arriving on islands off Australia's north-west coast.

The former Labor prime minister repeated his attack on Mr Abbott describing him as "mad as a cut snake" and said Australia needed people like those arriving by boat to claim asylum because they had initiative and courage.

Mr Hawke offered a range of thoughts across many issues to a Financial Services Council conference in Melbourne on Friday.

Mr Hawke admitted he had early concerns about Prime Minister Julia Gillard's re-election prospects but believed the Labor campaign was looking up for her now.

He also said there was no way to "stop the boats" as Mr Abbott has promised.

"We're all bloody boat people," he said.

"That's how we found the place."

Mr Hawke said he understood the frustration of many voters at "queue jumpers", but said "we have to look at the other side of the coin".

He said the coalition's approach to the boat people question was "nonsense".

"We cannot turn the boats back," Mr Hawke said.

"These people have got initiative, guts and courage and Australia needs people like that."

He pushed Indonesia as the location for an asylum seeker processing centre, saying it would be "fair enough, as long as the conditions there are humane".

Mr Hawke also spoke about his South Australian-based work with a centre focused on improving relations between the Islamic community and others, saying the real challenge for Australia in his eyes was not to "demonise Muslim people".

On the wider question of the August 21 poll, Mr Hawke was happy to admit the five week campaign had not started well for Labor, after a series of damaging leaks and the issue of former leader Kevin Rudd's rolling.

"Julia hasn't been able to shine in the first half of the campaign," he said, but he genuinely felt that Labor would win

WAGE INCREASE FOR NURSES

2010-08-11T20:07:00.000+10:00

Red News Readers,

At last some information about what is happening with the nurses wage claim.

Jenny Haines

Public sector unions watch rail vote for wages guide

PAUL BIBBY AND LOUISE HALL, SMH.

August 11, 2010

REPRESENTATIVES of the state's rail workers will vote today to either end their bitter industrial dispute with the state government or fight on with a possible strike on the eve of the federal election.

The workers have been offered a wage increase of just under 3.5 per cent a year over the next four years, less than the 5 per cent sought by their unions.

In return, the government and RailCorp have backed down on planned redundancies among train guards and security staff, though it is understood they continue to demand increased productivity. This is in keeping with the government's policy of keeping public sector wage increases capped at 2.5 per cent unless ''productivity gains'' can be made elsewhere.

Other public sector unions preparing for wage negotiations are watching the rail deal with interest, including the NSW Nurses Federation, which is seeking a 5 per cent annual increase over four years. It has rejected a productivity deal, saying its members are already so stretched ''there is nothing else to give''.

Rail chaos was averted when a tentative wage deal was reached early yesterday.

But strike plans still exist in the event about 400 union delegates at Trades Hall vote the proposal down. They include a 24-hour strike on the day before the federal election - an action that could seriously harm Labor's chances, particularly in crucial seats in western Sydney.

The NSW secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, Alex Claassens, denied he was using the federal poll as political leverage to pressure the government.

''That's certainly not my intention,'' he said. ''I am hopeful that, even if the proposal doesn't get up, there will be an agreement reached before we have to take that action.''

Regardless of the outcome today, the rail deal raises questions about the state government's ability to keep its promise to stay under the 2.5 per cent cap.

In its 2010-11 budget, the government promised to keep expenses growth to 4.7 per cent a year - even though expenses had grown at 6.6 per cent for each of the four previous years.

Public sector employee costs - mainly wages - account for 43 per cent of the total expenses bill.

The pressure is now well and truly on, with unions unwilling, and in some cases unable, to find productivity gains to offset their desired wages increases.

The acting secretary of the nurses union, Judith Kiejda, said the association rejected the government's requirement that any rises over 2.5 per cent be offset by ''efficiency measures''.

''We believe we have put productivity savings into the system and that there is nothing else to give - that's how our membership are feeling,'' Ms Kiejda said.

The union is also seeking to have minimum nurse-to-patient ratios mandated under the award, which would force hospital managers to fill vacancies or close a ward.

Hospital managers would have to fill vacancies, including those created when staff take sick, parental or holiday leave, lessening the reliance on overtime and casual agency staff. Only a nurse or midwife of the same qualification would be permitted.

THE RIGHT TO VOTE

2010-07-27T14:32:00.000+10:00

Red News Readers,

Those members of Gen X and Y who have not registered to vote would do well to remember the words of Nelson Mandela on the day that he voted for the first time in his life. He said that this was the day that he had spent 25 years in jail for, the day on which he could vote, as a citizen in a democratic election in South Africa. They should also remember the words of UN Aid Workers in Cambodia, touched by the sight of women in Cambodia, crouched by the side of a road after having walked all night, waiting for the polling booths to open, so they too could vote for the first time in the Cambodian elections after the fall of Pol Pot. And recently I was touched by the reports of election observers in Afghanistan who observed crowds of people taking their life in their hands, under threat from the Taliban, but willing to take the risk, just for the right to vote. The right to vote is a priviledge that should not be taken lightly or ignored. Many have died and suffered for it. Register to vote and have your say. Even better, get active in a political issue that interests you. The future of this country is in your hands.

Jenny Haines

MY REPLY TO HENDERSON ON REFUGEES

2010-07-13T15:46:00.000+10:00

Red News Readers,

Gerard Henderson in today’s SMH reviews some of the dark history of government decision making on refugees and asylum seekers. While he remembers Labor in a bad light, he tries to justify all that Howard et al did. My blog posting is below:-

“Some of what Gerard Henderson says about past governments, Labor and Liberal Coalition is true unfortunately, but past mistakes do not justify current repetition of mistakes or lack of humanity. On Amanda Tattersall's statement, Gerard, I refer you to Page 228, of Dark Victory, by Marr and Wilkinson, "But critically the purpose of Operation Relex was not search and rescue. It was a military operation to stop the boats and turn them back before they reached Australia." And you may like to turn to Page 291 of the same book to find their comment about John Faulkner, "the questioning of civilian and military officials was driven by Labor's John Faulkner in a ruthless forensic exercise extending over many months. He and his colleagues on the committee laid bare much of this story."

If you wish to add to this blog go to the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/before-moving-forward-have-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror-20100712-107so.html?comments=41#comments

Jenny Haines

SUPPORT REFUGEES RALLY 9.7.10

2010-07-09T17:08:00.002+10:00

Mandatory detention destroyed my life: refugee

SMH, July 9, 2010 - 3:58PM
.
Gillard eats her words over refugees
Abbott smells blood
Richard Ackland: Facts and furphies
What would you do?

A former immigration detainee has told a rally protesting the government's new policy on asylum seekers that mandatory detention destroyed his life.

Iranian refugee Mohsen Soltani says he lives with the scars of his detention.

"They destroy my whole life in detention," said the poet and musician, who spent four years in immigration detention centres in Western Australia and New South Wales.

"I run away from torture and execution in my country, but here they crush all my spirit."

Mr Soltani was sent to the Port Hedland detention centre in WA in 1999 and was later transferred to Villawood, in Sydney's southwest, before being released in 2003.

He told about 60 people outside the Immigration Department offices in Sydney's CBD today that detention centres were "hell".

The rally was held to protest against Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposal for a regional offshore processing centre for asylum seekers.

Protesters waved banners and chanted: "Say it out loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here".

Mr Soltani told the rally that Ms Gillard's proposal showed she was the same as former prime minister John Howard and his immigration minister Philip Ruddock.

"We don't want the same history repeated with more mandatory detention - with more mental people released from that bloody hell," he said

"I have a huge mental illness from the detention."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is also proposing a return to offshore processing of asylum seekers who arrive by boat.

Jenny Haines, spokeswoman for Labor for Refugees, said Ms Gillard's proposal was an election tactic.

"To cave into that idiot Abbott's idea that we can offshore process and then send (people) back to dangerous places like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka is reprehensible," she said.

Mark Goudkamp from the Refugee Action Collective castigated both sides of politics.

"It seems like its a debate on who can be ... more tough in terms of stopping asylum seekers even getting to Australia," he said.

Ms Gillard this week announced East Timor was a possible location for a detention centre, but later had to tone down her remarks after Timorese Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao responded negatively.

The government has since had discussions with Papua New Guinea.

AAP

GILLARD: THE EAST TIMOR SOLUTION

2010-07-06T15:45:00.003+10:00

Red News Readers,

Having just read Gillard’s speech, my view is that she seems to be trying to walk the middle path in the first part of the speech and then she lurchs towards Abbott with her East Timor processing centre. Why does she need this centre? She has Christmas Island and the onshore processing centres on the Australian mainland. East Timor I presume is in addition to what we have, not in place of? .

I agree with John Dowd who I heard on ABC 702 yesterday morning. He said that if the people that have recently arrived were white South Africans or white Zimbabweans, no one would be raising a murmur. But because they are brown and from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan there is a problem. John Dowd said this is racism. And it is, and Gillard should be ashamed that she is caving in to such forces in our community.

Mind you it is a good thing that she is not sending the Hazaras back to Afghanistan immediately. William Maley, an Australian National University expert on the Hazara, said in the SMH today: ”On the day Julia Gillard became prime minister, 11 Hazaras travelling in a vehicle in Oruzgan, the province where our troops are deployed, were waylaid by the Taliban and had their heads cut off.” He said it would be extremely dangerous to send any Hazara back to Afghanistan at present, and that no Afghan specialist in the world would say that the situation in Afghanistan is improving.

But pity the Sri Lankans. At the very moment that the EU is cutting off trade benefits to Sri Lanka because of the failure of its government to improve human rights, at a time when human rights organisations are reporting continued human rights abuses, Australia is planning to send vulnerable applicants for refugee and asylum seeker status back to Sri Lanka. Will Australians be satisfied when some, or god help us all of these returning refugees are imprisoned, or worse executed on their return? I hope Gillard, Abbott and those advocating their return can lie easy in their beds, because I can’t knowing what may very well happen to the Sri Lankans on their return.

Jenny Haines

Gillard on asylum seekers: time for an East Timor Solution

by Bernard Keane, Crikey 6.7.10

Australia will establish a revised “Pacific Solution”, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard flagging a “regional processing centre” for asylum seekers to be based in East Timor, to where asylum seekers who arrive by boat would be redirected as part of a “regional protection framework”.

In an address to the Lowy Institute this morning, the Prime Minister moved to establish a tougher line on asylum seekers by announcing her intention to pursue an East Timor processing facility with President Jose Ramos-Horta, the New Zealand government and the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees.

She also flagged that improved conditions in Sri Lanka now meant Tamil asylum seekers were likely to be sent home, and that negotiations were proceeding with the Afghan government on the repatriation of failed Afghan asylum seekers. Gillard also indicated unspecified measures to strengthen penalties for people smugglers whose actions lead to death, and committed to ensuring that successful asylum seekers would receive no “special treatment”.

Gillard explicitly denied that the proposed East Timor facility would be “a new Pacific Solution”, instead insisting it would be a “sustainable, effective regional protection framework”, but the difference with the Howard government’s approach of spending large sums of taxpayer money to send asylum seekers to locations such as Nauru for processing is unclear, beyond the promised involvement of the UNHCR.

The Prime Minister indicated that, in light of the UNHCR’s overnight report indicating a significantly improved security and legal situation in Sri Lanka, most Tamil asylum seekers faced being put on a plane back to their homeland if they attempted to reach Australia, although acknowledging that case-by-case determinations would remain. The present suspension of claims by Sri Lankan asylum seekers, put in place by Kevin Rudd just under three months ago, would be lifted.
The present suspension of processing of claims for Afghan asylum seekers would remain in place, but Gillard appeared to suggest this awaited the resolution of repatriation arrangements with the Afghan government. She emphasised that nearly three-quarters of Afghan asylum applicants had been refused in recent months.

Gillard also sought to address the persistent community myth that refugees are given extensive and special taxpayer assistance. “When newcomers settle in our community, they accept their responsibilities as members of the community — to learn English, enter the workforce, and send their kids to school like everyone else. Most refugees fulfil these obligations and are grateful to be able to make a new home in Australia … But the rules are the rules. We will ensure refugees shoulder the same obligations as Australians generally.”

What action this would entail remains unclear.

Earlier today, the opposition sought to further toughen its own stance on asylum seekers by indicating those who “deliberately destroyed” identity documentation would be denied asylum, an approach that appears unworkable given Australia’s international commitments and the practicalities of establishing “deliberate destruction” in the context of escape from brutal regimes and people smuggling.

The opposition also proposed to move the Minister for Immigration back into asylum claims processing, suggesting the minister be given the right to intervene in any asylum claim. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration would also be required to sign off on all asylum claim determinations, rather than lower level officials, although the power could be delegated.

US NURSES STRIKE OVER RATIOS

2010-07-01T13:31:00.001+10:00

Largest Ever Nurses' Strike Could Be Sign of Future Unrest

Robert Lowes

June 11, 2010 — A 1-day strike of 12,000 nurses in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota — said to be the largest in US history — ended as planned this morning, but experts expect more labor unrest to roil the hospital industry.

The nurses on strike from14 hospitals in the Twin Cities belong to the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA), an affiliate of an ambitious new "super union" with 155,000 members called National Nurses United (NNU). The NNU advocates nationwide adoption of nurse-to-patient staffing ratios that it deems low enough to ensure good patient care and prevent nurse burnout.

Staffing levels figure heavily into continuing negotiations between the Minnesota nurses and their hospitals over a new labor contract. Other points of contention are wages and the Minnesota hospitals' proposal to reduce the nurses' pension benefits.
The Minnesota nurses set their strike date of June 10 about 2 weeks beforehand, giving hospitals time to prepare. Maureen Schriner, a spokesperson for a trade group called Twin Cities Hospitals, said the 14 affected hospitals brought in 2800 replacement nurses on Thursday. Some hospitals rescheduled surgeries.

"Things ran smoothly," Schriner said. "The level of patient care was the same as it always had been."

The strike is the third major labor battle waged by the NNU this year. Members of an NNU affiliate in Philadelphia went on strike from Temple University Hospital for 28 days this spring, and just this week, a state judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop members of the affiliated California Nurses Association (CNA) from walking off their jobs yesterday at University of California medical centers and student health facilities. The NNU was formed last December when the CNA merged with the Massachusetts Nurses Association and United American Nurses.

NNU leaders say they will take aggressive action wherever hospitals put profits above patient care and the well-being of nurses.

"This phenomenon is not just in Minnesota," NNU co-president Jean Ross, RN, told Medscape Medical News. "In this recession, employers expect everybody to sacrifice whether there's a need to or not, or whether it's prudent or not, and it always comes on the backs of nurses.

"This union is prepared to do what it needs to do to get its needs met. What's good for nurses is good for patients."

Labor Historian Expects More Strikes in Era of Consolidation

Over the past 10 years, strikes by nurses have been "sort of rare," Peter Buerhaus, PhD, RN, a professor of nursing at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, told Medscape Medical News. Dr. Buerhaus said the drive to unionize nurses comes at a time when many aspects of the hospital workplace have improved, leading to higher job satisfaction.

"It's a much better picture than it was in the 1990s," said Dr. Buerhaus, referring to surveys of nurses that he has helped conduct over the years.

To Peter Rachleff, PhD, a labor historian at Macalester College in St. Paul, this week's 1-day strike illustrates how the nursing profession is responding to a healthcare industry marked by consolidation among health insurers and hospitals. "A new generation of nurses sees collective action as necessary to develop national standards for how they work," Dr. Rachleff said.

Asked if he expects to see more nurse strikes in the near future, Dr. Rachleff replied, "Absolutely."

In one sense, said Dr. Rachleff, nurses are trying to fill in the details of healthcare reform legislation enacted by Congress.

"The nurses are addressing issues of delivery of care that weren't clear in the larger macro discussion," he said. "They're taking it to the next level."

Opinion Divided on Value of Mandatory Staffing Ratios

One detail of healthcare reform dear to nurses in the Twin Cities is staffing levels. Their union is asking hospitals to maintain a ratio of 1 RN to 4 patients in medical and surgical units, and 1 RN to 2 patients in critical-care units, for example.

NNU co-president Jean Ross said some hospitals in the Twin Cities assign 3 patients per nurse in intensive care units instead of the 2 patients sought by the union.
"When things get more hectic, you're more likely to miss fine changes in a patient's condition," she said. "You can't be as watchful. You're afraid you're going to maim or kill someone."

The NNU maintains that mandatory staffing levels — already the law of the land in California — will not only save lives, but also solve the nursing shortage by improving job satisfaction. However, the nursing profession is divided on the effectiveness of mandatory staffing levels, with supporters and opponents pointing to research that supports their respective positions.

The trade group Twin Cities Hospitals argues that there is no objective evidence linking specific staffing ratios and patient safety. It calls the union proposal inflexible and expensive, adding at least $250 million to the annual expenses of the 14 affected hospitals.

Maureen Schriner, the spokesperson for Twin Cities Hospitals, said that previous contracts between the hospitals and nurses contained detailed language on staffing levels that in some cases exceed what the union is demanding.

"Instead of trying to work with what we already had, they came forward with their own ratios," said Schriner.

THE LESSONS OF PATEL

2010-07-01T13:23:00.002+10:00

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/seven-years-for-jayant-patel-fails-to-ease-the-anger/story-e6frg6nf-1225886908290

Sent to the daily papers but not pubished:

The lessons that should be learnt from the whole Dr Patel and Bundaberg Hospital saga is that rewarding managers through performance based pay based on the achievement of productivity and efficiency targets can produce terrible outcomes in the health system. But sadly, with the current economic and human resources theologies in the health system, I doubt if this will be the lesson drawn. Interesting to hear a spokesperson of the Queensland medical fraternity say that there were plenty of doctors willing to go to Bundaberg to take the surgical position Patel held, but it was considered more cost efficient to employ Patel.

All credit to Toni Hoffman, the Nursing Unit Manager who kept going to senior management of Bundaberg Hospital over a 2 year period raising concerns about Dr Patel’s standards of care only, to be rebuffed and told that she needed to learn how to get on with overseas born doctors. All credit to Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland, who today paid tribute to Toni as a whistleblower, and recognised the suffering that Toni has undergone because she was a whistleblower.

It is not all over yet, as there is to be an appeal and the suffering of Patel’s patients, and the families of the patient’s who died, continues. To those patients and families, I pay tribute. Despite the callous indifference of some, there are many in the health system who are thinking about you, and send you our sympathies.

Jenny Haines

REFUGEES AND THE WEST

2010-07-01T13:22:00.001+10:00

REFUGEES AND THE WEST

Julia Gillard as part of her intial policy statement as Prime Minister said that she understood the concerns of the Australian people about the arrival of refugees by boats, and would move to address those concerns, signalling that she intends to adopt and even harder stance than that of Kevin Rudd’s Government. She seemed to particularly target her message to the western suburbs of Sydney.

When I grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney in the 1950s through to the 1970s, life was not easy. The post war boom was in progress, but families struggled. In more recent times the western suburbs is now a mix of those struggling, but also the aspirational middle class. If I could summarise the apparent concerns of people in the west, it would be that they are concerned that those refugees and asylum seekers arriving by boat are queue jumpers, taking advantage of their apparent wealth compared with those still waiting in countries of origin to pay people smugglers to get to Australia on leaky unsafe boats. The taxpayer of Australia then pays for their detention while they are processed.

The big problem with this view is that there is no queue. The Australian Ambassadorial staff in the countries of origin do not put on their pith helmets and go out to the refugee camps and set up a table and chairs and take names on an orderly list. If you are unlucky enough to be in opposition, or an unwanted activist in one of these countries of origin, you probably leave in the dead of night, to avoid attracting attention to your departure. You leave behind whatever family you have, and you don’t want to imperil their continued existence after you leave. You may have sold everything you have ever owned to pay travel expenses. Your travel to a second country, and maybe a third. If you get to Indonesia, and your presence as a refugee and asylum seeker comes to the attention of the authorities there, you may be interned. You pray that you are interned in an Indonesian government run facility, as the standard of accommodation and treatment is better than the Australian run and paid for facilities. In the latter, the guards can threaten you with injury or death, and there is nothing you can do about it. If you are not interned in Indonesia, and can still afford it from what you have sold, earned, or borrowed, you find a people smuggler who will offer you a place on a boat in exchange for the last of your money. You then arrive at the dock to find the boat heavily overloaded, but you have paid you money and the people smuggler does not do reimbursements to dissatisfied customers.

If you are fortunate your fishing boat arrives off the north west coast of Australia, where you are met by Australia’s navy, and taken to Christmas Island for mandatory detention while you are processed. Having left your country of origin in the dead of night, you may not have brought with you your birth certificate, passport and all of the documentation required to identify you, so processing can take some time. Then there is the ASIO check to make sure you are not a terrorist. Mind you what self respecting terrorist would travel this way? ASIO processing takes a very long time. Even ASIO says they are understaffed. Then under the Howard Government system, even if recognised as a refugee under international conventions, you were placed on a temporary protection visa, but allowed out of detention into the community. But the trick of this was that you could not work or receive Medicare health benefits. So to survive, you relied on the goodness of charities, churches and friends. Thank heavens the Rudd Government abolished TPVs, and may they never return. Such bureaucratised cruelty!!

Life on the refugee trail is desperate and disorganised. You do what you have can to survive. Refugees who came to Australia before and after World War Two will recognise these circumstances, and no doubt be able to tell similar stories of pushing their way forward to a new life, against all of the forces arrayed against them.

Refugees arriving in Australia by boat constitute 4% of those seeking refuge in this country. The other 96% come by plane. QANTAS –Australia’s own people smuggler? The numbers of refugees arriving in this country are no threat to anyone, particularly people in the western suburbs of Sydney. I recently saw an election leaflet for one of the conservative parties. It said that the people of the electorate were being deprived of health, education and welfare services because money for these services was being spent on servicing refugee and asylum seekers arriving in this country by boat. Budget stringencies by State and Federal Governments in relation to health, welfare and education services have a multitude of other causes that have nothing to do with refugees and detention centres.

I am a member of Labor for Refugees. Labor for Refugees has become a rank and file organisation within the Labor Party that has improved party policy several times since the dark days of the Tampa Election in 2001, at National and State Conferences of the Party, I wait with interest the next moves by the Gillard Government, but remind the Government and the parliamentary leadership of the party of party policy, plus of course, the real politik that up until Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party was haemorrhaging to the Left ie the Greens, on the issue of refugees and asylum seekers and it is the real politik that matters on election day, not populism.

Jenny Haines

MY REPLY TO ANDREW BOLT

2010-06-16T13:28:00.000+10:00

Dear All,

The ever revolting Andrew Bolt is out dog whistling in the Daily Smellograph today. He has a blog you may wish to contribute to. It would be good to get some balance on this blog, as it seems to be full of the refugee haters, which seems to be Andrew’s purpose. But if you can’t stand the stench of their arguments, don’t go there!

Jenny Haines

“Andrew Bolt where have you been? Or do you have a hearing problem? There are plenty of organisations and persons having a go at Rudd and his inner cabinet over their treatment of asylum seekers. Take for example Pamela Curr who was on Lateline two nights ago talking about asylum seekers in an Australian funded detention centre in Indonesia being tasered and threatened with death. And Ian Rintoul of Refugee Action Coalition criticising Rudd transfering boat people to desert detention centres yesterday. And Labor for Refugees criticising Rudd in a front page newspaper article only 2 weeks ago. And Labor for Refugees Victoria printing off a very telling criticism of the Government for the Victorian State ALP conference which was very well received by conference delegates. And Project Safe.Com beavering away in Western Australia on all aspects of the injustices of the refugee and asylum seeker system in this country. For someone who is supposed to be an on the ball journalist, how have you missed all this, and more? Mind you, your column seems to have worked in being a dog whistle call to all the asylum seeker haters to come out and bray against the Rudd Government.

Jenny Haines of Newtown (Reply)”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_why_no_tears_now_for_dead_asylum_seekers/desc/#commentsmore

MOST PREFER PACIFIC SOLUTION

2010-06-07T15:14:00.003+10:00

Red News Readers,

What sobering reading, that two thirds of those surveyed would be happy with a Coalition Government re-establishing the Pacific Solution, and it appears, the same percentage favour re-introducing temporary protection visas. As a capuccino drinking city voter (I hate lattes!) I can understand that these voters want orderly entry into Australia by everyone, and that fishing boats bringing refugees to our shores is seen as a disorderly way to arrive in this country. I wonder how many of these voters realise the casual cruelty that the Howard Government Pacific Solution inflicted on those detained, and on those who lived for years with the insecurity of temporary protection visas, not being allowed to work or have access to Australian health facilities, reliant on the kindness of charities and strangers.

It is sobering that so few people in this country take the time and effort to understand international law on the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers have the right by whatever means of transport to seek asylum in a second and third country. Natural justice and procedural fairness, which all citizens of Australia claim for themselves, also applies to refugees and asylum seekers who arrive, and have the right to due processing of their claims. The refugee and asylum seeker world is not an orderly queue. It is desperate and disorganised. You do what you can to survive. We are not being swamped with refugees and asylum seekers. We are not being threatened by terrorists coming in by fishing boat. No self respecting terrorist would arrive by boat, they would come by plane. How many Australians would say to the Jews and refugees who came to Australia before and after WW2, go home, you didn't arrive in this country in an orderly way?

Jenny Haines

Most prefer 'Pacific solution', poll finds

PHILLIP COOREY AND YUKO NARUSHIMA, SMH.

June 7, 2010

ALMOST two-thirds of voters support the Coalition's decision to reintroduce the Howard government's ''Pacific solution'' for dealing with asylum seekers who arrive by boat.

The latest Herald/Nielsen poll also finds the Coalition the preferred party overall to deal with asylum seekers which is looming as a central issue in this year's federal election.

The poll of 1400 voters, taken between Thursday and Saturday, came after the announcement by Tony Abbott that a Coalition government would once more detain asylum seekers indefinitely in locations such as Nauru.

The Coalition would also reintroduce the controversial temporary protection visas which Labor abolished on humanitarian grounds.

The poll found 62 per cent of voters supported ''the Howard government's policy of processing asylum seekers in countries outside Australia''. A minority of 33 per cent opposed the policy.

Asked which party had the best asylum-seeker policy, 35 per cent nominated the Coalition while support for Labor and the Greens was 19 per cent and 18 per cent respectively.

''A majority of Australians are likely to support policies presented as tough and uncompromising and are less likely to support policies perceived as soft,'' said a Nielsen pollster, John Stirton.

So far this year 133 boats have arrived in Australian waters and Labor MPs reported to caucus last week the arrivals were becoming a dominant concern among voters.

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said he would not engage in a policy race to the bottom with Mr Abbott but promised to explain the facts more often to offset some of the myths and fears being perpetrated.

For example, Australia took about 13,000 refugees a year, whether they arrived by boat or air. If boat arrivals increased, the net intake would not, he said.

The Opposition claims the government has lost control of the borders. It said the arrival of four boats in two days over the weekend showed the three-month and six-month processing freeze the Rudd government placed on Sri Lankans and Afghans respectively had failed to deter asylum seekers.

Asylum seekers found on the most recent boats were intercepted north of Ashmore Island and Scott Reef. They are en route to Christmas Island where 2436 people are detained in facilities with space for 2500.

The government has budgeted for the arrival of 2000 asylum seekers by boat in the year to June 30 next year. This is a drop on the year before but costs will double as more people fight their deportation and spend longer in detention to do so.

The rates of rejection are increasing, with almost half of the 480 who arrived last year rejected as refugees by the Immigration Department in the past two months.

As the government postponed the transfer of about 30 families to the remote mining town of Leonora yesterday, it prepared the detention centre in Curtin to receive hundreds of asylum seekers affected by the April 9 suspension.

''The policy has been as ineffective as it is discriminatory,'' the opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said. The first transfer of 90 people to Leonora, scheduled for yesterday, was cancelled.

Source: The Age

2010-05-28T15:47:00.001+10:00

Abbott rescues Pacific solution

May 28, 2010, Editorial

TONY ABBOTT sees himself as John Howard's political heir; in announcing that he will bring back Howard's ''Pacific solution'' as Australia's policy on asylum seekers, he has emphasised the connection. Yet it says a good deal about Tony Abbott's view of his own party in the post-Howard era that he chose to announce the policy without submitting it to a full party-room discussion first. It is hard not to conclude he wanted to sidestep the internal opposition he knew he would face. Far better to ambush his own MPs and then hope for the best, as he had done earlier with parental leave. Liberal MPs will be wondering why they went through the trouble and pain of ditching Malcolm Turnbull for his lack of consultation.

Abbott announced four parts to his policy - temporary protection visas, offshore processing (which he called ''rigorous'' several times), good relations with source and transit countries - and a fourth element, which can be paraphrased as: send 'em back. Turning boats around is not new: "It was done quietly in co-operation with other countries through the extraordinary professionalism of our armed forces,'' he said. ''Now, I don't see why it can't be done again.'' What is new, however, is the explicit promise to repeat it.

Abbott analyses the problem in simple terms - as a problem of markets. People smugglers under the Rudd government's more humane policy have ''a product to sell''. He is going to deprive them of their merchandise.

We believe action against people smugglers is certainly called for - but not at the expense of refugees, whom the policy ignores.

With its emphasis on rigour and toughness and its simplicity, Abbott's policy is pure populism. It may curry favour with some sections of the community; what it will not do is reduce the number of illegal immigrants and visa overstayers in the country. It is well-known that far more illegal immigrants enter Australia by air. According to the Immigration Department, there were 48,700 illegal non-citizens in Australia last June. Compare that with the 6000 seaborne arrivals Abbott cited. The four biggest source countries - China, the United States, Malaysia and Britain - contributed more than a third of the total. It is the boats, though, that must be stopped, because although they carry the most desperate individuals fleeing the worst circumstances, they evoke a visceral fear in some Australians. His policy amounts to looking tough by punishing the most vulnerable. They are to be a symbolic sacrifice on the altar of xenophobia.

WHEN MOTHERS CRY OUT FOR CARE

2010-05-18T14:07:00.002+10:00

Red News Readers,

This letter of mine was published in the SMH today 18.5.10:

Tanveer Ahmed has done the world a favour in cutting through the hype that now surrounds birthing, and addressing the issue of class in relation to the provision of public mental health services for women suffering post natal depression. What a disgrace that there are no public mental health beds that specialise in the care of these women!! Why is that? Is it because our society still does not understand the seriousness of post natal depression? Is it because those who suffer post natal depression are women? Is it because many think they should be happy at the birth of the child and they will "just get over it"?

The need for specialist public bedsand services for women suffering post natal depression has long been recognised as a dire need in our public health system. These women are often cared for at home by distressed husbands and families, with no appropriate health and welfare support. Some couples are ashamed and hide the mother. But you can't hide a severely depressed or psychotic woman who kills her baby. Even hospitals need to rethink how they support these women. I can well remember a mother who threw her baby over a hospital balcony, only a couple of years ago. That woman was placed in a mental health admission unit with persons suffering all sorts of mental illness and disorders. These women need specialist care. It is a great heartlessness in our health system that they don't get it.

Jenny Haines.

When mothers cry out for tender care
Author: Tanveer Ahmed - Tanveer Ahmed is a psychiatry registrar at St John of God Private Hospital, Burwood.
Date: 17/05/2010
Words: 713
Source: SMH
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Section: News and Features
Page: 11

I have treated mothers who have thought of killing their babies. The illness is rare and usually improves rapidly, but it has resulted in tragedies.
There are few more confronting conditions than this one, grounded in a misguided love where mothers feel their babies are better off dead than growing up without them.

I work in a hospital that has the state's only private, post-natal unit. Patients are often transferred from public hospitals, where they are inappropriately treated alongside sufferers of intractable drug addictions or schizophrenia. They usually arrive traumatised by their experience.

Only a minority can afford private health insurance.

NSW does not have a public psychiatric unit for mothers and their babies. It did have hospital beds funded for such purposes several years ago, but they were abolished due to safety concerns.

Phillip Boyce, professor of psychiatry at the University of Sydney and a peri-natal expert, says that was not based on evidence but to save costs. Mothers suffering post-natal mental illnesses require extra, highly trained nursing care to monitor both them and their babies.

He believes any savings are merely costs being transferred to other agencies such as the Department of Community Services, or to families and charities through the necessary out-of-home care.

The developments coincide with recent reports that the number of very young babies being taken into care has risen by almost 70 per cent in two years. Each day in NSW an infant under four weeks old will be removed from the mother, according to government data provided to Parliament last month.

Professor Boyce says a proportion of these mothers suffer mental illness, and believes they could have retained custody of their children if better quality peri-natal services existed. "Once babies are taken, magistrates are very reluctant to give them back to their mothers," he says.

This all coincides with a time when the nature of motherhood, pregnancy and delivery has undergone dramatic changes.

Boyce thinks expectations of pregnancy and motherhood have never been so unrealistically high. "Their grandmothers had a very real risk of dying while giving birth but women today feel pregnancy and delivery are virtually risk free."

Tanya Evans, a social historian of motherhood undertaking a PhD at Macquarie University, says the current generation of women are used to controlling every aspect of their lives.

"Becoming a mother is often the first time when some of that must be relinquished," she says. The decline in the extended family, she believes, combined with the disappearance of affordable domestic services and a commercialisation of motherhood through an explosion in mummylit, prestige prams and other baby products places enormous pressure on new mothers.

Instead of the threat of death, the backdrop to the modern delivery is a thorough birth plan, whale music, digital photos and delivery suite discussions about who is going to cut the cord. These bourgeois aspirations are unlikely to apply to the average patient who may require a public psychiatric bed. Nor is the same demographic likely to be pushing their babies in expensive prams.

But regardless of social class, the experience of modern motherhood can be lonely and isolating. When combined with a mini baby boom - state figures indicate a 9 per cent rise in births over the past five years - the demand for peri-natal services of all kinds has never been greater.

The most common cause of maternal death, defined as a mother dying within 42 days of giving birth, is psychiatric illness, according to a British study in 2004, Why Mothers Die.

Statistics in Australia suggest suicide remains the greatest cause of death among pregnant mothers, but reliable statistics after delivery are yet to come.

A spokesman for the state minister responsible for mental health, Barbara Perry, says the government is focusing on funding community services to screen for vulnerable mums and treat them in the community.

While this is an important plank in an overall strategy, there will be a proportion for whom hospitalisation is unavoidable.

NSW has fallen behind in many areas after a decade of a shabby government. The lack of a high-quality mother-and-baby unit is depriving a needy and poorly understood group. For some, this gap means they will lose custody of their children forever.

REVIEW "BENEATH HILL 60"

2010-05-03T15:34:00.001+10:00

A REVIEW BENEATH HILL 60. A FILM ABOUT THE TRUE STORY OF AUSTRALIAN ENGINEERS ON THE WESTERN FRONT. NOW SHOWING AT THE DENDY AND ADVERTISED THEATRES.

BY JENNY HAINES.

Those who have been to war know that it is a dirty, messy, horrible business, where life is cheap. There is no glory in mud, endless mud. There is no glory in the loss of friends, limbs, lives, body parts. There is no glory in making the unethical decisions that war demands. War is the serious business of killing the enemy by whatever means you can, while doing your best to stay alive. Fate and chance play a big part in whether you survive.

Beneath Hill 60 tells the story of Australian Army Engineers on the Western Front in 1916. They specialised in blowing up German positions from underground. They were a squad of men who were miners back home in Australia, formed especially for the tasks that they were given. They were grateful to be underground. Being on the surface only meant more horror.

But this is not just another war story. Jeremy Hartley Sims and the production team make clear their distaste for the slaughter that took place on the Western Front in WW One. The thundering sound of the Western Front guns booms in your ears as it must have done for the frontline soldiers, day and night. The horrors of war are there in all their bloody detail, but not overstated. But there is also impish Aussie military humour, and ranking officer and soldier distaste for the British, and army command. Chris Haywood plays a bumbling commander with his usual mastery of his role.
Brendan Cowell plays the lead role of the Captain of the squad. We follow his journey into the army through flashbacks to his life before the war and his courting of his young lady, the daughter of Queensland farmers. The gentility of the Queensland farmland life contrasts sharply with the grim portrait of European farmlands, which by 1916 were acres and acres of pitted mud.

Hill 60 is a strategic site for the British Empire forces. Optimists hope that by blasting Hill 60 away, the end of the war will be hastened. The blast when it comes is so huge, it is heard in London and Berlin. But sadly, even though 2000 Germans were killed that day, they retook Hill 60 several months later.

But the film also tells the story of the squad of men, some hardened and embittered by the war, some too young to be there and are terrified, some driven to madness by the insanity around them, some generous and caring even with the war all around them. “A landmark achievement, harrowing, moving and brilliantly suspenseful” Evan Williams , The Australian.

MENTAL HEALTH MISSES OUT!

2010-04-21T14:53:00.000+10:00

This is my Crikey Blog following this article

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/21/waiting-for-ruddo-mental-health-misses-out-at-coag/#comment-69114

“Now that the rugby scrum of COAG is over and the dust is settling, it is becoming more clear that areas like mental health and aged care may not have done as well as advocates for these services would have liked. This process has been huge, and has been struggling to meet big goals. Despite what some commentators have said, the $5.4 billion is welcome in a system that desperately needs the money. The focus on increasing hospital beds is welcome if we are ever to get the pressure off Emergency Departments. But where are the extra doctors and nurses and allied health staff coming from to staff these beds - a very critical issue if we are to get better outcomes? And will these staff have sufficient skills to ensure quality of care?
Mental health advocates have every right to cry foul over this deal. Once again, mental health services have been treated as the poor relation. Is that because too much effort was put into taking advice from a small range of medical organisations throughout the process? Probably, I think. Governments and politicians must realise that health services are a complex, multi layered beast, and that there are many more professionals and professional organisations that should be consulted when changes are mooted . Community mental health teams in NSW are very run down and struggling along on minimal resources, doing the best they can. EDs are coping every day with mental health patients who should not be there, or not be there for as long as they are. Memo to politicians - mental health is just as important as physical health, perhaps even more so. Pay some attention to Ian Hickie and Patrick McGorry and the author of this article. Mental health services need more resources, now !!!”

NSW SAYS YES TO HEALTH REFORM

2010-04-20T13:54:00.002+10:00

Keneally says 'I do' to Rudd's health deal

Emma Rodgers, ABC

April 20, 2010, 10:20 am

New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally is willing sign up to the Commonwealth's plan to overhaul the nation's health system, after extracting a range of concessions from the Federal Government.

After a meeting with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd this morning, Ms Keneally announced that NSW is willing to hand over a third of its GST to the Commonwealth so it can fund a 60 per cent takeover of public hospitals.

NSW Government sources say Ms Keneally approved the plan after Mr Rudd agreed to hand over $686 million to pay for implementation costs of the proposal.

It is also understood Mr Rudd has guaranteed that the GST funds are only spent on hospitals and that New South Wales gets a say in how the money is spent.

It is believed the funds will be put into some kind of state pool for distribution.

Sources say Mr Rudd will also allow for block grant funding for small rural and regional hospitals.

Ms Keneally's decision moves Mr Rudd closer to clinching a deal as Council of Australian Governments (COAG) talks begin for a second time today.

But he still faces major resistance from Victoria and Western Australia who are ignoring pressure to capitulate and allow the deal through.

Speaking before she went into the COAG meeting, Ms Keneally said the states and Commonwealth are likely to get an agreement today.

"We are in a position to be able to have the Commonwealth retain a third of our GST for direct funding of hospitals for NSW," she said.

"We have also been able to progress discussions with the Prime Minister and with the Commonwealth of the governance arrangements of a fund, as well as appropriate safeguards around the GST.

"It is in my view these things enable us to be in a position to support that the Commonwealth will retain the GST, but with these important safeguards in place and with the right governance arrangements around the operation of a fund."

The states have been arguing for a pooled fund to distribute Commonwealth and state funds to hospitals and today Ms Keneally urged resistant states to reconsider their position.

"I would just encourage all of us as first ministers to consider what's in the best interest of our states... but also what's in the best interest of national health reform," she said.

But Victorian Premier John Brumby and Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett are holding out on surrendering their slice of GST.

And Mr Brumby also wants more money on the table for hospital beds.

Fronting the media together before the COAG meeting started, the two said they were willing to put a third of their GST revenue into a funding pool.

Mr Brumby says he has shifted in his negotiating position by dropping his demand that hospitals funding be spilt evenly between the states and Commonwealth.

"We've given a bit. I hope the Prime Minister can give a bit," he said.

"I always said today would be harder. I think it's hard to tell actually how today will turn out."

Mr Barnett says they are offering the Prime Minister exactly what he wants.

"It is within the Prime Minister's grasp to achieve his reform very quickly," he said.

GOVT CHANGES RULES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS

2010-04-09T12:05:00.002+10:00

Red News Readers,

I wish that commentators would stop saying that all opposition to Rudd’s moves on refugees and asylum seekers comes from the Left of the ALP. The ALP has modified its policy on refugees and asylum seekers several times at State and National level since 2001, at State and National conferences of the ALP. Those improvements to policy were not achieved by the Left alone. They were supported across the party by all factions and non factional delegates. They were vigorously promoted internally in the ALP by members from all factions. And that is the problem that Kevin Rudd now has – selling what he doing inside the party, where a broad cross section of the party does not agree with these measures, and have voted for policy that contradicts what the leadership of the party in power is now doing.

Jenny Haines

Government changes rules for asylum seekers

Updated 9 minutes ago 9th April 2010

The Federal Government has announced an immediate suspension of all new asylum seeker claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, as news emerged that an asylum boat with 70 people on board sank off Christmas Island early this morning.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans says the Government has decided to implement the suspension due to changing circumstances in both countries.

The news came as the Government released details of the rescue of asylum seekers from a boat which was intercepted last night 73 nautical miles east south-east of Christmas Island.

The Government says some of the asylum seekers ended up in the water but were rescued by crew from HMAS Wollongong.

"Just after 2am (AEST) the engine failed on the vessel which began to flounder," a statement from Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said.

"The transfer of passengers to HMAS Wollongong commenced immediately. Approximately 16 passengers were transferred immediately however some passengers abandoned the vessel.

"Passengers were rescued from the water by the crew of HMAS Wollongong.

"HMAS Wollongong is now proceeding to Christmas Island with the passengers for security, identity and health checks. Defence will provide an operational brief on the matter this afternoon, at a time to be advised."

The Federal Government has been under pressure from the Coalition after a spike in boat arrivals last year and this year.

The Coalition blames softened Government policy for the rise but the Government says it is due to international "push" factors.

More to come.
7517075

REVIEW OF "KILLER COMPANY"

2010-04-03T15:29:00.003+11:00

REVIEW OF “KILLER COMPANY, JAMES HARDIE EXPOSED” AUTHORED BY MATT PEACOCK, ABC BOOKS 2009.

James Hardie lied. The company executives knew for decades the dangers of asbestos. They knew from the 1930s onwards that asbestos caused cancer. But there was money to be made, big, huge, overwhelming profits. When there are such profits to be made, what’s a few dead workers to these executives? Very few of the executives of James Hardie were prepared to set aside a greater return to shareholders by implementing effective safety measures in the workplace. Trouble is, there is no way to safely handle asbestos. It should never have been developed commercially in the way it was. Workers at the asbestos factories at Camellia were often covered in the stuff. They lived in it, breathed it, ate it for lunch. While they worked there they developed asbestosis. Years later they died of mesothelioma, a vicious lung cancer that only gives sufferers a short time between diagnosis and death. There is no cure.

In amongst all the emerging suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma, the company executives plans were to keep marketing asbestos for profit, and adopt a so called harm minimisation strategy and Matt Peacock does the corporate world, and unions, and law firms a great service in setting out in intricate detail how the executives of Hardies lived in a world of denial or at least part denial, while they rolled out ineffective measure after ineffective measure, to try to protect their workers from injury and death.

Bernie Banton, one of the most famous people who worked at the factory at Camellia is now dead. He died of mesothelioma in 2007 after living for years with asbestosis. Bernie became the public face of the campaign for justice from the manufacturers and processors of asbestos at the urging of Matt Peacock, when Matt first met him for a radio interview. When Bernie worked at the factory at Camellia, he became a Delegate for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union. Bernie was critical of the autocratic leadership of Ray Gietzelt, and sympathetic to Frank Shanahan, who was planning a challenge to Gietzelt’s leadership. What Bernie didn’t know was that Shanahan was backed by the National Civic Council. Shanahan lost the election against Gietzelt, and went on to develop mesothelioma. He died a painful death.

The Missos had a number of union officials who were appalled by safety standards at the Camellia factory. One official, Doug Howitt related to Matt Peacock an account of his visit to the Camellia factory:-

“We went into the teasing room, where they used to empty big bags of asbestos into an oblong funnel. There was a bloke tipping it in. He had his head in it! He was covered in asbestos! I virtually accused Hardie’s of being murderers, I was so upset. Fancy letting a bloke work like that! I said get him an air line respirator, but they were adamant he would not wear it. I said get this man a respirator or sack him if he refuses. Perhaps I should not have said that, but I did my block. I was party to this murder. What could I do?”

When Howitt went back to the Missos Office to report these events to Gietzelt, Gietzelt told him to mind his own business, and from that day Howitt was frozen out of any union dealings with the company.

Ray Gietzelt and Ray Palfreyman of Hardies were frequently in touch. They were jokingly referred to as the “two Rays”. Palreyman would report back to Gietzelt after frequent overseas trips to attend asebestos industry conferences. On one occasion, Hardies sought Gietzelt’s help in silencing Frank Roberts, the Editor of the Australian Worker’s Union newspaper. When Gietzelt met Matt Peacock, he described the dangers from asbestos as “minimal, absolutely minimal risk” Gietzelt denied that many union members had died of asbestos exposure, “if it had been a lot, I would have heard about it.” Gietzelt had the opportunity at the Opera to raise any concerns he may have had about asbestos with the Chairman of James Hardie for 23 years John Reid. Asked by Matt Peaock whether Gietzelt ever discussed the issue with Reid, he said :-

“I wouldn’t have raised that with him no. It wouldn’t have been protocol for me because if I had raised that with him, as a member of the board (of the Opera House Trust), it would rather indicate that I’m sort of holding him responsible.”

Despite Gietzelt, there were a succession of union officials who were very disturbed about asbestos and its dangers, Doug Howitt (FMWU), Frank Shanahan (FMWU), Frank Roberts (AWU), Ray Hogan (FMWU, Victoria), Theo Meletis (FMWU, Victoria), Vic Fitzgerald (FEDFA), Stan Fleming (FEDFA), Tom Cook (AMWU), Alf Hinton (AMWU), Barry Robson (MUA), and more latterly, Paul Bastian (AMWU), Andrew Ferguson (CFMEU), Greg Combet (ACTU) and many, many other conscientious officials and members of unions whose members handled or were exposed often unwittingly to asbestos and its deadly dangers.

Matt tells the whole awful story about Hardies, and the other companies that manufactured asbestos, Wunderlich, CSR, and others. But Hardies went on to do the what should have been an unthinkable corporate crime, they moved to the Netherlands, and left behind a company that had insufficient funds to meet the compensation claims that were inevitably going to come if over the next 20 to 50 years. And the leading members of the Hardie’s Company knew that the Australian based company was underfunded. They were trying to cut and run from their legal responsibilities to fund compensation for the victims of asbestos. This was where all hell broke loose, and the campaign went public with Bernie Banton as the public face of the victims, and Greg Combet, then ACTU Secretary, as the negotiator on behalf of the unions. Even Bob Carr, who was sceptical of the campaign at the beginning, seemed over time to not only be politically involved but personally affected by the plight of the victims and their terrible stories of suffering. As a result of the public campaign, and the Banton/Combet negotiating team, a number of deals have been struck with Hardies, and there have been a number of court decisions that have made Hardie’s commit to meeting their liabilities, but even today, stories still appear in the media that alarm victims and their support groups, about the future viability of compensation funds.

This is a wonderful book. It tells the story of Hardie’s and asbestos as it is, warts and all. Those who did what they did and said what they said are reported faithfully. No relevant party’s role is covered up. Matt obviously did an enormous amount of research and he has written the book in an easily readable style. Asbestos victims and their families have been given a voice through this book. Those who admirably fought to have asbestos victims recognised and compensated are rewarded. Matt deserves the thanks of all .

Jenny Haines

MENTAL HEALTH FAMILIES NO LONGER IN DARK

2010-03-22T15:51:00.002+11:00

Mental health act ensures families no longer in dark

RUTH POLLARD

March 22, 2010

MATTHEW MURPHY'S mind snapped 11 months too early.

Had the 41-year-old been able to endure the crippling depression that enveloped him for a while longer, the state's new Mental Health Act would have required hospital staff to tell his family what was happening with his care. It may have saved his life.

But when he was taken by police to the Mater Hospital in Newcastle early on December 3, 2006, after telling his father he planned to shoot himself, his family were kept in the dark.

Less than two hours after he left the hospital - against medical advice and with doctors failing to pass on any information to his deeply worried parents and wife - he killed himself.

On Friday the deputy state coroner Paul MacMahon, handed down his findings into Mr Murphy's death.

He reiterated the need for communication - between police, doctors and family members - and noted the eternal struggle between protecting a patient's right to privacy and keeping them alive.

Police training should emphasise that family members can provide important background information and police handover forms should include family or carer contact details, the coroner recommended.

''The existence of a plan by Mr Murphy to kill himself was important for diagnostic purposes and that information was not provided to the hospital by police,'' he noted. He was critical of the police for dissuading Pat Murphy, Matthew Murphy's father, from going to the hospital, saying: ''Had he been there he would have been a source of information for the doctors and a support to [his son].''

Mr MacMahon also recommended the Mater Hospital amend its suicide policy to suggest that information can be obtained from family or carers without the consent of the patient if ''there is a risk to the patient''.

At a broader level, he said, doctors working in emergency departments must be made aware of the provisions of the NSW Mental Health Act, which gives them the power to contact family members without the consent of the patient.

It is a change that has been a long time coming, said the head of Lifeline, Dawn O'Neil.

''Family members have been saying for a very long time that when somebody has a mental illness their capacity to make decisions about their own care can be impaired, and the family members, in order to look after them, need information,'' Ms O'Neil said.

''When someone is at risk of suicide we have to take that very, very seriously - that person needs to be in intensive care … for some period of time.''

Pat Murphy campaigned tirelessly for an inquest into his son's death and is pleased with the coroner's recommendations, but has vowed to continue his campaign until the changes are adopted.

''There is no requirement on the local police and the area health service to enact these changes, but we have spent all this time and effort to try to get change - I will be following this all the way through,'' he told the Herald yesterday.

A spokeswoman said Hunter New England Health Service welcomed the coroner's findings and is giving the recommendations careful consideration.

Lifeline: 131114

NSW NURSES TO VOTE ON WAGES PROPOSAL

2010-03-22T15:36:00.001+11:00

NSW nurses to vote on wages proposal

AAP

March 21, 2010, 3:21 pm

NSW nurses and midwives will start voting this week on a proposed wages and conditions claim, which includes a five per cent annual pay rise over four years.

The NSW Nurses Association (NSWNA) says nurses and midwives are also asking for mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios to be set to improve patient safety.

NSWNA general secretary Brett Holmes said a lot of work had been done over the last ten years rebuilding nursing as an attractive career option in financial terms and this was at risk of being lost.

"In the last couple of years nurses have again started to fall behind equivalent professions, such as the allied health professions, and if that continues we risk undoing what success we have had dealing with the nurse shortage," Mr Holmes said.

He said the majority of nurses and midwives were about $2500 per year or $50 per week behind physiotherapists.

"Our wage claim is, as well as properly rewarding the effort and dedication of nurses, aimed at keeping nursing and midwifery `up there' financially in terms of career options."

The NSWNA wants NSW Health to agree to a new four-year wages and conditions agreement, which includes a five per cent per year pay rise for all public hospital and community health nurses and midwives.

A five per cent pay rise on July 1, would provide the majority of clinical nurses and midwives with a pay rise of nearly $70 per week, Mr Holmes said.