How Scrymgour and homelands might undo NT Labor
Bob Gosford writes from Yuendumu, in Crikey 2.6.09
Marion Scrymgour was Australia’s most powerful elected black politician -- that is until illness got the better of her and forced her resignation from her several Ministries back in February this year and that mantle was handed to her arch-political rival and enemy -- Labor member of Macdonnell, Alison Anderson.
Since then Scrymgour has undergone treatment in Adelaide. The accepted wisdom was that she would sit quietly on the backbenches until August this year when her parliamentary pension matured and would then retire.
But it seems that sometime during her treatment and recovery that she has had a Damascene conversion that recent NT government policies on blackfellas have been built on lies and deception.
As the ABC News website reports, "I feel strongly because we have lied to Aboriginal people," she said. "We have said we would go back and talk to them before we made that policy."
"That policy" is the recently announced "Working Futures" policy that will withdraw essential services from the many small homeland communities across the NT and force residents to move or travel to larger "hub" communities to receive those services.
And it seems that Scrymgour has also changed her mind about her own rushed and fundamentally flawed policy that would gut the remnants of the once proud bilingual education system in the NT, a policy that Scrymgour saw fit to vigorously defend here at Crikey from the views of a "cabal of self-important whitefellas".
Working Future dates back to the decision in September 2007 by former Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough to hand responsibility for homeland policy and funding to the NT Government.
Scrymgour was responsible for developing the NT government policy on homelands and remote community development and commissioned a discussion paper and a team, led by Pat Dodson, to take submissions and conduct community consultation.
Dodson’s "Community Engagement Report" was given to the NT government in January and was publicly released late last month.
Following Scrymgour’s sudden resignation in February, Alison Anderson inherited the Indigenous Affairs Ministry.
On 20 May Anderson released a policy, a ghost-written op-ed piece in her favourite paper, The Australian and a bare-bones website.
The recommendations in Dodson’s report have been effectively ignored and the promises of a further consultative process with affected Aboriginal people living in remote towns in the NT, following the development of a draft policy, have been abandoned.
If Working Future is ever implemented, as Lindsay Murdoch reported in The Age it will mean that:
Thousands of Aborigines living on their remote Northern Territory homelands will be forced to move to larger communities to receive key government services in a radical shake-up of indigenous policy. The NT Government is set to announce that 20 communities will be developed into regional economic hubs with a wide range of government services such as housing, schools and clinics.
But about 580 smaller communities will be deprived of many government services, threatening the fruits of what became known in the 1970s as the homelands movement when thousands of Aboriginal people moved back to their ancestral lands.
Scrymgour’s electorate of Arafura contains a large number of homeland communities -- small hamlets deep in the heart of traditional Aboriginal lands occupied by family and clan groups that have chosen to live a simpler, safer and healthier life away from the babylonian chaos that typifies many of the larger Aboriginal townships scattered across the NT.
Now, as Murray McLaughlin reported on The 7.30 Report last night:
Marion Scrymgour has thrown the Territory Labor government into crisis over her complaint that the outstations policy was announced prematurely ignoring the process that she had laid out when she was Indigenous Affairs Minister. Marion Scrymgour has told Chief Minister Paul Henderson that she’s prepared to go to the cross-benches over the issue.
Scrymgour: I’m not discounting anything but I’m saying very clearly that I will do everything in my power as a member of the government to make sure that government meets its responsibilities to Aboriginal people.
As Crikey noted back in February:
There is a long history of mutual antipathy between Scrymgour and Anderson, including a stoush in late 2007 that followed Scrymgour’s description of the Howard/Brough NT Intervention as a ‘black Tampa’ motivated by naked political opportunism.
And, as Henderson well knows, it is Anderson and Scrymgour who may well hold the fate of his "crumbling", one-seat majority government in their hands.
Anderson, who, as evidenced by her vocal support for the Brough/Howard Intervention and outspokenness on matters sensitive to government, is widely regarded as a loose cannon perhaps more closely aligned to the CLP Opposition than to the centre and left of NT Labor.
While she may be happy with her Ministerial appointments for now, there is the very real threat that she could jump ship, either as an independent or to surface as a member of the CLP, and force a change of government.
Crikey understands that Scrymgour warned Henderson of her concerns with Anderson’s policy soon after it emerged but that he chose to ignore her.
Since Henderson’s Labor government was re-elected with a single seat majority in August of last year an informal book has been running on just how long his government will last -- the best money was that he might be lucky, very lucky, to make it to August -- when a number of Labor members are eligible for their generous super payouts.
But this latest fight changes the odds substantially -- Crikey reckons you’d be lucky to get much better than evens on Henderson’s government surviving the month.
Henderson’s failures are all his own doing, led by a poor set of polices that attack his electoral heartland and a supine surrender to the Federal government’s directions -- but he hasn’t been helped by the loose cannons rolling around the deck of what passes for the sinking ship of state in the NT.
Read more at Bob Gosford's The Northern Myth at Crikey blogs.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
AGED CARE COMPLAINTS RISE
Red News Readers,
It should be no surprise to anyone that complaints are rising what with mandatory reporting of elder abuse and the and minimum cost care provided by aged care providers. Many nursing homes are now run largely by non nursing trained carers who may have minimal training the care of the aged and their needs and medications. Working for a phone triage company we get plenty of calls from aged care workers in aged care facilites that range from what would be a simple problem for a trained nurse to solve eg how to stop a patient bleeding from a skin tear, medication errors, and emergencies where the aged care workers are instructed to call Heatlh Direct first before calling other agencies. There is no nurse on site that they can call for assistance. Lord knows what goes on in the facilities where the aged care workers do not call for assistance,
Jenny Haines
Our nursing homes in turmoil
Rachel Browne, Sun Herald.
May 31, 2009
COMPLAINTS about nursing homes have tripled in a year, with authorities investigating serious cases of physical and sexual abuse as well as referring more than 30 deaths to the coroner.
The Department of Health and Ageing's Complaints Investigation Scheme (CIS) looked at almost 7500 complaints in 2007-08.
Of these, 1770 matters were referred to the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency for further investigation, 62 to nurses registration boards, 53 to the police, 33 to the coroner, 27 to the Health Care Complaints Commission and 13 to the Medical Practitioners Board.
Of the referrals to the coroner, seven occurred in NSW, 22 in Victoria, one in Queensland and three in South Australia.
This marks a significant increase from 2006-07, when the CIS and its predecessor, the Aged Care Complaints Resolution Scheme, examined 2399 complaints. In 2005-06, the scheme received 1260 complaints.
However, aged care lobby groups say the complaints handling system for Australia's 2830 nursing homes is seriously flawed and the public is denied information about the outcomes of investigations.
The Department of Health and Ageing will identify nursing homes that have been the subject of an official sanction or a notice of non-compliance.
The name-and-shame list will appear on a Department of Health and Ageing website from July 1.
But Aged Care Crisis Team spokeswoman Lynda Saltarelli said the information would be more than a year old and would relate only to a small number of homes subject to complaints.
"We would like to see a transparent system where a consumer can look at a nursing home and find out the type of ownership and structure; whether it has been the subject of failing standards as well as a complaint; the nature of the complaint; and what the provider did to address that complaint," Ms Saltarelli said.
There are 175,000 people in aged care facilities across the nation, a figure growing by 5000 a year.
Taxpayers subsidise the care of residents by an average of $45,000 a year, with residents contributing an average of $20,000 a year for care.
Over the next four years, the Government will invest more than $41.6 billion into aged and community care. During 2007-08 the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency conducted 5244 visits to homes, with 3105 visits unannounced. In this same period the Department of Health and Ageing undertook 3127 visits to homes, of which 1145 were unannounced.
The policy co-ordinator of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW, Charmaine Crowe, said the increase in complaints revealed that people were more likely to come forward, but many complainants found their cases were not investigated thoroughly. "I know of one case which went to the department and was referred back to the nursing home. That complaint was very serious in nature. It should not have been referred back to the nursing home. That is simply unacceptable."
Elder Abuse Prevention Association founder Lillian Jeter said many cases of abuse or neglect were still going unreported.
Under changes to the law in 2007, it is mandatory for nursing home staff to report serious cases of physical or sexual abuse.
In 2007-08, there were 725 notifications of alleged unreasonable use of force and 200 allegations of alleged unlawful sexual contact.
However, nursing home staff are not obliged to report matters such as neglect, financial exploitation or psychological abuse.
"I think those three categories should come under mandatory reporting," Ms Jeter said.
"If you catch these so-called lesser types of incidents early, if you catch the neglect, the pyschological abuse or the financial exploitation, you are more likely to prevent the more serious types of incidents from happening. There needs to be a zero-tolerance policy."
The Aged Care Crisis Team is also calling for mandatory staff-to-resident ratios. "Hospitals, schools and child-care centres must adhere to set staffing levels. Why are facilities which provide end-of-life care exempt?" Ms Saltarelli said.
"We have heard of multiple instances of under-staffing. For example, one staff member to 80 residents at night."
Up to half aged care residents suffer from malnutrition, a senior dietitian said at a conference in Darwin yesterday.
Dr Merrilyn Banks from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital said that while nursing home residents were usually given nutritious food, many of them were unable to eat it if they were on heavy pain medication, which can reduce their appetite or make them drowsy.
Aged Care Association Australia chief executive Rod Young, whose organisation represents private sector and not-for-profit nursing homes, said providers were doing the best with limited resources.
"We provide approximately 80 million days of care by nearly 240,000 staff ranging from personal care workers to registered nurses. So a very complex service is being offered by a great range of staff in a variety of settings and often to the most frail, vulnerable and complex-care recipients in the country."
He said the number of complaints were small in comparison to the number of people either in aged care or with a friend or relative in aged care. "Throw into the mix a further 500,000 people who are the family, friends, legal representatives, volunteers and visitors, many of whom will have their own views on how care should be delivered and many of whom have to struggle with the declining health of a loved one … and it is a volatile mix of emotions," he said.
A spokeswoman for the Minister for Ageing, Justine Elliot, said the increase in complaints was due to increased compliance measures and increased awareness of the Complaints Investigation Scheme.
It should be no surprise to anyone that complaints are rising what with mandatory reporting of elder abuse and the and minimum cost care provided by aged care providers. Many nursing homes are now run largely by non nursing trained carers who may have minimal training the care of the aged and their needs and medications. Working for a phone triage company we get plenty of calls from aged care workers in aged care facilites that range from what would be a simple problem for a trained nurse to solve eg how to stop a patient bleeding from a skin tear, medication errors, and emergencies where the aged care workers are instructed to call Heatlh Direct first before calling other agencies. There is no nurse on site that they can call for assistance. Lord knows what goes on in the facilities where the aged care workers do not call for assistance,
Jenny Haines
Our nursing homes in turmoil
Rachel Browne, Sun Herald.
May 31, 2009
COMPLAINTS about nursing homes have tripled in a year, with authorities investigating serious cases of physical and sexual abuse as well as referring more than 30 deaths to the coroner.
The Department of Health and Ageing's Complaints Investigation Scheme (CIS) looked at almost 7500 complaints in 2007-08.
Of these, 1770 matters were referred to the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency for further investigation, 62 to nurses registration boards, 53 to the police, 33 to the coroner, 27 to the Health Care Complaints Commission and 13 to the Medical Practitioners Board.
Of the referrals to the coroner, seven occurred in NSW, 22 in Victoria, one in Queensland and three in South Australia.
This marks a significant increase from 2006-07, when the CIS and its predecessor, the Aged Care Complaints Resolution Scheme, examined 2399 complaints. In 2005-06, the scheme received 1260 complaints.
However, aged care lobby groups say the complaints handling system for Australia's 2830 nursing homes is seriously flawed and the public is denied information about the outcomes of investigations.
The Department of Health and Ageing will identify nursing homes that have been the subject of an official sanction or a notice of non-compliance.
The name-and-shame list will appear on a Department of Health and Ageing website from July 1.
But Aged Care Crisis Team spokeswoman Lynda Saltarelli said the information would be more than a year old and would relate only to a small number of homes subject to complaints.
"We would like to see a transparent system where a consumer can look at a nursing home and find out the type of ownership and structure; whether it has been the subject of failing standards as well as a complaint; the nature of the complaint; and what the provider did to address that complaint," Ms Saltarelli said.
There are 175,000 people in aged care facilities across the nation, a figure growing by 5000 a year.
Taxpayers subsidise the care of residents by an average of $45,000 a year, with residents contributing an average of $20,000 a year for care.
Over the next four years, the Government will invest more than $41.6 billion into aged and community care. During 2007-08 the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency conducted 5244 visits to homes, with 3105 visits unannounced. In this same period the Department of Health and Ageing undertook 3127 visits to homes, of which 1145 were unannounced.
The policy co-ordinator of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW, Charmaine Crowe, said the increase in complaints revealed that people were more likely to come forward, but many complainants found their cases were not investigated thoroughly. "I know of one case which went to the department and was referred back to the nursing home. That complaint was very serious in nature. It should not have been referred back to the nursing home. That is simply unacceptable."
Elder Abuse Prevention Association founder Lillian Jeter said many cases of abuse or neglect were still going unreported.
Under changes to the law in 2007, it is mandatory for nursing home staff to report serious cases of physical or sexual abuse.
In 2007-08, there were 725 notifications of alleged unreasonable use of force and 200 allegations of alleged unlawful sexual contact.
However, nursing home staff are not obliged to report matters such as neglect, financial exploitation or psychological abuse.
"I think those three categories should come under mandatory reporting," Ms Jeter said.
"If you catch these so-called lesser types of incidents early, if you catch the neglect, the pyschological abuse or the financial exploitation, you are more likely to prevent the more serious types of incidents from happening. There needs to be a zero-tolerance policy."
The Aged Care Crisis Team is also calling for mandatory staff-to-resident ratios. "Hospitals, schools and child-care centres must adhere to set staffing levels. Why are facilities which provide end-of-life care exempt?" Ms Saltarelli said.
"We have heard of multiple instances of under-staffing. For example, one staff member to 80 residents at night."
Up to half aged care residents suffer from malnutrition, a senior dietitian said at a conference in Darwin yesterday.
Dr Merrilyn Banks from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital said that while nursing home residents were usually given nutritious food, many of them were unable to eat it if they were on heavy pain medication, which can reduce their appetite or make them drowsy.
Aged Care Association Australia chief executive Rod Young, whose organisation represents private sector and not-for-profit nursing homes, said providers were doing the best with limited resources.
"We provide approximately 80 million days of care by nearly 240,000 staff ranging from personal care workers to registered nurses. So a very complex service is being offered by a great range of staff in a variety of settings and often to the most frail, vulnerable and complex-care recipients in the country."
He said the number of complaints were small in comparison to the number of people either in aged care or with a friend or relative in aged care. "Throw into the mix a further 500,000 people who are the family, friends, legal representatives, volunteers and visitors, many of whom will have their own views on how care should be delivered and many of whom have to struggle with the declining health of a loved one … and it is a volatile mix of emotions," he said.
A spokeswoman for the Minister for Ageing, Justine Elliot, said the increase in complaints was due to increased compliance measures and increased awareness of the Complaints Investigation Scheme.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
NEWSAGENTS BID TO BUY LOTTERIES
Newsagents bid to buy NSW Lotteries
Alex Mitchell writes in Crikey 27.5.09:
Newsagencies in NSW have been complaining loudly about the forthcoming privatization of NSW Lotteries because of the impact on their revenue streams and the value of their businesses.
So they’ve decided to put in a bid themselves.
On Friday the Newsagents’ Association of NSW and ACT Ltd has a meeting with Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, former general secretary of the NSW Labor Party, who is leading the privatization push.
Under the bank-backed newsagents’ proposal, the government would retain a majority 51 per cent shareholding and the association the other 49 per cent.
With a section of the Labor Caucus, the unions and the party-at-large up in arms over the sell-off of the lotteries, Parklea prison and other state-owned assets, Roozendaal may see electoral merit in a partial sale.
On the other hand, as a rabid privateer he is more likely to go with one of the players from the Big End of Town.
The front-runner to win the lotteries jackpot is the Victorian Tattersalls group which has already taken over Queensland’s Golden Casket.
Tattersalls has an inside run because it has strategically placed urgers in and around the NSW Government who are doing their best to dismiss the rival bidders -- Tabcorp, which owns Sydney’s Star City Casino at Pyrmont, and G-Tech, a subsidiary of the world's biggest lottery firm, Lottomatica.
For newsagents, the outcome of the auction is critical. Lottery ticket sales are a nice little earner at their 1200 online outlets and they also bring customers into newsagencies acting as a drawcard for selling other items off the shelves.
NSW newsagents argue there is no guarantee that they will continue to have exclusive retail rights if one of the big private operators buys the lotteries licence and there is a genuine fear that the percentage they receive from Lotto and Scratchies sales will eventually be reduced.
The big gaming enterprises are also seeking support from Roozendaal for an agreement to allow the sale of lottery products to be broadened to include registered clubs, supermarkets and service stations.
The club industry, one of the major donors to the NSW ALP, already sells Lotto and Scratchie products at the giant Twin Towns RSL Club at Tweed Heads and the neighbouring Banora Point RSL Club, both owned by the heavy-hitting Twin Towns empire.
Under Roozendaal’s timetable, the sale of the 30-year exclusive licence will be completed by the end of the year and the sale price will be reflected in the 2010-11 budget i.e. election year.
The government is hoping to raise more than half a billion dollars for the lottery concession which, ironically, was started by Premier Jack Lang at the start of the Great Depression in 1931 to fund public hospitals.
When the government first investigated the sale of NSW Lotteries a few years ago the market price was more than $900 million, but the worldwide credit and lending crisis, and its impact on the tinhorn Australian economy, has put paid to that sort of return. The new owner is purchasing a gold-plated bargain.
Alex Mitchell writes in Crikey 27.5.09:
Newsagencies in NSW have been complaining loudly about the forthcoming privatization of NSW Lotteries because of the impact on their revenue streams and the value of their businesses.
So they’ve decided to put in a bid themselves.
On Friday the Newsagents’ Association of NSW and ACT Ltd has a meeting with Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, former general secretary of the NSW Labor Party, who is leading the privatization push.
Under the bank-backed newsagents’ proposal, the government would retain a majority 51 per cent shareholding and the association the other 49 per cent.
With a section of the Labor Caucus, the unions and the party-at-large up in arms over the sell-off of the lotteries, Parklea prison and other state-owned assets, Roozendaal may see electoral merit in a partial sale.
On the other hand, as a rabid privateer he is more likely to go with one of the players from the Big End of Town.
The front-runner to win the lotteries jackpot is the Victorian Tattersalls group which has already taken over Queensland’s Golden Casket.
Tattersalls has an inside run because it has strategically placed urgers in and around the NSW Government who are doing their best to dismiss the rival bidders -- Tabcorp, which owns Sydney’s Star City Casino at Pyrmont, and G-Tech, a subsidiary of the world's biggest lottery firm, Lottomatica.
For newsagents, the outcome of the auction is critical. Lottery ticket sales are a nice little earner at their 1200 online outlets and they also bring customers into newsagencies acting as a drawcard for selling other items off the shelves.
NSW newsagents argue there is no guarantee that they will continue to have exclusive retail rights if one of the big private operators buys the lotteries licence and there is a genuine fear that the percentage they receive from Lotto and Scratchies sales will eventually be reduced.
The big gaming enterprises are also seeking support from Roozendaal for an agreement to allow the sale of lottery products to be broadened to include registered clubs, supermarkets and service stations.
The club industry, one of the major donors to the NSW ALP, already sells Lotto and Scratchie products at the giant Twin Towns RSL Club at Tweed Heads and the neighbouring Banora Point RSL Club, both owned by the heavy-hitting Twin Towns empire.
Under Roozendaal’s timetable, the sale of the 30-year exclusive licence will be completed by the end of the year and the sale price will be reflected in the 2010-11 budget i.e. election year.
The government is hoping to raise more than half a billion dollars for the lottery concession which, ironically, was started by Premier Jack Lang at the start of the Great Depression in 1931 to fund public hospitals.
When the government first investigated the sale of NSW Lotteries a few years ago the market price was more than $900 million, but the worldwide credit and lending crisis, and its impact on the tinhorn Australian economy, has put paid to that sort of return. The new owner is purchasing a gold-plated bargain.
Monday, May 25, 2009
GOVT COOL ON HOSPITAL TAKEOVER
Government cool on hospital takeover
Mark Metherell, smh
May 25, 2009
THE Rudd Government is expected to stop short of a financial takeover of public hospitals and instead seek control of other health areas including outpatient care and community health services.
In the strongest sign yet that the Government will abandon moves to take over hospitals unless they came up to scratch, the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said yesterday there were "positive signs" of improvement in public hospitals. Despite continued signs of long waiting lists and hospital strains, Ms Roxon said there had been "significant developments" in hospitals, and state governments had agreed to sign on to "improved outcomes".
The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission is being tipped in government circles to sidestep a total federal takeover and instead recommend in its final report next month that the Commonwealth assume financial say over outpatient care and all health services outside hospitals. This would enable better co-ordination of primary health care by doctors, nurses and community services.
The commission said in its interim report this year that while it would involve a significant shift in responsibility to the Commonwealth, it would involve less disruption to existing responsibilities than other more radical schemes.
The Commonwealth could secure a greater say over in-hospital care by introducing a payment system tied more closely to actual caseload, rather than untargeted payments.
Asked on Channel Nine about the Government's stance given that no one believed public hospitals were up to scratch, Ms Roxon said there had been significant developments since Labor took office. "I think there are some positive signs, but that does not mean everything is fixed," she said.
But the Opposition's health spokesman, Peter Dutton, said Kevin Rudd was deserting his promise to end the "blame game" over funding between federal and state governments.
The Government had watered down its pledge and was walking away from its promise to take over public hospital funding, Mr Dutton said on Channel Ten.
On a related issue, the Government plans to introduce legislation to means test the health insurance rebate in the next two weeks to intensify pressure on the Opposition over blocking a budget measure that would generate $1.9 billion in savings over four years.
Mark Metherell, smh
May 25, 2009
THE Rudd Government is expected to stop short of a financial takeover of public hospitals and instead seek control of other health areas including outpatient care and community health services.
In the strongest sign yet that the Government will abandon moves to take over hospitals unless they came up to scratch, the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said yesterday there were "positive signs" of improvement in public hospitals. Despite continued signs of long waiting lists and hospital strains, Ms Roxon said there had been "significant developments" in hospitals, and state governments had agreed to sign on to "improved outcomes".
The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission is being tipped in government circles to sidestep a total federal takeover and instead recommend in its final report next month that the Commonwealth assume financial say over outpatient care and all health services outside hospitals. This would enable better co-ordination of primary health care by doctors, nurses and community services.
The commission said in its interim report this year that while it would involve a significant shift in responsibility to the Commonwealth, it would involve less disruption to existing responsibilities than other more radical schemes.
The Commonwealth could secure a greater say over in-hospital care by introducing a payment system tied more closely to actual caseload, rather than untargeted payments.
Asked on Channel Nine about the Government's stance given that no one believed public hospitals were up to scratch, Ms Roxon said there had been significant developments since Labor took office. "I think there are some positive signs, but that does not mean everything is fixed," she said.
But the Opposition's health spokesman, Peter Dutton, said Kevin Rudd was deserting his promise to end the "blame game" over funding between federal and state governments.
The Government had watered down its pledge and was walking away from its promise to take over public hospital funding, Mr Dutton said on Channel Ten.
On a related issue, the Government plans to introduce legislation to means test the health insurance rebate in the next two weeks to intensify pressure on the Opposition over blocking a budget measure that would generate $1.9 billion in savings over four years.
Friday, May 22, 2009
OUTSTATIONS POLICY - ASSIMILATION
Outstations policy a fresh attempt at assimilation.
Dr Thalia Anthony, Sydney University. Circulated by Women for Wik.
May 21, 2009
Evidence shows that indigenous wellbeing declines in townships.
ON THE eve of the Northern Territory Government announcing plans to, in effect, close down indigenous outstations, a report was released that showed indigenous people in Arnhem Land outstations and homelands had the most sustainable lives and communities.
The Healthy Country, Healthy People report shows the physical, emotional, social and cultural health benefits experienced by these people. It is therefore incongruous that while the Federal Government espouses a "closing the gap" agenda, the Northern Territory Government is undermining these health outcomes.
The Arnhem Land study finds that Aboriginal people participating in customary and contemporary land and sea management practices, particularly those living in traditional homelands, are much healthier than those in townships.
The report's authors note that "pressure to centralise remote indigenous populations and services into townships has increased, despite evidence suggesting this would lead to worse health outcomes". Townships promote inactivity, malnutrition, social dysfunction and other social disadvantages.
The researchers from Charles Darwin University reveal that health outcomes associated with living on and managing traditional country include major reductions in risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other chronic diseases. These diseases not only severely disrupt indigenous society, they also require large public expenditure for treatment.Participants in natural and cultural resource management practices report a more nutritious diet and a greater degree of physical activity. Cultural management also provides potential markets for environmental investment.
Rather than foster and support these homeland communities and outstations, both the federal and Northern Territory governments have sought to undermine their existence. Under federal policy, there is a ban on expenditure for housing on Aboriginal outstations and homelands, apart from some repairs and maintenance.
This policy was entrenched in the memorandum of understanding between the Australian and Northern Territory governments on indigenous housing, accommodation and related services, which was signed in the dying days of the Howard government in September 2007.
The Northern Territory Government's announcement this week furthers this understanding.
The plan to consolidate services into 20 large communities will threaten up to 580 remote outstations. This will force indigenous people into townships, which will undermine their traditional, healthier lives and provoke social dysfunction in the townships.The attempts to oust outstations also run against the Australian Government's recent endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which supports self-determination.Outstations resonate with aspirations of indigenous self-determination. According to Gregory Marks, who has been an adviser on Northern Territory policy for the past four decades, the outstations emerged in the 1970s in response to the assimilation policy and changes in pastoralism that pushed indigenous people into settlements and onto urban fringes.Many of the outstations are a reaction to the confinement that settlement life imposed on indigenous people. Outstations allow indigenous people to nurture their economies and culture.The only basis for the outstation policy is ideological: to push indigenous people into the mainstream and engender assimilation. It operates hand in hand with the Northern Territory intervention that focuses funding priorities on a limited number of prescribed communities.
The Northern Territory and federal governments are reimposing colonial forms of containment that prevent indigenous survival beyond government-regulated boundaries.The policy of undermining outstations is a threat to indigenous wellbeing and is against evidence-based research that recommends the preservation of outstations.
Marks notes that the ideological campaign against outstations has provided an unproductive distraction from constructive policy development. Government investment needs to be measured in terms of health, cultural and natural resource management outcomes.
The outstation policy exposes the "closing the gap" policy as mere rhetoric, with dangerous political prejudices.
Dr Thalia Anthony is a lecturer and a Northern Territory indigenous law researcher at the Sydney Law School.
Dr Thalia Anthony, Sydney University. Circulated by Women for Wik.
May 21, 2009
Evidence shows that indigenous wellbeing declines in townships.
ON THE eve of the Northern Territory Government announcing plans to, in effect, close down indigenous outstations, a report was released that showed indigenous people in Arnhem Land outstations and homelands had the most sustainable lives and communities.
The Healthy Country, Healthy People report shows the physical, emotional, social and cultural health benefits experienced by these people. It is therefore incongruous that while the Federal Government espouses a "closing the gap" agenda, the Northern Territory Government is undermining these health outcomes.
The Arnhem Land study finds that Aboriginal people participating in customary and contemporary land and sea management practices, particularly those living in traditional homelands, are much healthier than those in townships.
The report's authors note that "pressure to centralise remote indigenous populations and services into townships has increased, despite evidence suggesting this would lead to worse health outcomes". Townships promote inactivity, malnutrition, social dysfunction and other social disadvantages.
The researchers from Charles Darwin University reveal that health outcomes associated with living on and managing traditional country include major reductions in risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other chronic diseases. These diseases not only severely disrupt indigenous society, they also require large public expenditure for treatment.Participants in natural and cultural resource management practices report a more nutritious diet and a greater degree of physical activity. Cultural management also provides potential markets for environmental investment.
Rather than foster and support these homeland communities and outstations, both the federal and Northern Territory governments have sought to undermine their existence. Under federal policy, there is a ban on expenditure for housing on Aboriginal outstations and homelands, apart from some repairs and maintenance.
This policy was entrenched in the memorandum of understanding between the Australian and Northern Territory governments on indigenous housing, accommodation and related services, which was signed in the dying days of the Howard government in September 2007.
The Northern Territory Government's announcement this week furthers this understanding.
The plan to consolidate services into 20 large communities will threaten up to 580 remote outstations. This will force indigenous people into townships, which will undermine their traditional, healthier lives and provoke social dysfunction in the townships.The attempts to oust outstations also run against the Australian Government's recent endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which supports self-determination.Outstations resonate with aspirations of indigenous self-determination. According to Gregory Marks, who has been an adviser on Northern Territory policy for the past four decades, the outstations emerged in the 1970s in response to the assimilation policy and changes in pastoralism that pushed indigenous people into settlements and onto urban fringes.Many of the outstations are a reaction to the confinement that settlement life imposed on indigenous people. Outstations allow indigenous people to nurture their economies and culture.The only basis for the outstation policy is ideological: to push indigenous people into the mainstream and engender assimilation. It operates hand in hand with the Northern Territory intervention that focuses funding priorities on a limited number of prescribed communities.
The Northern Territory and federal governments are reimposing colonial forms of containment that prevent indigenous survival beyond government-regulated boundaries.The policy of undermining outstations is a threat to indigenous wellbeing and is against evidence-based research that recommends the preservation of outstations.
Marks notes that the ideological campaign against outstations has provided an unproductive distraction from constructive policy development. Government investment needs to be measured in terms of health, cultural and natural resource management outcomes.
The outstation policy exposes the "closing the gap" policy as mere rhetoric, with dangerous political prejudices.
Dr Thalia Anthony is a lecturer and a Northern Territory indigenous law researcher at the Sydney Law School.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
IS HEALTH CARE SAFER??
Red News Readers,
The Safety Study that was done in 1995 has not been repeated. Its results caused controversy at the time and since. I remember evidence being given at the Campbelltown Camden Enquiry about this study, and efforts were made then to discredit the study and its authors. Interestingly Crikey, the link to the study doesn’t open?
Certainly politicians are a group in our community who are not interested in seeing such a study repeated but it should be if we are to know whether the system has improved or not since 1995. The safety processes that were put in place in NSW after 2003 should have made the system more safe and NSW Health should show confidence in their process. But with health being the political football it is these days, I can’t see it happening any time soon!!
Jenny Haines
Millions of dollars and 14 years later: is Australian health care any safer than before?
Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association Vice-President Dr Patrick Bolton writes in Crikey 19.05.09:
Almost 14 years after the Quality in Australian Healthcare Study showed many patients are harmed as a result of their health care, we still do not know whether Australian hospitals are safer today than when the study was conducted.
Nor do we know if the millions invested in improving patient safety since its November 1995 publication has been money well spent.
The study was a landmark in Australian health service evaluation. It comprised a review of the medical records of over 14 000 admissions to 28 hospitals in New South Wales and South Australia and revealed that 16.6% of these admissions were associated with an "adverse event", which resulted in disability or a longer hospital stay for the patient and was caused by health care management; 51% of the adverse events were considered preventable.
In 77.1% the disability had resolved within 12 months, but in 13.7% the disability was permanent and in 4.9% the patient died.
This study was the catalyst for investment in quality improvement in Australian healthcare.
Unfortunately, the benefit from this investment is unmeasured and questionable.
Nor do we know much about the safety of Australian primary care because no comparable study has been published in that setting.
The overall death rate in Australian public hospitals in 2006-7 was 1.3%. Assuming that the 1995 study’s figures remain applicable, nearly two-thirds (63%) of deaths in Australian hospitals are associated with an adverse event. Half of these -- one third of all hospital deaths -- are preventable. Australia is not alone: The results of the 1995 study are similar to those of other developed nations.
All Australian jurisdictions have invested in quality improvement programs to improve patient safety. Most have introduced self-reporting of safety incidents by hospital staff. This may be useful in identifying opportunities for improvement, but is a poor performance measure. It is unclear whether an increase in the reported rate of error reflects an increase in errors or reporting.
More empirical measures that reflect major causes of morbidity and mortality in areas known to be at high risk of error include drug errors, healthcare acquired infection, mortality after surgery and in-hospital mortality. Successful use of these measures has been demonstrated in limited settings in Australia and overseas. University hospitals in the US have used this approach to reduced in-hospital mortality.
Quality improvement focuses on improving processes, potentially at the cost of improved outcomes. The bureaucratised nature of the Australian healthcare system can combine with the focus on process to produce a ritualised response to adverse events in healthcare. This is illustrated by the root cause analysis process.
Root cause analysis is used internationally and recommended by all state health departments as a tool to investigate and improve from clinical incidents. Most Australian states have in place legislation to facilitate or mandate root cause analysis, at least in public hospitals.
Recent international reviews have questioned the appropriateness and effectiveness of root cause analysis as a tool for improving patient safety, and noted the costs that it imposes.
Root cause analysis involves retrospective analysis of a critical incident by an independent team clinically similar to, and familiar with the kind of work done by, the team involved in the incident. The team identify the causes of the incident and make recommendations about how recurrences might be prevented.
It is not uncommon for recommendations to include the development of tools such as a new policy, form, or further education. Tools such as these can only prevent an error if the risk of error is recognised in advance so that they can be applied. If the risk is not recognised in a timely manner then the tools are not useful. If the risk is recognised in advance then the tools are often of marginal benefit. The requirement to employ these tools increases the overhead on the health system. The recommendations of the root cause analysis team are not subject to any cost-benefit analysis, so additional demands are made without resources or analysis of benefit.
Effectiveness data are urgently required to assess the directions chosen in quality improvement in Australian healthcare.
Healthcare workers sometimes suggest that the 1995 study has not been repeated because the results would be unpalatable to politicians. If this is the case it needs to be recognised that here, as elsewhere in quality improvement, blame is inappropriate because it obscures the interests of patients.
Careful thought is required to ensure the efficient collection of useful data about the safety of the Australian healthcare system, but there is no question that ongoing collection of these data is required.
Australia must build on the foundation laid by the Quality in Australian Healthcare Study so that we have robust contemporary national data about the quality and safety of our healthcare system.
The Safety Study that was done in 1995 has not been repeated. Its results caused controversy at the time and since. I remember evidence being given at the Campbelltown Camden Enquiry about this study, and efforts were made then to discredit the study and its authors. Interestingly Crikey, the link to the study doesn’t open?
Certainly politicians are a group in our community who are not interested in seeing such a study repeated but it should be if we are to know whether the system has improved or not since 1995. The safety processes that were put in place in NSW after 2003 should have made the system more safe and NSW Health should show confidence in their process. But with health being the political football it is these days, I can’t see it happening any time soon!!
Jenny Haines
Millions of dollars and 14 years later: is Australian health care any safer than before?
Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association Vice-President Dr Patrick Bolton writes in Crikey 19.05.09:
Almost 14 years after the Quality in Australian Healthcare Study showed many patients are harmed as a result of their health care, we still do not know whether Australian hospitals are safer today than when the study was conducted.
Nor do we know if the millions invested in improving patient safety since its November 1995 publication has been money well spent.
The study was a landmark in Australian health service evaluation. It comprised a review of the medical records of over 14 000 admissions to 28 hospitals in New South Wales and South Australia and revealed that 16.6% of these admissions were associated with an "adverse event", which resulted in disability or a longer hospital stay for the patient and was caused by health care management; 51% of the adverse events were considered preventable.
In 77.1% the disability had resolved within 12 months, but in 13.7% the disability was permanent and in 4.9% the patient died.
This study was the catalyst for investment in quality improvement in Australian healthcare.
Unfortunately, the benefit from this investment is unmeasured and questionable.
Nor do we know much about the safety of Australian primary care because no comparable study has been published in that setting.
The overall death rate in Australian public hospitals in 2006-7 was 1.3%. Assuming that the 1995 study’s figures remain applicable, nearly two-thirds (63%) of deaths in Australian hospitals are associated with an adverse event. Half of these -- one third of all hospital deaths -- are preventable. Australia is not alone: The results of the 1995 study are similar to those of other developed nations.
All Australian jurisdictions have invested in quality improvement programs to improve patient safety. Most have introduced self-reporting of safety incidents by hospital staff. This may be useful in identifying opportunities for improvement, but is a poor performance measure. It is unclear whether an increase in the reported rate of error reflects an increase in errors or reporting.
More empirical measures that reflect major causes of morbidity and mortality in areas known to be at high risk of error include drug errors, healthcare acquired infection, mortality after surgery and in-hospital mortality. Successful use of these measures has been demonstrated in limited settings in Australia and overseas. University hospitals in the US have used this approach to reduced in-hospital mortality.
Quality improvement focuses on improving processes, potentially at the cost of improved outcomes. The bureaucratised nature of the Australian healthcare system can combine with the focus on process to produce a ritualised response to adverse events in healthcare. This is illustrated by the root cause analysis process.
Root cause analysis is used internationally and recommended by all state health departments as a tool to investigate and improve from clinical incidents. Most Australian states have in place legislation to facilitate or mandate root cause analysis, at least in public hospitals.
Recent international reviews have questioned the appropriateness and effectiveness of root cause analysis as a tool for improving patient safety, and noted the costs that it imposes.
Root cause analysis involves retrospective analysis of a critical incident by an independent team clinically similar to, and familiar with the kind of work done by, the team involved in the incident. The team identify the causes of the incident and make recommendations about how recurrences might be prevented.
It is not uncommon for recommendations to include the development of tools such as a new policy, form, or further education. Tools such as these can only prevent an error if the risk of error is recognised in advance so that they can be applied. If the risk is not recognised in a timely manner then the tools are not useful. If the risk is recognised in advance then the tools are often of marginal benefit. The requirement to employ these tools increases the overhead on the health system. The recommendations of the root cause analysis team are not subject to any cost-benefit analysis, so additional demands are made without resources or analysis of benefit.
Effectiveness data are urgently required to assess the directions chosen in quality improvement in Australian healthcare.
Healthcare workers sometimes suggest that the 1995 study has not been repeated because the results would be unpalatable to politicians. If this is the case it needs to be recognised that here, as elsewhere in quality improvement, blame is inappropriate because it obscures the interests of patients.
Careful thought is required to ensure the efficient collection of useful data about the safety of the Australian healthcare system, but there is no question that ongoing collection of these data is required.
Australia must build on the foundation laid by the Quality in Australian Healthcare Study so that we have robust contemporary national data about the quality and safety of our healthcare system.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
THOUSANDS FLOCK TO HEALTH FUNDS
Red News Readers,
No wonder politicans don't believe lobby groups when they predict disasters from government changes! No doubt people are taking out private insurance as insurance against having to go to the now disgraced public system. But what citizens have to understand that if they are injured in a trauma, say a motor vehicle accident, they will go to a public hospital ED and be treated by the doctors on duty. There is no choice of doctor in this situation. They then will go to a public hospital bed in a ward. Single rooms in public hospitals are not for private patients. They are for the very sick, the dying and the infectious. If someone with private insurance wants one of these rooms, they're welcome to it, so long as it is not needed for one of these patients, and that would be rare in a public system pressed for beds. If you have private cover you can be sure that you will get the full attention and the bills of your chosen doctor in a public hospital. Private insurance only covers the cost of elective treament in a private hospital. That is the circumstance where you get your choice of doctor.
In a public hospital a clerk will come around as ask if you wish to pay by private insurance or Medicare, and patients have that choice, but there is very little difference in the care given by the health system staff, doctors, nurses etc to a public patient or a private patient. In my 30 year nursing career I never looked at the patient's health insurance status, as I gave the same care to all, rich or poor. Long may it stay that way!! Although I hear now that hospitals are returning to the 30s , 40s ,50s and 60s and setting up private wards in public hospitals where there will be single rooms and private level care, with choice of doctor. Medicare swept all this away. How sad and stupid we are going back to it!!
Jenny Haines
Thousands flock to health funds
Josh Gordon, smh
May 17, 2009
AUSTRALIANS have been pouring into private health cover at a rate of more than 4000 a week, with new figures set to undermine claims that the private health system is about to be king-hit by changes announced in last week's budget.
A leaked report reveals an extra 225,000 people took up private cover during the 12 months to March this year.
The surge came despite warnings from insurers and the Opposition that changes announced in the 2008 budget would pressure the public system by forcing people to abandon private cover.
Some private health funds last year claimed they were heading for a "shock loss" of 6 to 8 per cent of their policy holders, following changes in the 2008 budget that increased the income threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge, applied to people with no private cover, from $50,000 to $70,000 for singles and from $100,000 to $140,000 for families. But the figures suggest the feared exodus did not occur.
Last week's federal budget confirmed plans to means test the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate for singles earning more than $75,000 and for families earning above $150,000. The rebate will cease for couples earning more than $240,000.
The Medicare levy surcharge rate will also be lifted for singles earning more than $90,000 and families above $180,000.
The figures, from the independent but publicly funded Private Health Insurance Administration Council, show more than 9.7 million Australians are now covered for private hospital insurance, equivalent to 44.6 per cent of the population.
In the first three months of 2009, an extra 45,000 people took up private cover, after an increase of 55,000 during the final three months of 2008. Since March 2007 the number of people with private cover has swelled by 634,000.
Treasury estimated the changes will have a minuscule impact on private cover, with modelling suggesting 99.7 per cent of people will remain in private health insurance.
But Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has pledged his party will vote against the plan to means test the 30 per cent rebate. Family First Senator Steve Fielding and Independent Nick Xenophon have also expressed concern.
The Health Insurance Association has argued that the decision to means test the rebate will place increased pressure on the public hospital system and force up premiums.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon yesterday accused Mr Turnbull of plotting to force people on low incomes to pay private health insurance.
No wonder politicans don't believe lobby groups when they predict disasters from government changes! No doubt people are taking out private insurance as insurance against having to go to the now disgraced public system. But what citizens have to understand that if they are injured in a trauma, say a motor vehicle accident, they will go to a public hospital ED and be treated by the doctors on duty. There is no choice of doctor in this situation. They then will go to a public hospital bed in a ward. Single rooms in public hospitals are not for private patients. They are for the very sick, the dying and the infectious. If someone with private insurance wants one of these rooms, they're welcome to it, so long as it is not needed for one of these patients, and that would be rare in a public system pressed for beds. If you have private cover you can be sure that you will get the full attention and the bills of your chosen doctor in a public hospital. Private insurance only covers the cost of elective treament in a private hospital. That is the circumstance where you get your choice of doctor.
In a public hospital a clerk will come around as ask if you wish to pay by private insurance or Medicare, and patients have that choice, but there is very little difference in the care given by the health system staff, doctors, nurses etc to a public patient or a private patient. In my 30 year nursing career I never looked at the patient's health insurance status, as I gave the same care to all, rich or poor. Long may it stay that way!! Although I hear now that hospitals are returning to the 30s , 40s ,50s and 60s and setting up private wards in public hospitals where there will be single rooms and private level care, with choice of doctor. Medicare swept all this away. How sad and stupid we are going back to it!!
Jenny Haines
Thousands flock to health funds
Josh Gordon, smh
May 17, 2009
AUSTRALIANS have been pouring into private health cover at a rate of more than 4000 a week, with new figures set to undermine claims that the private health system is about to be king-hit by changes announced in last week's budget.
A leaked report reveals an extra 225,000 people took up private cover during the 12 months to March this year.
The surge came despite warnings from insurers and the Opposition that changes announced in the 2008 budget would pressure the public system by forcing people to abandon private cover.
Some private health funds last year claimed they were heading for a "shock loss" of 6 to 8 per cent of their policy holders, following changes in the 2008 budget that increased the income threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge, applied to people with no private cover, from $50,000 to $70,000 for singles and from $100,000 to $140,000 for families. But the figures suggest the feared exodus did not occur.
Last week's federal budget confirmed plans to means test the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate for singles earning more than $75,000 and for families earning above $150,000. The rebate will cease for couples earning more than $240,000.
The Medicare levy surcharge rate will also be lifted for singles earning more than $90,000 and families above $180,000.
The figures, from the independent but publicly funded Private Health Insurance Administration Council, show more than 9.7 million Australians are now covered for private hospital insurance, equivalent to 44.6 per cent of the population.
In the first three months of 2009, an extra 45,000 people took up private cover, after an increase of 55,000 during the final three months of 2008. Since March 2007 the number of people with private cover has swelled by 634,000.
Treasury estimated the changes will have a minuscule impact on private cover, with modelling suggesting 99.7 per cent of people will remain in private health insurance.
But Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has pledged his party will vote against the plan to means test the 30 per cent rebate. Family First Senator Steve Fielding and Independent Nick Xenophon have also expressed concern.
The Health Insurance Association has argued that the decision to means test the rebate will place increased pressure on the public hospital system and force up premiums.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon yesterday accused Mr Turnbull of plotting to force people on low incomes to pay private health insurance.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
NSWNA FIGHTS FOR NIGHT SHIFT PENALTIES AT LAST
Red News Readers,
NSW Nurses, including myself, have been calling for this since the 1980s. Better late than never!!
Jenny Haines
NSW Nurses fight for night shift pay
Article from: AAP
May 03, 2009 04:38pm, Sunday Telegraph
PUBLIC hospital nurses will seek their first night shift allowance increase in more than 30 years at a NSW Industrial Relations Commission hearing this week.
The NSW Nurses Association (NSWNA) wants night shift penalty rates increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent and for the penalties to apply on weekends.
This would mean an extra $130 a week for nurses or midwives who do an entire week of night shifts.
Witnesses from the union, NSW Health and nurses from hospitals around the state will give evidence in Sydney from Monday.
Nurses are expected to tell the commission about the difficulties of working night shifts including poor sleep, health problems and disruption of family and social life.
Union president Brett Holmes said night duty penalty rates hadn't increased for public hospital nurses since 1975.
"The NSWNA does not believe the current rate of 15 per cent fairly and adequately compensates nurses for the social, domestic and health disadvantages experienced when they work night shift,'' he said in a statement on Sunday.
NSW Nurses, including myself, have been calling for this since the 1980s. Better late than never!!
Jenny Haines
NSW Nurses fight for night shift pay
Article from: AAP
May 03, 2009 04:38pm, Sunday Telegraph
PUBLIC hospital nurses will seek their first night shift allowance increase in more than 30 years at a NSW Industrial Relations Commission hearing this week.
The NSW Nurses Association (NSWNA) wants night shift penalty rates increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent and for the penalties to apply on weekends.
This would mean an extra $130 a week for nurses or midwives who do an entire week of night shifts.
Witnesses from the union, NSW Health and nurses from hospitals around the state will give evidence in Sydney from Monday.
Nurses are expected to tell the commission about the difficulties of working night shifts including poor sleep, health problems and disruption of family and social life.
Union president Brett Holmes said night duty penalty rates hadn't increased for public hospital nurses since 1975.
"The NSWNA does not believe the current rate of 15 per cent fairly and adequately compensates nurses for the social, domestic and health disadvantages experienced when they work night shift,'' he said in a statement on Sunday.
NURSES TO TREAT COMMON AILMENTS
Nurses ready to fill prescription void
EXCLUSIVE by Steve Lewis and Sue Dunlevy
April 29, 2009 12:00am, Daily Telegraph.
NURSES will be able to prescribe cheap medicines to patients under plans to boost their role in frontline health services.
The bold reform will expand health services in the bush, nursing homes and other areas struggling to cope with a shortage of 1300 GPs.
But it will place the Federal Government on a collision course with the powerful Australian Medical Association, which has campaigned to retain a monopoly on prescribing subsidised medicines.
Under the shake-up, the Government will allow experienced nurses - known as "nurse practitioners" - to prescribe medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving their patients hundreds of dollars on prescription drugs.
It will allow nursing practitioners to treat nursing home patients with minor ailments, prescribing vaccinations and antibiotics for tonsillitis, urinary tract infections - and even contraceptives.
The Budget measure will be promoted as making health services more affordable, particularly in the bush. The cost of common antibiotics would fall from $17 to $5 for pensioners if nurse prescriptions were subsidised.
It comes as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and senior ministers yesterday signed off on the thrust of the May 12 Budget. With the recession slashing billions of dollars from revenues, the Budget will target wealthier families in order to fund a pension increase.
The reform had earlier received a tick from the Budget razor gang, even though it is expected to cost millions of dollars in additional health outlays.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon has championed a broader role for nurses, claiming they are "under-utilised and undervalued" in the health system.
There are around 350 nurse practitioners in Australia who have 10 years of nursing experience and a masters degree in nursing.
They have the legal right to write prescriptions for up to 200 medicines but their patients have to pay full price, which can cost hundreds of dollars because the PBS does not cover medicines they prescribe.
Nurse practitioners are qualified to treat a range of common ailments including simple broken bones that don't need surgery, burns, urinary infections, sore ears, kidney stones, rashes and tonsillitis.
Australian Nursing Federation president Ged Kearney said nurse practitioners had been pushing hard to get subsidies for prescriptions.
She said a breakthrough in this area would provide a major encouragement for experienced nurses to increase their qualifications.
EXCLUSIVE by Steve Lewis and Sue Dunlevy
April 29, 2009 12:00am, Daily Telegraph.
NURSES will be able to prescribe cheap medicines to patients under plans to boost their role in frontline health services.
The bold reform will expand health services in the bush, nursing homes and other areas struggling to cope with a shortage of 1300 GPs.
But it will place the Federal Government on a collision course with the powerful Australian Medical Association, which has campaigned to retain a monopoly on prescribing subsidised medicines.
Under the shake-up, the Government will allow experienced nurses - known as "nurse practitioners" - to prescribe medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving their patients hundreds of dollars on prescription drugs.
It will allow nursing practitioners to treat nursing home patients with minor ailments, prescribing vaccinations and antibiotics for tonsillitis, urinary tract infections - and even contraceptives.
The Budget measure will be promoted as making health services more affordable, particularly in the bush. The cost of common antibiotics would fall from $17 to $5 for pensioners if nurse prescriptions were subsidised.
It comes as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and senior ministers yesterday signed off on the thrust of the May 12 Budget. With the recession slashing billions of dollars from revenues, the Budget will target wealthier families in order to fund a pension increase.
The reform had earlier received a tick from the Budget razor gang, even though it is expected to cost millions of dollars in additional health outlays.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon has championed a broader role for nurses, claiming they are "under-utilised and undervalued" in the health system.
There are around 350 nurse practitioners in Australia who have 10 years of nursing experience and a masters degree in nursing.
They have the legal right to write prescriptions for up to 200 medicines but their patients have to pay full price, which can cost hundreds of dollars because the PBS does not cover medicines they prescribe.
Nurse practitioners are qualified to treat a range of common ailments including simple broken bones that don't need surgery, burns, urinary infections, sore ears, kidney stones, rashes and tonsillitis.
Australian Nursing Federation president Ged Kearney said nurse practitioners had been pushing hard to get subsidies for prescriptions.
She said a breakthrough in this area would provide a major encouragement for experienced nurses to increase their qualifications.
UNIONS WIN ON CESSNOCK, PARKLEA TO BE STOPPED TOO!
Unions win private prison row after Rees capitulates
May 02, 2009 12:00am, smh
PREMIER Nathan Rees has capitulated to unions - dropping the State Government's plan to privatise Cessnock jail - to avoid a repeat of the showdown which unseated his predecessor.
In a deal to avoid an all-out war with unions and yet another policy U-turn for the Government, he has agreed to drop at least part of the privatisation plans.
The Government will proceed with the privatisation of Parklea prison but took the extraordinary step of blaming its capitulation on the global financial crisis.
Union leaders yesterday crowed about their victory.
"This is a great day for the Cessnock community and a good result for all those in the community who do not believe that prisons should be run for profit by big corporations," Public Service Association general secretary John Cahill said.
May 02, 2009 12:00am, smh
PREMIER Nathan Rees has capitulated to unions - dropping the State Government's plan to privatise Cessnock jail - to avoid a repeat of the showdown which unseated his predecessor.
In a deal to avoid an all-out war with unions and yet another policy U-turn for the Government, he has agreed to drop at least part of the privatisation plans.
The Government will proceed with the privatisation of Parklea prison but took the extraordinary step of blaming its capitulation on the global financial crisis.
Union leaders yesterday crowed about their victory.
"This is a great day for the Cessnock community and a good result for all those in the community who do not believe that prisons should be run for profit by big corporations," Public Service Association general secretary John Cahill said.
NOT FOOL PROOF!!
Future-proof, theft-proof, not foolproof
Chris Henning, SMH
May 2, 2009
SCENE: A shopping centre in Sydney's north-west, with single-storey shops surrounding a large car park. It is 3am. Rain has just stopped, and light from street lamps is reflected off the wet asphalt, but there is no moon and it is hard to make out anything in the deep shadows.
Owl: More pork!
Suddenly we hear the sound of a powerful car approaching. A huge black four-wheel-drive ute pulls up, and two men get out, rushing to pull equipment - gas bottles, cutting equipment, tubes and a powerful drill - out of the tray. They are dressed entirely in black, and their faces are masked in balaclavas. They look quickly round.
1st man: Here. It's over here. (Points.)
2nd man: Are you sure? Ken's briefing note said it'd be next to Baker's Delight.
1st man: This is Baker's Delight.
2nd man: No, it isn't. It's the Flower of Da Nang hot bread shop.
1st man: Same friggin' difference. Bring us the drill.
2nd man: (Hands over drill) You certain you know what to do?
1st man: Course. I looked it up on Wikipedia. (Takes paper out of back pocket and reads, tongue between lips. Mutters.) OK … OK. About here, I reckon.
He places the point of the drill bit low on the shop wall, and starts drilling. There is a screaming whine, and masonry and dust fly. The bit finally breaks through and 1st man pulls the howling drill out of the hole. He moves a metre or so to the left and repeats the procedure.
1st man: OK. Hoses!
2nd man: Check.
Both feed lengths of hose into the two holes. With one metre inside, they move away, unrolling hoses as they go.
1st man: Wire.
2nd man: Check. (He moves back to one hole, inserts two raw ends of wire, and moves away, unrolling wires behind him.)
1st man: Gas.
2nd man: Check. (He attaches a hose end to each gas bottle, and opens their valves. Muted hissing is heard as gas is pumped into the wall cavity.)
1st man: (Reads.) Let gas flow for 60 seconds.
2nd man: Hey, Wayne, how much you reckon this'll get us?
1st man (Wayne): Dunno. But a lot. Ken reckons the average ATM contains about 250 grand.
2nd man: So, like, we do four. That's a million bucks.
Wayne: (We see his teeth grinning in the low light.) Yeah. We do that a thousand times, that's a billion bucks.
2nd man: And if we do that 40 times, that's 40 billion bucks. (Low whistle.) Big bickies, mate.
Wayne: Yeah, so if we can pull this off just 160,000 times (cocky, lopsided grin), you know what that means?
Both together: We can bring the federal budget back to surplus and secure the future of the Rudd Government. (They high-five.)
Wayne: (Businesslike again.) OK, that's enough gas. (2nd man tightens valves. Both men hide behind their car.) Batteries.
2nd man: Check. (He pulls a nine-volt battery from his pocket and touches the ends of each wire to the terminals. A huge explosion where they have been drilling demolishes the wall, and showers the men and their ute with rubble, fizzing brown fluid and dented aluminium cans.)
Wayne: Shit.
2nd man: Told you he said Baker's Delight, mate.
Wayne: Shut up, Lindsay, will ya? (Gets into the ute.)
2nd man (Lindsay): (Getting in beside him.) We've blown up the hot bread shop Coke machine, mate. (They drive off, bickering.)
Chris Henning, SMH
May 2, 2009
SCENE: A shopping centre in Sydney's north-west, with single-storey shops surrounding a large car park. It is 3am. Rain has just stopped, and light from street lamps is reflected off the wet asphalt, but there is no moon and it is hard to make out anything in the deep shadows.
Owl: More pork!
Suddenly we hear the sound of a powerful car approaching. A huge black four-wheel-drive ute pulls up, and two men get out, rushing to pull equipment - gas bottles, cutting equipment, tubes and a powerful drill - out of the tray. They are dressed entirely in black, and their faces are masked in balaclavas. They look quickly round.
1st man: Here. It's over here. (Points.)
2nd man: Are you sure? Ken's briefing note said it'd be next to Baker's Delight.
1st man: This is Baker's Delight.
2nd man: No, it isn't. It's the Flower of Da Nang hot bread shop.
1st man: Same friggin' difference. Bring us the drill.
2nd man: (Hands over drill) You certain you know what to do?
1st man: Course. I looked it up on Wikipedia. (Takes paper out of back pocket and reads, tongue between lips. Mutters.) OK … OK. About here, I reckon.
He places the point of the drill bit low on the shop wall, and starts drilling. There is a screaming whine, and masonry and dust fly. The bit finally breaks through and 1st man pulls the howling drill out of the hole. He moves a metre or so to the left and repeats the procedure.
1st man: OK. Hoses!
2nd man: Check.
Both feed lengths of hose into the two holes. With one metre inside, they move away, unrolling hoses as they go.
1st man: Wire.
2nd man: Check. (He moves back to one hole, inserts two raw ends of wire, and moves away, unrolling wires behind him.)
1st man: Gas.
2nd man: Check. (He attaches a hose end to each gas bottle, and opens their valves. Muted hissing is heard as gas is pumped into the wall cavity.)
1st man: (Reads.) Let gas flow for 60 seconds.
2nd man: Hey, Wayne, how much you reckon this'll get us?
1st man (Wayne): Dunno. But a lot. Ken reckons the average ATM contains about 250 grand.
2nd man: So, like, we do four. That's a million bucks.
Wayne: (We see his teeth grinning in the low light.) Yeah. We do that a thousand times, that's a billion bucks.
2nd man: And if we do that 40 times, that's 40 billion bucks. (Low whistle.) Big bickies, mate.
Wayne: Yeah, so if we can pull this off just 160,000 times (cocky, lopsided grin), you know what that means?
Both together: We can bring the federal budget back to surplus and secure the future of the Rudd Government. (They high-five.)
Wayne: (Businesslike again.) OK, that's enough gas. (2nd man tightens valves. Both men hide behind their car.) Batteries.
2nd man: Check. (He pulls a nine-volt battery from his pocket and touches the ends of each wire to the terminals. A huge explosion where they have been drilling demolishes the wall, and showers the men and their ute with rubble, fizzing brown fluid and dented aluminium cans.)
Wayne: Shit.
2nd man: Told you he said Baker's Delight, mate.
Wayne: Shut up, Lindsay, will ya? (Gets into the ute.)
2nd man (Lindsay): (Getting in beside him.) We've blown up the hot bread shop Coke machine, mate. (They drive off, bickering.)
Saturday, May 02, 2009
DON'T ASK ME, I'M LOST!
Don't Ask Me, I'm Lost
By Scott Mitchell, New Matilda, 29.4.09
Why are Fairfax journalists — and our Treasurer — treating the IMF's forecasts like fact and using them to peddle false economic optimism?
After only a couple of days in lockdown with the eggheads at meetings of the G20 Finance Ministers and the International Monetary Fund, Wayne Swan last week became aware that the economic crisis was worse than he'd thought.
On Ten's Meet the Press, Swan told the assembled financial journalists that after talking to the finance ministers of the world, it had become "pretty clear that this recession is deep and it will probably go for longer than many had anticipated only a short time ago".
The question is, why does our Treasurer have to travel to the other side of the world to get a reality check? And why are Australian broadsheets playing catch up on the economic crisis?
Until he left our shores, Swan was trumpeting the same delusions to which we've all been subjected recently. Swan's impression of the global financial crisis might well have been based on the same IMF reports given uncritical coverage by the Sydney Morning Herald last week.
Quoting the IMF as an oracle, Jacob Saulwick and Phillip Coorey's front page article read as follows:
"Australia's economy is set to contract by 1.4 per cent in 2009, the IMF said, before growing just 0.6 per cent next year. The IMF's forecast is markedly worse than the 1 per cent growth for 2008-09 predicted by the Government in February, and is likely to be matched when revised figures are released in next month's budget."
That 0.6 per cent over the hill is an important figure. We just need to be patient, we all need to wait just a little longer and everything will work out nice as pie.
Me, I very much doubt this twitch of growth is coming at all. Why? Because the IMF has no idea what's going to happen next. Their analyses and outlooks are consistently wrong — which is to say that they are perpetually upgraded, revised, downgraded and overhauled.
Phillip Coorey certainly knows the IMF's track record on economic forecasting — he reported it on 20 April. Except according to Coorey the IMF weren't wrong, they were just "revising" again.
In fact, Coorey has reported every revision since 20 October 2008 when the IMF predicted our economy would continue to grow through 2009, albeit at only 2 per cent. Those were good times. Since then they've revised the forecast three times. Now, the IMF is calling a 1.4 per cent contraction in the economy for 2009, a figure which indicates we'll have a very serious recession.
A depression, even? And yet Coorey has again handed us the latest round of projections as if they were facts.
Last month when Kevin Rudd was in Washington en route to the G20 in London, Coorey's economic reporting grabbed my attention. "Rudd Reveals Plan To Save World From New Depression", screamed the headline. Breaths had been bated the world over in anticipation of the long rumoured plan and finally, the Prime Minister had chosen to reveal it.
Back in Sydney, whoever thought that title was appropriate for the emptiness that followed should've been dismissed as a lunatic out of hand. Or was it one of the outsourced sub-editors in Brisbane who came up with it? At any rate, the SMH apparently believes that repetitive platitudes constitute not only a "plan" but one that is going to save the world economy. Kevin's first proposition: "No nation can deal with this crisis on its own." And the second? Nations must instead work together. Brilliant!
Coorey went on to relate that, "earlier this week Mr Rudd described protectionism as an insidious evil and he rallied against it in his speech", and that nations must work with the World Bank and IMF to solve their problems. Coorey himself loves to quote important sounding economic reports, so it was odd that he didn't pick Rudd up on the fact that the very same day, the WTO had named and shamed Australia as one of the countries which had turned to protectionism to rescue its economy.
Not only that, but didn't this whole anti-protectionism, pro-unremitting capitalism stance contradict the essay that Rudd's least imaginative advisors had written for The Monthly? It seemed like Rudd hadn't even read the piece, but rather was reciting lines from cue cards written in Washington: IMF funds should be tripled, and every other tired goal that the real leaders of the world had already decided on.
But according to the SMH, Rudd was not only the saviour of the world economy, he was important globally — a myth every Australian prime minister has attempted to perpetuate since Billy Hughes.
What's so bad about all that, you may ask?
Banks have been overrun with mortgage applications in the last couple of weeks, encouraged by falling interest rates and the rosy promises of a recovering economy that have been concocted out of thin air by incompetent hack economists. What happens if, as Access Economics predicts, more than one million Australians find themselves out of work next year?
House repossession rates are already rising steeply in NSW according to the NSW Attorney-General's Department. There are fathers and mothers who don't have enough money to feed their children anymore. We aren't yet in the maw of the recession: the real job losses will hit in the next three to nine months. People will lose their homes, their families, their possessions and their health because they thought this was all going to get better.
Sharp-eyed readers will note that I've just quoted two sets of financial statistics, sourced, no less, from the SMH. Having just lambasted Coorey for treating IMF predictions like gospel, isn't it a bit rich casually to drop in numbers from another "reputable source"? The thing is, financial journalists, like any other breed, must rely on expert opinion and information to put together their stories. Without as much, reporting becomes less a matter of investigation and more one of surmise. What's important is that this information is treated critically, scrutinised carefully and situated in its proper context.
Writers like Coorey who puff false economic optimism have their hands soaked in the red ink of bank statements arriving at more and more homes all over Australia. They continue to peddle total bollocks, creating a vision of prosperity over the hill which will not come — not in time, anyway.
Phil, every time you've told us all it's getting better, it's gotten worse. Every month the losses get bigger, the economy is going to keep contracting, and more of us are going to lose our jobs. Do the honourable thing and be the first of your kind to admit that you're wrong, that the lenses through which you view politics and the economy do not work anymore, that you're as helpless in this storm as the rest of us. At the very least tell us the experts and pollies you're quoting don't know what they're talking about, or, for Christ's sake, find someone else to ask. There are hundreds of economists who've actually been right when the government and IMF have been wrong that no one seems to be consulting.
I don't want to pick on Phillip Coorey, because there are many others doing the same thing. The overwhelmingly positive responses to Jon Stewart's roasting of Jim Cramer, stock market pundit and host of CNBC's Mad Money, in the last month suggests that there is more rage in store for these false prophets of optimism.
As Cramer is to CNBC, so too is Coorey a cog in the wheel of the Fairfax machine, a media organisation that now seems preoccupied with the creation of a fantasy world — one that must constantly be revised — which it thinks makes better product. Is Fairfax selling positivity over reality to chase its fleeing readership?
If they are, it isn't working.
By Scott Mitchell, New Matilda, 29.4.09
Why are Fairfax journalists — and our Treasurer — treating the IMF's forecasts like fact and using them to peddle false economic optimism?
After only a couple of days in lockdown with the eggheads at meetings of the G20 Finance Ministers and the International Monetary Fund, Wayne Swan last week became aware that the economic crisis was worse than he'd thought.
On Ten's Meet the Press, Swan told the assembled financial journalists that after talking to the finance ministers of the world, it had become "pretty clear that this recession is deep and it will probably go for longer than many had anticipated only a short time ago".
The question is, why does our Treasurer have to travel to the other side of the world to get a reality check? And why are Australian broadsheets playing catch up on the economic crisis?
Until he left our shores, Swan was trumpeting the same delusions to which we've all been subjected recently. Swan's impression of the global financial crisis might well have been based on the same IMF reports given uncritical coverage by the Sydney Morning Herald last week.
Quoting the IMF as an oracle, Jacob Saulwick and Phillip Coorey's front page article read as follows:
"Australia's economy is set to contract by 1.4 per cent in 2009, the IMF said, before growing just 0.6 per cent next year. The IMF's forecast is markedly worse than the 1 per cent growth for 2008-09 predicted by the Government in February, and is likely to be matched when revised figures are released in next month's budget."
That 0.6 per cent over the hill is an important figure. We just need to be patient, we all need to wait just a little longer and everything will work out nice as pie.
Me, I very much doubt this twitch of growth is coming at all. Why? Because the IMF has no idea what's going to happen next. Their analyses and outlooks are consistently wrong — which is to say that they are perpetually upgraded, revised, downgraded and overhauled.
Phillip Coorey certainly knows the IMF's track record on economic forecasting — he reported it on 20 April. Except according to Coorey the IMF weren't wrong, they were just "revising" again.
In fact, Coorey has reported every revision since 20 October 2008 when the IMF predicted our economy would continue to grow through 2009, albeit at only 2 per cent. Those were good times. Since then they've revised the forecast three times. Now, the IMF is calling a 1.4 per cent contraction in the economy for 2009, a figure which indicates we'll have a very serious recession.
A depression, even? And yet Coorey has again handed us the latest round of projections as if they were facts.
Last month when Kevin Rudd was in Washington en route to the G20 in London, Coorey's economic reporting grabbed my attention. "Rudd Reveals Plan To Save World From New Depression", screamed the headline. Breaths had been bated the world over in anticipation of the long rumoured plan and finally, the Prime Minister had chosen to reveal it.
Back in Sydney, whoever thought that title was appropriate for the emptiness that followed should've been dismissed as a lunatic out of hand. Or was it one of the outsourced sub-editors in Brisbane who came up with it? At any rate, the SMH apparently believes that repetitive platitudes constitute not only a "plan" but one that is going to save the world economy. Kevin's first proposition: "No nation can deal with this crisis on its own." And the second? Nations must instead work together. Brilliant!
Coorey went on to relate that, "earlier this week Mr Rudd described protectionism as an insidious evil and he rallied against it in his speech", and that nations must work with the World Bank and IMF to solve their problems. Coorey himself loves to quote important sounding economic reports, so it was odd that he didn't pick Rudd up on the fact that the very same day, the WTO had named and shamed Australia as one of the countries which had turned to protectionism to rescue its economy.
Not only that, but didn't this whole anti-protectionism, pro-unremitting capitalism stance contradict the essay that Rudd's least imaginative advisors had written for The Monthly? It seemed like Rudd hadn't even read the piece, but rather was reciting lines from cue cards written in Washington: IMF funds should be tripled, and every other tired goal that the real leaders of the world had already decided on.
But according to the SMH, Rudd was not only the saviour of the world economy, he was important globally — a myth every Australian prime minister has attempted to perpetuate since Billy Hughes.
What's so bad about all that, you may ask?
Banks have been overrun with mortgage applications in the last couple of weeks, encouraged by falling interest rates and the rosy promises of a recovering economy that have been concocted out of thin air by incompetent hack economists. What happens if, as Access Economics predicts, more than one million Australians find themselves out of work next year?
House repossession rates are already rising steeply in NSW according to the NSW Attorney-General's Department. There are fathers and mothers who don't have enough money to feed their children anymore. We aren't yet in the maw of the recession: the real job losses will hit in the next three to nine months. People will lose their homes, their families, their possessions and their health because they thought this was all going to get better.
Sharp-eyed readers will note that I've just quoted two sets of financial statistics, sourced, no less, from the SMH. Having just lambasted Coorey for treating IMF predictions like gospel, isn't it a bit rich casually to drop in numbers from another "reputable source"? The thing is, financial journalists, like any other breed, must rely on expert opinion and information to put together their stories. Without as much, reporting becomes less a matter of investigation and more one of surmise. What's important is that this information is treated critically, scrutinised carefully and situated in its proper context.
Writers like Coorey who puff false economic optimism have their hands soaked in the red ink of bank statements arriving at more and more homes all over Australia. They continue to peddle total bollocks, creating a vision of prosperity over the hill which will not come — not in time, anyway.
Phil, every time you've told us all it's getting better, it's gotten worse. Every month the losses get bigger, the economy is going to keep contracting, and more of us are going to lose our jobs. Do the honourable thing and be the first of your kind to admit that you're wrong, that the lenses through which you view politics and the economy do not work anymore, that you're as helpless in this storm as the rest of us. At the very least tell us the experts and pollies you're quoting don't know what they're talking about, or, for Christ's sake, find someone else to ask. There are hundreds of economists who've actually been right when the government and IMF have been wrong that no one seems to be consulting.
I don't want to pick on Phillip Coorey, because there are many others doing the same thing. The overwhelmingly positive responses to Jon Stewart's roasting of Jim Cramer, stock market pundit and host of CNBC's Mad Money, in the last month suggests that there is more rage in store for these false prophets of optimism.
As Cramer is to CNBC, so too is Coorey a cog in the wheel of the Fairfax machine, a media organisation that now seems preoccupied with the creation of a fantasy world — one that must constantly be revised — which it thinks makes better product. Is Fairfax selling positivity over reality to chase its fleeing readership?
If they are, it isn't working.
Friday, May 01, 2009
AN HISTORIC DAY FOR IRAQ?
A historic day for Iraq – but not in the way the British want to believe
Robert Fisk, The Independent, 1.5.09
One hundred and seventy-nine dead soldiers. For what? 179,000 dead Iraqis? Or is the real figure closer to a million? We don't know. And we don't care. We never cared about the Iraqis. That's why we don't know the figure. That's why we left Basra yesterday.
I remember going to the famous Basra air base to ask how a poor Iraqi boy, a hotel receptionist called Bahr Moussa, had died. He was kicked to death in British military custody. His father was an Iraqi policeman. I talked to him in the company of a young Muslim woman. The British public relations man at the airport was laughing. "I don't believe this," my Muslim companion said. "He doesn't care." She did. So did I. I had reported from Northern Ireland. I had heard this laughter before. Which is why yesterday's departure should have been called the Day of Bahr Moussa.
Yesterday, his country was set free from his murderer. At last.History is a hard taskmaster. In my library, I have an original copy of General Angus Maude's statement to the people of Baghdad – $2,000, it cost me, at a telephone auction a few days before we invaded Iraq in 2003, but it is worth every cent. "Our military operations have as their object," Maude announced, "the defeat of the enemy... our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." And so it goes on. Maude, I should add, expired shortly afterwards because he declined to boil his milk in Baghdad and died of cholera.
Related articles * After six years, one month and 11 days, Britain ends its military mission in Iraq. There followed a familiar story.
The British occupation force was opposed by an Iraqi resistance – "terrorists", of course – and the British destroyed a town called Fallujah and demanded the surrender of a Shiite cleric and British intelligence in Baghdad claimed that "terrorists" were crossing the border from Syria, and Lloyd George – the Blair-Brown of his age – then stood up in the House of Commons and said that there would be "anarchy" in Iraq if British troops left. Oh dear.Even repeating these words is deeply embarrassing.
Here, for example, is a letter written by Nijris ibn Qu'ud to a British intelligence agent in 1920: "You cannot treat us like sheep... it is we Iraqi who are the brains of the Arab nation... You are given a short time to clear out of Mesopotamia. If you don't go you will be driven out."
So let us turn at last to T E Lawrence. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia. In The Sunday Times on 22 August 1920, he wrote of Iraq that the people of England "had been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information... Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows." Even more presciently, Lawrence had written that the Iraqis had not risked their lives in battle to become British subjects. "Whether they are fit for independence or not remains to be tried. Merit is no justification for freedom."Alas not.
Iraq, begging around Europe now that its oil wealth has run out, is a pitiful figure. But it is a little bit freer than it was. We have destroyed its master and our friend (a certain Saddam) and now, with our own dead clanking around our heels, we are getting out yet again. Till next time...* *
Robert Fisk, The Independent, 1.5.09
One hundred and seventy-nine dead soldiers. For what? 179,000 dead Iraqis? Or is the real figure closer to a million? We don't know. And we don't care. We never cared about the Iraqis. That's why we don't know the figure. That's why we left Basra yesterday.
I remember going to the famous Basra air base to ask how a poor Iraqi boy, a hotel receptionist called Bahr Moussa, had died. He was kicked to death in British military custody. His father was an Iraqi policeman. I talked to him in the company of a young Muslim woman. The British public relations man at the airport was laughing. "I don't believe this," my Muslim companion said. "He doesn't care." She did. So did I. I had reported from Northern Ireland. I had heard this laughter before. Which is why yesterday's departure should have been called the Day of Bahr Moussa.
Yesterday, his country was set free from his murderer. At last.History is a hard taskmaster. In my library, I have an original copy of General Angus Maude's statement to the people of Baghdad – $2,000, it cost me, at a telephone auction a few days before we invaded Iraq in 2003, but it is worth every cent. "Our military operations have as their object," Maude announced, "the defeat of the enemy... our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." And so it goes on. Maude, I should add, expired shortly afterwards because he declined to boil his milk in Baghdad and died of cholera.
Related articles * After six years, one month and 11 days, Britain ends its military mission in Iraq. There followed a familiar story.
The British occupation force was opposed by an Iraqi resistance – "terrorists", of course – and the British destroyed a town called Fallujah and demanded the surrender of a Shiite cleric and British intelligence in Baghdad claimed that "terrorists" were crossing the border from Syria, and Lloyd George – the Blair-Brown of his age – then stood up in the House of Commons and said that there would be "anarchy" in Iraq if British troops left. Oh dear.Even repeating these words is deeply embarrassing.
Here, for example, is a letter written by Nijris ibn Qu'ud to a British intelligence agent in 1920: "You cannot treat us like sheep... it is we Iraqi who are the brains of the Arab nation... You are given a short time to clear out of Mesopotamia. If you don't go you will be driven out."
So let us turn at last to T E Lawrence. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia. In The Sunday Times on 22 August 1920, he wrote of Iraq that the people of England "had been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information... Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows." Even more presciently, Lawrence had written that the Iraqis had not risked their lives in battle to become British subjects. "Whether they are fit for independence or not remains to be tried. Merit is no justification for freedom."Alas not.
Iraq, begging around Europe now that its oil wealth has run out, is a pitiful figure. But it is a little bit freer than it was. We have destroyed its master and our friend (a certain Saddam) and now, with our own dead clanking around our heels, we are getting out yet again. Till next time...* *
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
AXE ABCC NOW!
Axe ABCC now, demand workers mourning mates
29 April 2009 Content provided to you by AAP.
By Steve Gray, BRISBANE, April 28 AAP -
Some 25,000 construction workers have rallied across Australia, adding their voices to the ACTU's push for the abolition of the building watchdog dubbed "Gillard's Gestapo".
The workers, who gathered in capital cities across Australia on Tuesday, are also demanding the rollout of uniform national health and safety laws.
Rallies were held across the nation to mark Workers' Memorial Day, in honour of workers killed on the job.ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), initiated under the Howard government, was an "abomination".
Unionists have long complained that workers pointing out safety faults at construction sites risk jail if they refuse to cooperate with the ABCC.
"Those coercive powers shouldn't exist in any democracy and they must go," Ms Burrow told a crowd of 2,000 workers who marched on Queensland parliament in Brisbane.
"Workers can be hauled off the job, they can be forced to answer questions."Electrical Trades Union state secretary Peter Simpson told the Brisbane rally that the ABCC remained in existence despite a promise by the Rudd government to get rid of it."They were set up by Howard and they're his version of the Waffen SS (Nazi-era secret police)," Mr Simpson said."They're now Gillard's Gestapo," he added, referring to Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard.
Ms Burrow also called for the "highest possible standards" as Australia moves towards a more streamlined, national approach to occupational health and safety laws.
The federal government and all the states and territories have agreed to review the nine different systems currently in place across the nation.A panel reviewing the laws will produce a draft report at the end of October and a final report in early 2009, and Ms Burrow said the outcome must hand workers the protection they deserve.
Ms Burrow said 7,000 workers died from accidents, work-related injury and disease in 2008 - four times the national road toll."These building workers who build our cities and communities ... deserve better," she said.
Others called for the work-related death toll to be given greater prominence.Unionist Amanda Richards said that while road deaths were reported nightly, industrial deaths weren't given the same prominence, leading to a lack of public awareness.
ABCC head John Lloyd rejected union attempts to link the construction industry's poor health and safety record with the existence of the ABCC."The comments indicate that the ACTU is misinformed about the facts concerning occupational health and safety regulation in the building and construction industry," Mr Lloyd said."The ABCC is not given responsibility for occupational health and safety regulations in the building and construction industry."This rests with state occupational health and safety agencies, Comcare and the Federal Safety Commissioner."
Queensland's industrial relations minister Cameron Dick received loud applause when he accepted a proposal for a Brisbane CBD memorial to workers killed on the job.
In Melbourne, 15,000 workers gathered at the Victorian Trades Hall and were led in a minute's silence.
Across NSW more than 4,000 construction workers observed a minute's silence.About 3,000 workers rallied in Perth while hundreds gathered in Hobart, Adelaide and Darwin.
© 2009 AAP Disclaimer
29 April 2009 Content provided to you by AAP.
By Steve Gray, BRISBANE, April 28 AAP -
Some 25,000 construction workers have rallied across Australia, adding their voices to the ACTU's push for the abolition of the building watchdog dubbed "Gillard's Gestapo".
The workers, who gathered in capital cities across Australia on Tuesday, are also demanding the rollout of uniform national health and safety laws.
Rallies were held across the nation to mark Workers' Memorial Day, in honour of workers killed on the job.ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), initiated under the Howard government, was an "abomination".
Unionists have long complained that workers pointing out safety faults at construction sites risk jail if they refuse to cooperate with the ABCC.
"Those coercive powers shouldn't exist in any democracy and they must go," Ms Burrow told a crowd of 2,000 workers who marched on Queensland parliament in Brisbane.
"Workers can be hauled off the job, they can be forced to answer questions."Electrical Trades Union state secretary Peter Simpson told the Brisbane rally that the ABCC remained in existence despite a promise by the Rudd government to get rid of it."They were set up by Howard and they're his version of the Waffen SS (Nazi-era secret police)," Mr Simpson said."They're now Gillard's Gestapo," he added, referring to Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard.
Ms Burrow also called for the "highest possible standards" as Australia moves towards a more streamlined, national approach to occupational health and safety laws.
The federal government and all the states and territories have agreed to review the nine different systems currently in place across the nation.A panel reviewing the laws will produce a draft report at the end of October and a final report in early 2009, and Ms Burrow said the outcome must hand workers the protection they deserve.
Ms Burrow said 7,000 workers died from accidents, work-related injury and disease in 2008 - four times the national road toll."These building workers who build our cities and communities ... deserve better," she said.
Others called for the work-related death toll to be given greater prominence.Unionist Amanda Richards said that while road deaths were reported nightly, industrial deaths weren't given the same prominence, leading to a lack of public awareness.
ABCC head John Lloyd rejected union attempts to link the construction industry's poor health and safety record with the existence of the ABCC."The comments indicate that the ACTU is misinformed about the facts concerning occupational health and safety regulation in the building and construction industry," Mr Lloyd said."The ABCC is not given responsibility for occupational health and safety regulations in the building and construction industry."This rests with state occupational health and safety agencies, Comcare and the Federal Safety Commissioner."
Queensland's industrial relations minister Cameron Dick received loud applause when he accepted a proposal for a Brisbane CBD memorial to workers killed on the job.
In Melbourne, 15,000 workers gathered at the Victorian Trades Hall and were led in a minute's silence.
Across NSW more than 4,000 construction workers observed a minute's silence.About 3,000 workers rallied in Perth while hundreds gathered in Hobart, Adelaide and Darwin.
© 2009 AAP Disclaimer
Friday, April 24, 2009
HARDIE'S JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG
James Hardie is just the tip of the iceberg
Adam Schwab writes in Crikey 23.4.09:
A former derivatives trader and long-time sharemarket investor told this writer yesterday that he didn't bother with fundamental analysis anymore because he simply couldn't trust what companies said. Instead, the investor said he now preferred to predominantly rely on technical analysis (or trends) to determine his trades, especially with regard to "short selling".
A few hours later, it was reported that NSW Supreme Court Justice, Ian Gzell, ruled that seven James Hardie non-executive directors and three executives had committed misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to a February 2001 press release. The release had claimed that a fund setup to meet potential asbestos liabilities was "fully funded" (it ended up being $1.3 billion short).
While the actions of former chairperson, Meredith Hellicar, and the remaining directors are without excuse (Hellicar, a former CEO of law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth, was dubbed an "inaccurate" and "most unsatisfactory" witness), their conduct has not occurred in a corporate vacuum. There are numerous other former high flying corporate directors who presided over corporate collapses in which shareholders were fed constant misinformation but who have so far escaped any sanction whatsoever.
The former executives and directors of ABC Learning Centres have so far, avoided any charge for their actions at the insolvent company. Over the past five years, ABC's financial reports, upon which equity investors and lenders have based their financial decisions, were highly misleading (the company had been reporting profits when in actual fact, it had been making losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, with a large number of its centres losing money).
Under the watchful eye of auditors Pitcher Partners, ABC had been booking up-front cash payments as "development revenue" in an Enron-esque accounting slight of hand. In a remarkable coincidence, the Pitcher Partners auditor who formerly signed off on ABC's accounts was a gentleman by the name of Russell Brown. Brown also happened to audit the books of ABC founder Eddy Groves’ private company. No charges have been laid against Eddy Groves, or any other ABC executive. Further, the man who chaired ABC’s audit committee for five years, David Ryan, was last year re-elected Chairman of toll-road company Transurban and a director of Lend Lease -- that was after ABC’s was forced to re-state its earnings and slide into insolvency.
Then there is the sad case of MFS -- the Gold Coast-based fund manager run by former lawyers, Michael King and Phil Adams. MFS' business plan appeared to revolve around paying too much for cyclical assets (generally in the tourism sector) and flipping those assets into satellites. Those satellites would also invest in each other in what resembled a demented Macquarie Bank.
MFS was able to stay afloat for as long as it did because gullible investors were willing to place their savings into MFS' satellites or managed funds. Many did so on the basis of advice from their financial planners. Two former MFS directors, Michael Hiscock and Paul Manka, also happened to be financial planners at Avenue Capital Management. Avenue clients were among the largest investors in MFS funds, including the maligned Premium Investment Fund.
Then there is a sordid tale of Allco Finance Group, which paid $330 million to acquire property and fund manager Rubicon in December 2007. Allco directors Gordon Fell and David Coe collected tens of millions in cash for the deal, which was approved by independent Allco directors Rod Eddington, Barbara Ward and Bob Mansfield. Those independent directors also approved of Allco lending $50 million to a trust which was controlled by Allco’s founder, Coe, and which invested in the Allco headstock and satellite funds. Allco was placed in administration less than a year later, while Rubicon chief Fell used the proceeds from the related party Rubicon transaction to acquire a $28 million Sydney harbourside property.
The corporate careers of former James Hardie directors, especially that of Meredith Hellicar, are now over. Hellicar resigned from the board of AMP shortly after the damning judgment was delivered. It is expected that she will also resign from the board of Amalgamated Holdings shortly. Other leading director, Peter Wilcox, is expected to resign from the Telstra board.
While justice appears to have belatedly been done at James Hardie, it appears to be very much the exception to the rule.
Adam Schwab writes in Crikey 23.4.09:
A former derivatives trader and long-time sharemarket investor told this writer yesterday that he didn't bother with fundamental analysis anymore because he simply couldn't trust what companies said. Instead, the investor said he now preferred to predominantly rely on technical analysis (or trends) to determine his trades, especially with regard to "short selling".
A few hours later, it was reported that NSW Supreme Court Justice, Ian Gzell, ruled that seven James Hardie non-executive directors and three executives had committed misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to a February 2001 press release. The release had claimed that a fund setup to meet potential asbestos liabilities was "fully funded" (it ended up being $1.3 billion short).
While the actions of former chairperson, Meredith Hellicar, and the remaining directors are without excuse (Hellicar, a former CEO of law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth, was dubbed an "inaccurate" and "most unsatisfactory" witness), their conduct has not occurred in a corporate vacuum. There are numerous other former high flying corporate directors who presided over corporate collapses in which shareholders were fed constant misinformation but who have so far escaped any sanction whatsoever.
The former executives and directors of ABC Learning Centres have so far, avoided any charge for their actions at the insolvent company. Over the past five years, ABC's financial reports, upon which equity investors and lenders have based their financial decisions, were highly misleading (the company had been reporting profits when in actual fact, it had been making losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, with a large number of its centres losing money).
Under the watchful eye of auditors Pitcher Partners, ABC had been booking up-front cash payments as "development revenue" in an Enron-esque accounting slight of hand. In a remarkable coincidence, the Pitcher Partners auditor who formerly signed off on ABC's accounts was a gentleman by the name of Russell Brown. Brown also happened to audit the books of ABC founder Eddy Groves’ private company. No charges have been laid against Eddy Groves, or any other ABC executive. Further, the man who chaired ABC’s audit committee for five years, David Ryan, was last year re-elected Chairman of toll-road company Transurban and a director of Lend Lease -- that was after ABC’s was forced to re-state its earnings and slide into insolvency.
Then there is the sad case of MFS -- the Gold Coast-based fund manager run by former lawyers, Michael King and Phil Adams. MFS' business plan appeared to revolve around paying too much for cyclical assets (generally in the tourism sector) and flipping those assets into satellites. Those satellites would also invest in each other in what resembled a demented Macquarie Bank.
MFS was able to stay afloat for as long as it did because gullible investors were willing to place their savings into MFS' satellites or managed funds. Many did so on the basis of advice from their financial planners. Two former MFS directors, Michael Hiscock and Paul Manka, also happened to be financial planners at Avenue Capital Management. Avenue clients were among the largest investors in MFS funds, including the maligned Premium Investment Fund.
Then there is a sordid tale of Allco Finance Group, which paid $330 million to acquire property and fund manager Rubicon in December 2007. Allco directors Gordon Fell and David Coe collected tens of millions in cash for the deal, which was approved by independent Allco directors Rod Eddington, Barbara Ward and Bob Mansfield. Those independent directors also approved of Allco lending $50 million to a trust which was controlled by Allco’s founder, Coe, and which invested in the Allco headstock and satellite funds. Allco was placed in administration less than a year later, while Rubicon chief Fell used the proceeds from the related party Rubicon transaction to acquire a $28 million Sydney harbourside property.
The corporate careers of former James Hardie directors, especially that of Meredith Hellicar, are now over. Hellicar resigned from the board of AMP shortly after the damning judgment was delivered. It is expected that she will also resign from the board of Amalgamated Holdings shortly. Other leading director, Peter Wilcox, is expected to resign from the Telstra board.
While justice appears to have belatedly been done at James Hardie, it appears to be very much the exception to the rule.
HARDIE DIRECTORS FAILED IN DUTIES
Former James Hardie board failed in their duties, Court
23 April 2009 Content provided to you by AAP.
By Drew CratchleySYDNEY, April 22 AAP -
Former James Hardie board members face fines and disqualification from ever managing a company again when a judgment is delivered on Thursday relating to the company's asbestos liabilities.
The landmark legal action launched by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) could also have ramifications for all Australian executives, with the case seen as a test of the responsibilities of directors of public companies.
Justice Ian Gzell will deliver his judgment in the civil case brought by ASIC against 10 former James Hardie directors and executives in the NSW Supreme Court at 10am (AEST).Among the defendants are former James Hardie chief executive Peter Macdonald, former company secretary Peter Shafron and former chairwoman Meredith Hellicar.ASIC is also seeking penalties against James Hardie Industries NV and ABN 60, formerly known as James Hardie Industries Ltd.
Each of the former senior and non-executive directors are alleged to have breached their duties as outlined by corporations law in a number of actions between February 2001 and June 2003.
At the centre of the allegations are public statements issued by James Hardie in 2001 that a fund set up to meet its compensation liabilities was fully funded.Just two years later, the company's compensation foundation was found to be underfunded by more than $1 billion.Aspects of James Hardie's relocation to the Netherlands in 2001 and the cancellation of some its shares are also covered by ASIC's action.
If found guilty, the defendants face a maximum penalty of $200,000 and, for the individuals, disqualification from managing a corporation.The case began in September last year, and sat for 45 days in a courtroom specially fitted with computers and broadband connections to enable the thousands of documents tendered in the trial to be accessed by the defendants and Justice Gzell.
Each day, the room was filled with the dozens of barristers employed by the defendants, and an equally large number of assistants.Those legal teams came at a massive cost, with James Hardie's current management telling investors in February it had so far amassed $US12.3 million ($A17.63 million) in legal costs as a result of this case.
Asbestos widow Karen Banton and asbestos-related disease sufferers attended the first day of the trial, but were not seen during the detailed and often complicated hearings.
Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president Barry Robson said victims were not overly optimistic about the judgment."I hope justice prevails and I hope the full force of the law comes down on them," Mr Robson told AAP."(But) we're very sceptical that they're going to be found guilty of anything, and that's the legal advice we've been receiving.
"Six of the defendants appeared to give evidence in the trial, including Ms Hellicar and former chief financial officer Phillip Morley, while Messrs Macdonald and Shafron relied on written statements.It is not known if any defendants will attend the judgment.
© 2009 AAP Disclaimer
23 April 2009 Content provided to you by AAP.
By Drew CratchleySYDNEY, April 22 AAP -
Former James Hardie board members face fines and disqualification from ever managing a company again when a judgment is delivered on Thursday relating to the company's asbestos liabilities.
The landmark legal action launched by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) could also have ramifications for all Australian executives, with the case seen as a test of the responsibilities of directors of public companies.
Justice Ian Gzell will deliver his judgment in the civil case brought by ASIC against 10 former James Hardie directors and executives in the NSW Supreme Court at 10am (AEST).Among the defendants are former James Hardie chief executive Peter Macdonald, former company secretary Peter Shafron and former chairwoman Meredith Hellicar.ASIC is also seeking penalties against James Hardie Industries NV and ABN 60, formerly known as James Hardie Industries Ltd.
Each of the former senior and non-executive directors are alleged to have breached their duties as outlined by corporations law in a number of actions between February 2001 and June 2003.
At the centre of the allegations are public statements issued by James Hardie in 2001 that a fund set up to meet its compensation liabilities was fully funded.Just two years later, the company's compensation foundation was found to be underfunded by more than $1 billion.Aspects of James Hardie's relocation to the Netherlands in 2001 and the cancellation of some its shares are also covered by ASIC's action.
If found guilty, the defendants face a maximum penalty of $200,000 and, for the individuals, disqualification from managing a corporation.The case began in September last year, and sat for 45 days in a courtroom specially fitted with computers and broadband connections to enable the thousands of documents tendered in the trial to be accessed by the defendants and Justice Gzell.
Each day, the room was filled with the dozens of barristers employed by the defendants, and an equally large number of assistants.Those legal teams came at a massive cost, with James Hardie's current management telling investors in February it had so far amassed $US12.3 million ($A17.63 million) in legal costs as a result of this case.
Asbestos widow Karen Banton and asbestos-related disease sufferers attended the first day of the trial, but were not seen during the detailed and often complicated hearings.
Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president Barry Robson said victims were not overly optimistic about the judgment."I hope justice prevails and I hope the full force of the law comes down on them," Mr Robson told AAP."(But) we're very sceptical that they're going to be found guilty of anything, and that's the legal advice we've been receiving.
"Six of the defendants appeared to give evidence in the trial, including Ms Hellicar and former chief financial officer Phillip Morley, while Messrs Macdonald and Shafron relied on written statements.It is not known if any defendants will attend the judgment.
© 2009 AAP Disclaimer
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
EXCISION PREVENTS REFUGEE STATUS, LIBERALS DISSENT
Oil rig Afghans cannot apply for refugee status
April 22, 2009, SMH
TWENTY-NINE of the asylum seekers on the boat that exploded last week will not be allowed to immediately apply for refugee status because they were taken to an oil rig in territory which is excised from Australia.
But 13 of the less seriously injured group who were transferred directly by sea to Darwin will be treated more favourably and can apply for refugee status and appeal if their application is rejected.
The development came as it emerged last night that the navy was on high alert for another interception.
Government sources said another boatload of asylum seekers was expected to enter Australian waters as early as today.
The boat, which the Herald reported on Saturday had been tracked by authorities since the middle of last week, is believed to have about 110 people on board.
Its arrival will re-energise the political fight over border protection that began last week with the explosion of the boat, SIEV 36, and the loss of five lives.
A spokesman for the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, said the oil rig Front Puffin, to which 29 of the mostly Afghan men from the SIEV 36 were taken before being flown to Australia, was an excised offshore place.
He said the 13 others "will be treated as mainland arrivals as they did not enter Australia at an excised offshore place".
The ruling came after the Government sought legal advice on the status of the men.
It could mean that relatives among the men will be treated differently.
The oil rig is one of the territories excised from the mainland by the Howard government in 2001 to make it harder for asylum seekers to resettle in Australia. A person arriving on an excised territory does not have the right to apply for refugee status, which if approved means they can resettle in Australia.
The Government can block any application for refugee status by people who arrive on excised territories including Christmas Island, where the men would have been taken if the boat had not exploded.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said Indonesia's decision to extradite the notorious people smuggler Hadi Ahmadi to Australia was an example of how to tackle the growing flow of asylum seekers.
As the Opposition differed internally over whether to return to one of the more severe polices of the Howard government, Mr Rudd announced that Indonesia's President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had approved on Monday night the extradition of the dual Iraqi-Iranian citizen.
Mr Ahmadi, arrested in Indonesia last June at the Rudd Government's request, stands accused of bringing more than 900 people to Australia in four separate boat trips between April and August 2001.
"Prosecuting people smugglers is the most effective way of dealing with the problem of illegal movements of persons around South-East Asia and more broadly," Mr Rudd said.
Facing internal dissent, the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, qualified his previous call that "the reintroduction of temporary protection visas should be high on the agenda".
Mr Turnbull maintained that there should be a different category of visas for asylum seekers arriving by boat but not necessarily the same as temporary protection visas.
His qualification came after moderate Liberals complained.
The Victorian MP Russell Broadbent rang Mr Turnbull while the former Liberal MP Bruce Baird said "we have moved on as a country" and, if there were a return to the past, many MPs "would find it totally unacceptable".
Mr Broadbent told the Herald temporary protection visas did not work as a deterrent but he agreed other options should be explored.
The former immigration minister Kevin Andrews, who is in charge of the Coalition's policy development, said temporary protection visas, as part of a combination of measures, did work.
He advocated the party either retain them as policy or develop something similar.
"It should be one of the matters that we consider as part of a suite of measures to discourage people smuggling," he said.
Mr Rudd said the Coalition policy was one of "chaos, confusion and opportunism".
April 22, 2009, SMH
TWENTY-NINE of the asylum seekers on the boat that exploded last week will not be allowed to immediately apply for refugee status because they were taken to an oil rig in territory which is excised from Australia.
But 13 of the less seriously injured group who were transferred directly by sea to Darwin will be treated more favourably and can apply for refugee status and appeal if their application is rejected.
The development came as it emerged last night that the navy was on high alert for another interception.
Government sources said another boatload of asylum seekers was expected to enter Australian waters as early as today.
The boat, which the Herald reported on Saturday had been tracked by authorities since the middle of last week, is believed to have about 110 people on board.
Its arrival will re-energise the political fight over border protection that began last week with the explosion of the boat, SIEV 36, and the loss of five lives.
A spokesman for the Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, said the oil rig Front Puffin, to which 29 of the mostly Afghan men from the SIEV 36 were taken before being flown to Australia, was an excised offshore place.
He said the 13 others "will be treated as mainland arrivals as they did not enter Australia at an excised offshore place".
The ruling came after the Government sought legal advice on the status of the men.
It could mean that relatives among the men will be treated differently.
The oil rig is one of the territories excised from the mainland by the Howard government in 2001 to make it harder for asylum seekers to resettle in Australia. A person arriving on an excised territory does not have the right to apply for refugee status, which if approved means they can resettle in Australia.
The Government can block any application for refugee status by people who arrive on excised territories including Christmas Island, where the men would have been taken if the boat had not exploded.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said Indonesia's decision to extradite the notorious people smuggler Hadi Ahmadi to Australia was an example of how to tackle the growing flow of asylum seekers.
As the Opposition differed internally over whether to return to one of the more severe polices of the Howard government, Mr Rudd announced that Indonesia's President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had approved on Monday night the extradition of the dual Iraqi-Iranian citizen.
Mr Ahmadi, arrested in Indonesia last June at the Rudd Government's request, stands accused of bringing more than 900 people to Australia in four separate boat trips between April and August 2001.
"Prosecuting people smugglers is the most effective way of dealing with the problem of illegal movements of persons around South-East Asia and more broadly," Mr Rudd said.
Facing internal dissent, the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, qualified his previous call that "the reintroduction of temporary protection visas should be high on the agenda".
Mr Turnbull maintained that there should be a different category of visas for asylum seekers arriving by boat but not necessarily the same as temporary protection visas.
His qualification came after moderate Liberals complained.
The Victorian MP Russell Broadbent rang Mr Turnbull while the former Liberal MP Bruce Baird said "we have moved on as a country" and, if there were a return to the past, many MPs "would find it totally unacceptable".
Mr Broadbent told the Herald temporary protection visas did not work as a deterrent but he agreed other options should be explored.
The former immigration minister Kevin Andrews, who is in charge of the Coalition's policy development, said temporary protection visas, as part of a combination of measures, did work.
He advocated the party either retain them as policy or develop something similar.
"It should be one of the matters that we consider as part of a suite of measures to discourage people smuggling," he said.
Mr Rudd said the Coalition policy was one of "chaos, confusion and opportunism".
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
UNIONS AND THE ALP
Andrew Cook, Crikey, 14.4.09
This morning’s Age front page "broken promises" story reveals the real reason for the Victorian construction industry’s balaclava-clad hostility towards the Rudd government, but it does little to explain the broader labour movement’s continuing counter-productive closeness to its soul mates in the ALP.
Rudd’s apparent "change it all" moment alongside Dean Mighell in a Sydney hotel room and a subsequent "trust me" moment with some CFMEU heavies over his plans to obliterate the Australian Building and Construction Commission says a lot -- not least of all about Mighell’s subsequent determination to subject the Fair Work bill to the prying eyes of the International Labor Organization.
The militants’ $500,000 downpayment on the death of the ABCC seemed like a sure bet. But in an echo of Peter Garrett’s Chairman’s Lounge comments, Rudd’s reverse ferret on the commission is less the result of an ALP broken promise and more a symptom of the broader labour movement's softly-softly approach to dealing with the government.
This morning’s revelations should mean the honeymoon is well and truly over -- but the ACTU's obsession with gently prodding the ALP in order to secure a "new law" is instead set to continue, as detailed in another Age interview with ACTU chief Jeff Lawrence over the weekend. Since the Your Rights at Work campaign delivered Rudd the keys to the Lodge, Lawrence has become obsessed with cosy internal forums like the Australian Labor Advisory Council at the expense of the rank-and-file activism sorely needed to address to what is about to become a nationwide unemployment crisis.
And in Victoria, the ALP-trade union marriage of convenience is about to have its vows officially renewed. Crikey understands that the CPSU’s Victorian region branch (not the state public servants -- they’re a separate entity) is in the final stages of a plan to officially affiliate with the Victorian Branch of the party -- the first such affiliation in years. Under ALP rules, the CPSU will write to the Administration Committee with the application to be referred to the next State Conference meeting on 13 June. The Conference will then take a vote with the result said to be a fait accompli.
Formal CPSU affiliation will influence the vote on the state conference floor, with the union set to snare around 10 delegates aligned to the left of the party. That, in turn, has the potential to shore-up the so-called left-right stability pact, further marginalising the excluded elements of the Victorian right, including the now-disgraced HSU secretary Jeff Jackson.
The move mirrors actions taken by the NSW, ACT and South Australian branches of the CPSU, with Queensland also considering a formal tie-up. However, the fiddling of internal rules that limited the union’s influence in the ACT won’t apply in Victoria. While seats on the ALP’s National Executive won’t be effected by the move, ALP insiders are said to be rejoicing in the prospect of a revitalised state conference with the surety provided by the expanding ranks of white collar workers.
But for the CPSU’s Victorian members the pay off may be slim. Lindsay Tanner's halo has long since slipped in the half-shut eyes of sullen APS public servants shuffling gormlessly about Casselden Place, but you wouldn’t know it from the CPSU’s supine approach to sackings, layoffs and the notorious “efficiency dividend”. Of course, the union’s decision to throw its weight behind the ALP is set against the backdrop of national secretary Stephen Jones’ burning desire to take-over from Jennie George in Throsby.
Add the HSU scandal -- less to with dodgy credit card statements and more with influence on the floor of state conference, AEU chief Mary Bluett’s decision to kiss John Brumby after concluding its disappointing wage negotiations and the CPSU state branch’s subsequent silence, after one day of initial complaints, over the state government's 2.5% wage offer -- and Victorian trade union activism outside the Mighell sphere is looking stodgy indeed.
Mighell, and his disaffiliated ETU, are quick to identify themselves as campaigning outsiders on Fair Work -- an authentic voice of the rank-and-file activism next to the patrician coziness of the movement's more mainstream supplicants. These claims should be treated sceptically. But for the time being, and in light of the ALP's construction watchdog treachery, Mighell's mob may be the least-worst starting point for those concerned with rebuilding a serious challenge to the status-quo.
This morning’s Age front page "broken promises" story reveals the real reason for the Victorian construction industry’s balaclava-clad hostility towards the Rudd government, but it does little to explain the broader labour movement’s continuing counter-productive closeness to its soul mates in the ALP.
Rudd’s apparent "change it all" moment alongside Dean Mighell in a Sydney hotel room and a subsequent "trust me" moment with some CFMEU heavies over his plans to obliterate the Australian Building and Construction Commission says a lot -- not least of all about Mighell’s subsequent determination to subject the Fair Work bill to the prying eyes of the International Labor Organization.
The militants’ $500,000 downpayment on the death of the ABCC seemed like a sure bet. But in an echo of Peter Garrett’s Chairman’s Lounge comments, Rudd’s reverse ferret on the commission is less the result of an ALP broken promise and more a symptom of the broader labour movement's softly-softly approach to dealing with the government.
This morning’s revelations should mean the honeymoon is well and truly over -- but the ACTU's obsession with gently prodding the ALP in order to secure a "new law" is instead set to continue, as detailed in another Age interview with ACTU chief Jeff Lawrence over the weekend. Since the Your Rights at Work campaign delivered Rudd the keys to the Lodge, Lawrence has become obsessed with cosy internal forums like the Australian Labor Advisory Council at the expense of the rank-and-file activism sorely needed to address to what is about to become a nationwide unemployment crisis.
And in Victoria, the ALP-trade union marriage of convenience is about to have its vows officially renewed. Crikey understands that the CPSU’s Victorian region branch (not the state public servants -- they’re a separate entity) is in the final stages of a plan to officially affiliate with the Victorian Branch of the party -- the first such affiliation in years. Under ALP rules, the CPSU will write to the Administration Committee with the application to be referred to the next State Conference meeting on 13 June. The Conference will then take a vote with the result said to be a fait accompli.
Formal CPSU affiliation will influence the vote on the state conference floor, with the union set to snare around 10 delegates aligned to the left of the party. That, in turn, has the potential to shore-up the so-called left-right stability pact, further marginalising the excluded elements of the Victorian right, including the now-disgraced HSU secretary Jeff Jackson.
The move mirrors actions taken by the NSW, ACT and South Australian branches of the CPSU, with Queensland also considering a formal tie-up. However, the fiddling of internal rules that limited the union’s influence in the ACT won’t apply in Victoria. While seats on the ALP’s National Executive won’t be effected by the move, ALP insiders are said to be rejoicing in the prospect of a revitalised state conference with the surety provided by the expanding ranks of white collar workers.
But for the CPSU’s Victorian members the pay off may be slim. Lindsay Tanner's halo has long since slipped in the half-shut eyes of sullen APS public servants shuffling gormlessly about Casselden Place, but you wouldn’t know it from the CPSU’s supine approach to sackings, layoffs and the notorious “efficiency dividend”. Of course, the union’s decision to throw its weight behind the ALP is set against the backdrop of national secretary Stephen Jones’ burning desire to take-over from Jennie George in Throsby.
Add the HSU scandal -- less to with dodgy credit card statements and more with influence on the floor of state conference, AEU chief Mary Bluett’s decision to kiss John Brumby after concluding its disappointing wage negotiations and the CPSU state branch’s subsequent silence, after one day of initial complaints, over the state government's 2.5% wage offer -- and Victorian trade union activism outside the Mighell sphere is looking stodgy indeed.
Mighell, and his disaffiliated ETU, are quick to identify themselves as campaigning outsiders on Fair Work -- an authentic voice of the rank-and-file activism next to the patrician coziness of the movement's more mainstream supplicants. These claims should be treated sceptically. But for the time being, and in light of the ALP's construction watchdog treachery, Mighell's mob may be the least-worst starting point for those concerned with rebuilding a serious challenge to the status-quo.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
NALTREXONE IMPLANTS LINKED TO DEATHS
Untested implant linked to deaths
Ruth Pollard Investigations Editor, smh
April 11, 2009
Related Coverage:
In for the quick fix
Loopholes allow an unapproved heroin treatment to flourish ...
A family's unanswered anguish
The implant was meant to protect James from needing heroin...
Pushing for an inquiry... Carla holds a portrait of her son James. "It never leaves you; to lose a child is the worst thing."
THE country's drugs watchdog has failed to regulate untested medical implants used in thousands of Australians over the past 10 years, allowing doctors to exploit a loophole to either produce or import the implants without having to register them.
Despite serious safety concerns raised by drug treatment experts, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has struggled to curtail the widespread use of unregistered naltrexone implants to treat heroin addiction.
Not approved for therapeutic use in Australia, the implants have been implicated in several deaths and many hospital admissions, leading to calls for their use to be suspended pending proper clinical trials and government registration.
Critics say people who request help for their heroin dependence should have the same regulatory prediction as those with other health problems to ensure they receive safe treatment.
Emergency departments are treating people in extreme distress and in rapid detox after a naltrexone implant and doctors warn these cases will continue unless the drug is regulated.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration claims its hands are tied and it is up to the Federal Government to toughen the regulations for unapproved medication and medical devices.
The parliamentary secretary responsible for the organisation, Senator Jan McLucas, said the Commonwealth had "limited powers to control the activities of individuals where they operate solely within state borders".
"The TGA is the safety regulator of medicines and medical devices, but it has no role in regulating the appropriateness of the clinical decision to use the naltrexone implants."
Such is the concern about the widespread use of naltrexone implants, the chairman of the Federal Government's medicines advisory group, the Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council, co-authored an editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia, calling for an independent review.
Lloyd Sansom and his colleagues wrote: "The disturbing suggestions of mortality and morbidity from unregistered naltrexone implants make a strong case for an independent review to determine whether this treatment is sufficiently safe for such widespread use.
"Constant vigilance is required to ensure that only new medications and devices of proven effectiveness and safety are permitted widespread use."
In the same journal, a group of emergency doctors from two Sydney hospitals reported treating 12 patients over 12 months with severe health problems related to the implants. Six of those had to stay in hospital for at least two days, while one was admitted to intensive care with acute renal failure, the doctors reported.
"These events challenge the notion that a naltrexone implant is a safe procedure … and suggests that adverse events with naltrexone implants are not rare or uncommon," they wrote.
That study was published one year ago and there is yet to be any action. The Herald put detailed questions to the TGA's principal medical adviser, Rohan Hammett, and to the secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, Jane Halton, about the unregistered implants.
Both had expressed concern in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the way the implants were used.
Neither responded to the questions - instead a TGA spokeswoman, Kay McNiece, provided a written response.
"It is important to recognise that the naltrexone implant is an unapproved product and as such neither the safety nor the efficacy of the product has been evaluated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration." she said. "The TGA is aware of the possible adverse events related to the use of implants and has actively sought information in this regard."
Ric Day, a professor of clinical pharmacology at St Vincent's Hospital and the University of NSW, said the failure of the TGA to "exert its power to deal with this problem" was difficult to understand.
The Age
Ruth Pollard Investigations Editor, smh
April 11, 2009
Related Coverage:
In for the quick fix
Loopholes allow an unapproved heroin treatment to flourish ...
A family's unanswered anguish
The implant was meant to protect James from needing heroin...
Pushing for an inquiry... Carla holds a portrait of her son James. "It never leaves you; to lose a child is the worst thing."
THE country's drugs watchdog has failed to regulate untested medical implants used in thousands of Australians over the past 10 years, allowing doctors to exploit a loophole to either produce or import the implants without having to register them.
Despite serious safety concerns raised by drug treatment experts, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has struggled to curtail the widespread use of unregistered naltrexone implants to treat heroin addiction.
Not approved for therapeutic use in Australia, the implants have been implicated in several deaths and many hospital admissions, leading to calls for their use to be suspended pending proper clinical trials and government registration.
Critics say people who request help for their heroin dependence should have the same regulatory prediction as those with other health problems to ensure they receive safe treatment.
Emergency departments are treating people in extreme distress and in rapid detox after a naltrexone implant and doctors warn these cases will continue unless the drug is regulated.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration claims its hands are tied and it is up to the Federal Government to toughen the regulations for unapproved medication and medical devices.
The parliamentary secretary responsible for the organisation, Senator Jan McLucas, said the Commonwealth had "limited powers to control the activities of individuals where they operate solely within state borders".
"The TGA is the safety regulator of medicines and medical devices, but it has no role in regulating the appropriateness of the clinical decision to use the naltrexone implants."
Such is the concern about the widespread use of naltrexone implants, the chairman of the Federal Government's medicines advisory group, the Australian Pharmaceutical Advisory Council, co-authored an editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia, calling for an independent review.
Lloyd Sansom and his colleagues wrote: "The disturbing suggestions of mortality and morbidity from unregistered naltrexone implants make a strong case for an independent review to determine whether this treatment is sufficiently safe for such widespread use.
"Constant vigilance is required to ensure that only new medications and devices of proven effectiveness and safety are permitted widespread use."
In the same journal, a group of emergency doctors from two Sydney hospitals reported treating 12 patients over 12 months with severe health problems related to the implants. Six of those had to stay in hospital for at least two days, while one was admitted to intensive care with acute renal failure, the doctors reported.
"These events challenge the notion that a naltrexone implant is a safe procedure … and suggests that adverse events with naltrexone implants are not rare or uncommon," they wrote.
That study was published one year ago and there is yet to be any action. The Herald put detailed questions to the TGA's principal medical adviser, Rohan Hammett, and to the secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, Jane Halton, about the unregistered implants.
Both had expressed concern in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs about the way the implants were used.
Neither responded to the questions - instead a TGA spokeswoman, Kay McNiece, provided a written response.
"It is important to recognise that the naltrexone implant is an unapproved product and as such neither the safety nor the efficacy of the product has been evaluated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration." she said. "The TGA is aware of the possible adverse events related to the use of implants and has actively sought information in this regard."
Ric Day, a professor of clinical pharmacology at St Vincent's Hospital and the University of NSW, said the failure of the TGA to "exert its power to deal with this problem" was difficult to understand.
The Age
THANK GOD FOR DAVID MARR!!
Pell rides papal bandwagon of death
David Marr, smh
April 11, 2009
That's one hell of an Easter message. In a contest between showing slavish support for the Pope and putting people in the way of disease and death, Cardinal George Pell chose loyalty. From the far distance of the Vatican comes the sound of a few hands clapping.
"They encourage promiscuity," the cardinal told Sky Television. "The idea that you can solve a great spiritual and health crisis like AIDS with a few mechanical contraptions like condoms is ridiculous."
It's hardly news but in the face of this ridicule it has to be said again: Australia waged the world's most effective war on AIDS by ignoring the Catholic Church. We did not heed the demands of John Paul II and his successor, Benedict XVI. We encouraged people to use condoms, we distributed clean syringes and we saved thousands of lives.
Catholics applauded, though silently. While the hierarchy of the church remains locked into an ancient theology of sex that has terrible consequences in the modern world, the rank and file know better. But they are entirely submissive. They don't rise up. They don't heckle Benedict and Pell from the pews. Their courtesy is the great modern miracle of Catholicism.
But in the Western world at least, they don't support the Vatican's absolute ban on condoms. In 2007 Catholics for Choice engaged the Washington pollsters Belden Russonello & Stewart to find what Catholics in the United States, Ireland, Mexico, the Philippines and Ghana thought about this teaching.
In Ireland, 80 per cent of Catholics said they wanted it changed. In the US the figure was 63 per cent. In Mexico it was 60 per cent. The Philippines split 47 per cent to 49 per cent. The young church in Ghana stuck by the Vatican, with only 37 per cent of those polled calling for reform.
That is bad news for Africa, the principal recruiting ground for Christianity in the world today and the continent with the worst rates of HIV. It was as the Pope was flying into Cameroon - infection rate 5.5 per cent, compared with 0.1 per cent in Australia - that he reaffirmed the doctrinal hard line against condoms a few weeks ago.
Benedict was denounced by governments in Europe, attacked in medical journals and contradicted by a couple of bishops in Portugal. The armed forces bishop, Januario Torgal Ferreira, was quoted as saying: "to ban condom use was equivalent to consenting to the death of many people".
But the papal death sentence wrapped in rhetoric about "spiritual human renewal" did not deter Africa's faithful. Millions turned up for the pontiff's Masses. Benedict could look out on a sea of exuberant faces endorsing, it would seem, the church's ancient taboo against contraception so that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life".
Christ didn't lay down that rule. You won't find it anywhere in the Bible. It crept into church teaching in the second century via Clement of Alexandria who came up with a formula - based as much as anything on Greek philosophy - that the only sanctified sex was sex within marriage for the purpose of procreation.
With that, the church and Western civilisation set off down a very odd track for a couple of millennia. In its purest form, Clement's rule meant no contraception, no sex when conception is unlikely, no sex in positions that inhibit or forbid conception, no sex for the barren, no masturbation, and naturally, no homosexuality.
So absurd and cruel were these rules that churches began to soften some and delete others.
Most Protestant denominations in the 20th century dumped all but the prohibitions against extramarital sex and homosexuality. But in the 1930s, the Catholic Church locked itself to Clement by reaffirming the ban on condoms.
By the time the Second Vatican Council met in the 1960s, the pill had been discovered. A commission of theologians and medical experts concluded after five years of study that there was no good reason for the church to ban it. But Pope Paul VI did exactly that in the infamous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.
All hell broke loose. The Vatican was compelled to put down a revolt that spread around the world. Enforcing the rule against contraception pitted the papacy against theologians, bishops and believers. Attendance at Mass in Western countries went into free fall. Rome didn't budge. Demonising contraception remains, as much as anything, an issue of papal authority. It's about power.
Though condoms prevent the transmission of genital herpes, genital warts, syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhoea, they were forbidden to the faithful. The first cases of AIDS were reported in the early 1980s, and by 2000 the US National Institutes of Health had concluded that, properly used, condoms reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by 85 per cent.
But the word from the Vatican was: absolutely no change. From time to time, brave bishops would contest the ruling. They were slapped down. There were glimmers of hope a few years ago when a great prince of the church, the former Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, began to argue that wearing a condom was less evil than infecting your partner.
Makes sense, but he was silenced and the Vatican reasserted the absolute ban that George Pell yesterday backed so exuberantly on Sky Television.
Already the weasel wordsmiths of the church will be working out ways to "explain" and put Pell's words "in context" and throw in a few "experts" to prove him "right".
It's true that condoms don't prevent all transmissions of HIV/AIDS. Aspirin doesn't cure every headache either. And we know in our hearts - and every reputable study confirms - that the church's call for abstinence is useless.
Sex beats prayer. Even bishops have sex. We know, because they have died of AIDS.
Since Humanae Vitae, disobedience has become a way of life for Catholics in the West. Catholics in Europe and Australia use contraception like everyone else. Safe sex campaigns have strong political backing. But how many good Catholics will die in Africa and the Philippines before they learn that in the 21st century disobeying the Vatican line is a matter of life and death?
David Marr, smh
April 11, 2009
That's one hell of an Easter message. In a contest between showing slavish support for the Pope and putting people in the way of disease and death, Cardinal George Pell chose loyalty. From the far distance of the Vatican comes the sound of a few hands clapping.
"They encourage promiscuity," the cardinal told Sky Television. "The idea that you can solve a great spiritual and health crisis like AIDS with a few mechanical contraptions like condoms is ridiculous."
It's hardly news but in the face of this ridicule it has to be said again: Australia waged the world's most effective war on AIDS by ignoring the Catholic Church. We did not heed the demands of John Paul II and his successor, Benedict XVI. We encouraged people to use condoms, we distributed clean syringes and we saved thousands of lives.
Catholics applauded, though silently. While the hierarchy of the church remains locked into an ancient theology of sex that has terrible consequences in the modern world, the rank and file know better. But they are entirely submissive. They don't rise up. They don't heckle Benedict and Pell from the pews. Their courtesy is the great modern miracle of Catholicism.
But in the Western world at least, they don't support the Vatican's absolute ban on condoms. In 2007 Catholics for Choice engaged the Washington pollsters Belden Russonello & Stewart to find what Catholics in the United States, Ireland, Mexico, the Philippines and Ghana thought about this teaching.
In Ireland, 80 per cent of Catholics said they wanted it changed. In the US the figure was 63 per cent. In Mexico it was 60 per cent. The Philippines split 47 per cent to 49 per cent. The young church in Ghana stuck by the Vatican, with only 37 per cent of those polled calling for reform.
That is bad news for Africa, the principal recruiting ground for Christianity in the world today and the continent with the worst rates of HIV. It was as the Pope was flying into Cameroon - infection rate 5.5 per cent, compared with 0.1 per cent in Australia - that he reaffirmed the doctrinal hard line against condoms a few weeks ago.
Benedict was denounced by governments in Europe, attacked in medical journals and contradicted by a couple of bishops in Portugal. The armed forces bishop, Januario Torgal Ferreira, was quoted as saying: "to ban condom use was equivalent to consenting to the death of many people".
But the papal death sentence wrapped in rhetoric about "spiritual human renewal" did not deter Africa's faithful. Millions turned up for the pontiff's Masses. Benedict could look out on a sea of exuberant faces endorsing, it would seem, the church's ancient taboo against contraception so that "each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life".
Christ didn't lay down that rule. You won't find it anywhere in the Bible. It crept into church teaching in the second century via Clement of Alexandria who came up with a formula - based as much as anything on Greek philosophy - that the only sanctified sex was sex within marriage for the purpose of procreation.
With that, the church and Western civilisation set off down a very odd track for a couple of millennia. In its purest form, Clement's rule meant no contraception, no sex when conception is unlikely, no sex in positions that inhibit or forbid conception, no sex for the barren, no masturbation, and naturally, no homosexuality.
So absurd and cruel were these rules that churches began to soften some and delete others.
Most Protestant denominations in the 20th century dumped all but the prohibitions against extramarital sex and homosexuality. But in the 1930s, the Catholic Church locked itself to Clement by reaffirming the ban on condoms.
By the time the Second Vatican Council met in the 1960s, the pill had been discovered. A commission of theologians and medical experts concluded after five years of study that there was no good reason for the church to ban it. But Pope Paul VI did exactly that in the infamous 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.
All hell broke loose. The Vatican was compelled to put down a revolt that spread around the world. Enforcing the rule against contraception pitted the papacy against theologians, bishops and believers. Attendance at Mass in Western countries went into free fall. Rome didn't budge. Demonising contraception remains, as much as anything, an issue of papal authority. It's about power.
Though condoms prevent the transmission of genital herpes, genital warts, syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhoea, they were forbidden to the faithful. The first cases of AIDS were reported in the early 1980s, and by 2000 the US National Institutes of Health had concluded that, properly used, condoms reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by 85 per cent.
But the word from the Vatican was: absolutely no change. From time to time, brave bishops would contest the ruling. They were slapped down. There were glimmers of hope a few years ago when a great prince of the church, the former Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, began to argue that wearing a condom was less evil than infecting your partner.
Makes sense, but he was silenced and the Vatican reasserted the absolute ban that George Pell yesterday backed so exuberantly on Sky Television.
Already the weasel wordsmiths of the church will be working out ways to "explain" and put Pell's words "in context" and throw in a few "experts" to prove him "right".
It's true that condoms don't prevent all transmissions of HIV/AIDS. Aspirin doesn't cure every headache either. And we know in our hearts - and every reputable study confirms - that the church's call for abstinence is useless.
Sex beats prayer. Even bishops have sex. We know, because they have died of AIDS.
Since Humanae Vitae, disobedience has become a way of life for Catholics in the West. Catholics in Europe and Australia use contraception like everyone else. Safe sex campaigns have strong political backing. But how many good Catholics will die in Africa and the Philippines before they learn that in the 21st century disobeying the Vatican line is a matter of life and death?
UNION STOPPED THOMSON ENTITLEMENTS
Red News Readers,
If all of these allegations prove true, this is the sort of greed that brings the trade union movement into disrepute. How can union officials point the finger at CEOs for their salary, shares and payment greed, when they are tickling their fingers in members money to advance their personal political career and personal wealth? Union officials need to remember that it is members money, earned by hard work and sweat, and members want it spent on their welfare in accordance with the objectives of the union.
Jenny Haines
Union stopped payout of Thomson entitlements
Mark Davis Political Correspondent, smh
April 11, 2009
THE Federal Labor MP Craig Thomson was owed more than $190,000 in employment entitlements when he quit the Health Services Union to enter Parliament after the 2007 election.
But the union asked its lawyers to tell Mr Thomson it was withholding payment until an investigation into possible financial irregularities inside the union was finalised.
Mr Thomson faces allegations that a union credit card in his name was used to make cash advances of more than $100,000 and payments to Sydney escort services and a brothel. He has denied the allegations, insisting they are incorrect and false and are being advanced by factional opponents.
Mr Thomson was national president of the 70,000-member union from 2002 until he won the Central Coast seat of Dobell in 2007. Before that he worked for the NSW branch, totalling 19 years' service with the union.
It has emerged that he had 35 weeks in untaken annual leave and 23 in long service leave owing when he resigned in 2007.
The union's national auditor, Iaan Dick, wrote to the national secretary, Kathy Jackson, last May calculating that on Mr Thomson's $154,536 salary and including leave loading the entitlements were worth $191,913.
About the time of that advice, the union's national executive started internal inquiries into the union's financial affairs.
Those inquiries prompted the national executive to refer concerns about possible irregularities to the lawyers Slater & Gordon and the accountants BDO Kendall for investigation.
A letter from Ms Jackson to Slater & Gordon in December says Mr Thomson had been paid only a fairly small amount of his entitlements to that date.
"We request that you advise Mr Thomson that the national executive has referred the matter for investigation and pending the outcome of that investigation no further payment of outstanding entitlements will be made." But Mr Thomson told the Herald this week he had not received such a letter. "The union had never had a big national office and did not have reserves," he said.
"When I left I said to them I would like my entitlements but understood the union didn't have that money sitting around. We reached agreement where they would pay those entitlements progressively over a period of time. We reached agreement on quarterly payments.
"I haven't heard anything from the union [about the entitlements being stopped], haven't had a letter and have been paid on regular arrangements."
If all of these allegations prove true, this is the sort of greed that brings the trade union movement into disrepute. How can union officials point the finger at CEOs for their salary, shares and payment greed, when they are tickling their fingers in members money to advance their personal political career and personal wealth? Union officials need to remember that it is members money, earned by hard work and sweat, and members want it spent on their welfare in accordance with the objectives of the union.
Jenny Haines
Union stopped payout of Thomson entitlements
Mark Davis Political Correspondent, smh
April 11, 2009
THE Federal Labor MP Craig Thomson was owed more than $190,000 in employment entitlements when he quit the Health Services Union to enter Parliament after the 2007 election.
But the union asked its lawyers to tell Mr Thomson it was withholding payment until an investigation into possible financial irregularities inside the union was finalised.
Mr Thomson faces allegations that a union credit card in his name was used to make cash advances of more than $100,000 and payments to Sydney escort services and a brothel. He has denied the allegations, insisting they are incorrect and false and are being advanced by factional opponents.
Mr Thomson was national president of the 70,000-member union from 2002 until he won the Central Coast seat of Dobell in 2007. Before that he worked for the NSW branch, totalling 19 years' service with the union.
It has emerged that he had 35 weeks in untaken annual leave and 23 in long service leave owing when he resigned in 2007.
The union's national auditor, Iaan Dick, wrote to the national secretary, Kathy Jackson, last May calculating that on Mr Thomson's $154,536 salary and including leave loading the entitlements were worth $191,913.
About the time of that advice, the union's national executive started internal inquiries into the union's financial affairs.
Those inquiries prompted the national executive to refer concerns about possible irregularities to the lawyers Slater & Gordon and the accountants BDO Kendall for investigation.
A letter from Ms Jackson to Slater & Gordon in December says Mr Thomson had been paid only a fairly small amount of his entitlements to that date.
"We request that you advise Mr Thomson that the national executive has referred the matter for investigation and pending the outcome of that investigation no further payment of outstanding entitlements will be made." But Mr Thomson told the Herald this week he had not received such a letter. "The union had never had a big national office and did not have reserves," he said.
"When I left I said to them I would like my entitlements but understood the union didn't have that money sitting around. We reached agreement where they would pay those entitlements progressively over a period of time. We reached agreement on quarterly payments.
"I haven't heard anything from the union [about the entitlements being stopped], haven't had a letter and have been paid on regular arrangements."
Friday, April 10, 2009
FLOGGING OFF NSW LOTTERIES
Yahoo News, AAP, 9.4.09
NSW will offer an exclusive, long-term licence for a private operator to run the state's lotteries in a move analysts say will pump about $600 million into state coffers.
Treasurer Eric Roozendaal expects the licence will last about 30 years and says private sector interest in running NSW Lotteries is already strong.
The state-owned corporation operates Lotto, Oz Lotto, Powerball, the 6 from 38 Pools, Instant Scratchies and Lucky Lotteries in NSW.
Under the planned arrangement, the state would continue to reap its annual duties of $300 million, but would lose its $50 million a year dividend payments.
Mr Roozendaal would not put a figure on how much he believed NSW would gain from the successful private operator, but expected the tender process to start in the second half of this year.
When the NSW coalition took a policy to sell off NSW Lotteries to the 2007 election, it was expected it would generate about $800 million.
A figure of about $1 billion was suggested last November when a possible sell-off or lease was flagged in the state government's mini-budget.
CommSec gaming analyst Craig Shepherd said the length of the licence being offered meant both figures were probably over the mark, and $600 million was a more likely bet.
"The fact that it's a 30-year licence, compared to longer licences in Queensland, means that the price comes down a bit, so the expectations around that $800 million are reduced," he told AAP.
Mr Shepherd said he saw no real problem with the sale's timing, despite the current global economic downturn.
He expected most gaming companies would take a close look at the government plan, with the market viewing Tatts Group as the front runner to secure the licence.
Tatts operates in five states and territories and is the only non-government lottery operator in Australia.
Mr Roozendaal said there was no public policy reason for the state to run NSW Lotteries and money from the licence deal could be redirected into areas such as health and education.
He said it was too early to speculate on whether lottery products could be sold in service stations and supermarkets, not just newsagencies.
The Australian Newsagents' Federation said it would continue consulting with the government ahead of any licence being issued to ensure its members were protected.
Opposition treasury spokesman Mike Baird said the coalition still supported privatising NSW Lotteries, but the government's timing was wrong.
"We've got one simple message for Eric Roozendaal and that is you are going stark raving mad," Mr Baird told reporters.
"To sell any assets at this time is complete nonsense."
Mr Baird said any asset going to market was not going to deliver value for taxpayers and would be nothing more than a firesale.
NSW will offer an exclusive, long-term licence for a private operator to run the state's lotteries in a move analysts say will pump about $600 million into state coffers.
Treasurer Eric Roozendaal expects the licence will last about 30 years and says private sector interest in running NSW Lotteries is already strong.
The state-owned corporation operates Lotto, Oz Lotto, Powerball, the 6 from 38 Pools, Instant Scratchies and Lucky Lotteries in NSW.
Under the planned arrangement, the state would continue to reap its annual duties of $300 million, but would lose its $50 million a year dividend payments.
Mr Roozendaal would not put a figure on how much he believed NSW would gain from the successful private operator, but expected the tender process to start in the second half of this year.
When the NSW coalition took a policy to sell off NSW Lotteries to the 2007 election, it was expected it would generate about $800 million.
A figure of about $1 billion was suggested last November when a possible sell-off or lease was flagged in the state government's mini-budget.
CommSec gaming analyst Craig Shepherd said the length of the licence being offered meant both figures were probably over the mark, and $600 million was a more likely bet.
"The fact that it's a 30-year licence, compared to longer licences in Queensland, means that the price comes down a bit, so the expectations around that $800 million are reduced," he told AAP.
Mr Shepherd said he saw no real problem with the sale's timing, despite the current global economic downturn.
He expected most gaming companies would take a close look at the government plan, with the market viewing Tatts Group as the front runner to secure the licence.
Tatts operates in five states and territories and is the only non-government lottery operator in Australia.
Mr Roozendaal said there was no public policy reason for the state to run NSW Lotteries and money from the licence deal could be redirected into areas such as health and education.
He said it was too early to speculate on whether lottery products could be sold in service stations and supermarkets, not just newsagencies.
The Australian Newsagents' Federation said it would continue consulting with the government ahead of any licence being issued to ensure its members were protected.
Opposition treasury spokesman Mike Baird said the coalition still supported privatising NSW Lotteries, but the government's timing was wrong.
"We've got one simple message for Eric Roozendaal and that is you are going stark raving mad," Mr Baird told reporters.
"To sell any assets at this time is complete nonsense."
Mr Baird said any asset going to market was not going to deliver value for taxpayers and would be nothing more than a firesale.
FLOGGING OFF NSW PRISONS
Splitting hairs to flog off NSW's prisons
Alex Mitchell writes in Crikey 9.4.09:
By accepting the NSW Corrective Services portfolio, former NSW Unions secretary John Robertson has taken a poisoned chalice.
The Cabinet has given its newest recruit the job of privatizing two major prisons -- Parklea and Cessnock -- in contravention of the NSW ALP platform.
Overnight, “Robbo” had a significant victory when the party’s legal and constitutional committee agreed to bend the policy allowing the Rees Government to go ahead with its privatization plans.
The committee has accepted Robertson’s bizarre interpretation that by merely selling private contract management of the two facilities -- and not the bricks and mortar -- that the party’s platform has not been breached.
His view was backed by the cabal of right-wingers on the committee -- Finance Minister Joe Tripodi’s brother Richard, Wollongong MP Noreen Hay’s son Mark and Anna Collins, wife of Robertson’s chief of staff Chris Minns.
They outvoted the two left-wingers on the committee, lawyer Cameron Murphy, son of the late Lionel Murphy, and James Shaw, son of the former Supreme Court judge and NSW Attorney-General Jeff Shaw.
But Robertson is not out of the woods yet. The committee’s recommendation now has to be discussed by the all-powerful administrative committee at its next meeting which will be held on either May 1 or May 8.
Although the committee is controlled by the right, there are grave misgivings about handing over prison management to private companies. A basic conflict arises:
Private jail contractors are out to make profits to satisfy the greed of their shareholders and directors;
The state and society have a duty of care to offenders who have broken parliament’s laws, to rehabilitate them so they don’t re-offend.
The profit motive is stronger than the motivation to rehabilitate. Indeed, the profit motive will have a tendency not to worry about re-offending because it will mean repeat business.
Even if the admin committee approves the pro-privatisation line, it is only the annual conference which can change party policy. In other words, the private jails debate will eventually end up on the floor of conference when Robertson and his Cabinet backers (Treasurer Eric Roozendaal and Joe Tripodi) will be flayed by delegates from branches and the left unions.
The prison privatization is the thin end of the wedge for Cabinet’s manic privateers. If they succeed at the two jails then the policy will be extended to other sectors, i.e. transport, hospitals, schools, emergency services.
If Robertson believes that his carriage of the privatization issue is part of a longer-term strategy to take the party’s leadership he is kidding himself. This privatization episode will hang around his neck for the rest of his political career.
Alex Mitchell writes in Crikey 9.4.09:
By accepting the NSW Corrective Services portfolio, former NSW Unions secretary John Robertson has taken a poisoned chalice.
The Cabinet has given its newest recruit the job of privatizing two major prisons -- Parklea and Cessnock -- in contravention of the NSW ALP platform.
Overnight, “Robbo” had a significant victory when the party’s legal and constitutional committee agreed to bend the policy allowing the Rees Government to go ahead with its privatization plans.
The committee has accepted Robertson’s bizarre interpretation that by merely selling private contract management of the two facilities -- and not the bricks and mortar -- that the party’s platform has not been breached.
His view was backed by the cabal of right-wingers on the committee -- Finance Minister Joe Tripodi’s brother Richard, Wollongong MP Noreen Hay’s son Mark and Anna Collins, wife of Robertson’s chief of staff Chris Minns.
They outvoted the two left-wingers on the committee, lawyer Cameron Murphy, son of the late Lionel Murphy, and James Shaw, son of the former Supreme Court judge and NSW Attorney-General Jeff Shaw.
But Robertson is not out of the woods yet. The committee’s recommendation now has to be discussed by the all-powerful administrative committee at its next meeting which will be held on either May 1 or May 8.
Although the committee is controlled by the right, there are grave misgivings about handing over prison management to private companies. A basic conflict arises:
Private jail contractors are out to make profits to satisfy the greed of their shareholders and directors;
The state and society have a duty of care to offenders who have broken parliament’s laws, to rehabilitate them so they don’t re-offend.
The profit motive is stronger than the motivation to rehabilitate. Indeed, the profit motive will have a tendency not to worry about re-offending because it will mean repeat business.
Even if the admin committee approves the pro-privatisation line, it is only the annual conference which can change party policy. In other words, the private jails debate will eventually end up on the floor of conference when Robertson and his Cabinet backers (Treasurer Eric Roozendaal and Joe Tripodi) will be flayed by delegates from branches and the left unions.
The prison privatization is the thin end of the wedge for Cabinet’s manic privateers. If they succeed at the two jails then the policy will be extended to other sectors, i.e. transport, hospitals, schools, emergency services.
If Robertson believes that his carriage of the privatization issue is part of a longer-term strategy to take the party’s leadership he is kidding himself. This privatization episode will hang around his neck for the rest of his political career.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS????
Red News Readers,
What does it take to get them to stop using the term "illegal immigrants'?
Jenny Haines
Another 'illegal' immigrant boat arrives
April 8, 2009 - 2:34PM , smh
Another boatload of suspected illegal immigrants has arrived in Australia, Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus says.
The vessel arrived at Christmas Island on Wednesday morning with 45 people on board, the government says.
"The group did not arrive on the mainland and will be detained to undergo health, security and other checks to establish their identity and reasons for their voyage," Mr Debus said in a statement.
Almost 160 suspected illegal immigrants have been detained by authorities in the last week.
A group of 63 was detected off Ashmore Island last Thursday, just a day after a boat carrying 50 suspected illegal immigrants ran aground near Thursday Island.
The opposition has blamed the federal government for the influx of arrivals, saying it was due to Labor watering down immigration detention policies.
"There has obviously been a signal sent loud and clear to the people smugglers that it is now worth the risk," opposition immigration spokesperson Sharman Stone said on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, Mr Debus said the government's priority was to ensure the Australian mainland was secure.
"Christmas Island is approximately 1,000 nautical miles from the mainland," he said.
"The priority is to conduct surveillance to ensure that vessels do not reach the Australian mainland."
Mr Watson said there had been men, women and children of Middle Eastern appearance aboard the unauthorised vessel, which was flying the Indonesian flag.
He had been told many of them were Iraqis and that several were sick, but had been unable to verify the reports.
Mr Watson said it was "totally reprehensible" that the boat had arrived on Christmas Island without detection.
He said such arrivals jeopardised the health of Christmas Island's 1,000 residents.
"This is about the safety and the livelihoods of the residents as far as disease is concerned," he said.
"It's about the disease-carrying opportunities that arise with bringing a boat that's got no quarantine onto our jetty.
"It's ridiculous.
"Those people could have walked off and joined the community.
"Because of the number of migrant people that are here now in the process system - for instance, interpreters - you wouldn't know whether they were just another interpreter or someone who had got off a boat from Sydney."
He said he did not believe there had been a similar instance since the 1990s, when unauthorised arrivals "just turned up".
"We're a long way from the 90s now," he said.
"We know as residents the island's detention centre is a system they've spent $500 million putting in place.
"There's no getting away from the fact we're a detention island, but it's impacting hugely on the residents.
"We don't get asked anything, we just get told."
Christmas Island shire president Gordon Thomson said when he went to the jetty to inspect the boat, the arrivals had been taken away to be processed by customs officials.
He was told the group included men, women and children.
"I counted about 40 life jackets on the jetty which they had taken off and I definitely saw children-sized life jackets," Mr Thomson said.
"I have been told they were all in good condition after an initial health check on the jetty.
"The boat looked to be in good condition and had an Indonesian flag on it."
Mr Thomson said he believed the asylum seekers were from the Middle East.
"It's unusual for boats to arrive like this," he said.
"But conditions in the countries where the asylum seekers are from are not getting better, so I expect we will continue to get more refugees."
© 2009 AAPBrought to you by
What does it take to get them to stop using the term "illegal immigrants'?
Jenny Haines
Another 'illegal' immigrant boat arrives
April 8, 2009 - 2:34PM , smh
Another boatload of suspected illegal immigrants has arrived in Australia, Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus says.
The vessel arrived at Christmas Island on Wednesday morning with 45 people on board, the government says.
"The group did not arrive on the mainland and will be detained to undergo health, security and other checks to establish their identity and reasons for their voyage," Mr Debus said in a statement.
Almost 160 suspected illegal immigrants have been detained by authorities in the last week.
A group of 63 was detected off Ashmore Island last Thursday, just a day after a boat carrying 50 suspected illegal immigrants ran aground near Thursday Island.
The opposition has blamed the federal government for the influx of arrivals, saying it was due to Labor watering down immigration detention policies.
"There has obviously been a signal sent loud and clear to the people smugglers that it is now worth the risk," opposition immigration spokesperson Sharman Stone said on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, Mr Debus said the government's priority was to ensure the Australian mainland was secure.
"Christmas Island is approximately 1,000 nautical miles from the mainland," he said.
"The priority is to conduct surveillance to ensure that vessels do not reach the Australian mainland."
Mr Watson said there had been men, women and children of Middle Eastern appearance aboard the unauthorised vessel, which was flying the Indonesian flag.
He had been told many of them were Iraqis and that several were sick, but had been unable to verify the reports.
Mr Watson said it was "totally reprehensible" that the boat had arrived on Christmas Island without detection.
He said such arrivals jeopardised the health of Christmas Island's 1,000 residents.
"This is about the safety and the livelihoods of the residents as far as disease is concerned," he said.
"It's about the disease-carrying opportunities that arise with bringing a boat that's got no quarantine onto our jetty.
"It's ridiculous.
"Those people could have walked off and joined the community.
"Because of the number of migrant people that are here now in the process system - for instance, interpreters - you wouldn't know whether they were just another interpreter or someone who had got off a boat from Sydney."
He said he did not believe there had been a similar instance since the 1990s, when unauthorised arrivals "just turned up".
"We're a long way from the 90s now," he said.
"We know as residents the island's detention centre is a system they've spent $500 million putting in place.
"There's no getting away from the fact we're a detention island, but it's impacting hugely on the residents.
"We don't get asked anything, we just get told."
Christmas Island shire president Gordon Thomson said when he went to the jetty to inspect the boat, the arrivals had been taken away to be processed by customs officials.
He was told the group included men, women and children.
"I counted about 40 life jackets on the jetty which they had taken off and I definitely saw children-sized life jackets," Mr Thomson said.
"I have been told they were all in good condition after an initial health check on the jetty.
"The boat looked to be in good condition and had an Indonesian flag on it."
Mr Thomson said he believed the asylum seekers were from the Middle East.
"It's unusual for boats to arrive like this," he said.
"But conditions in the countries where the asylum seekers are from are not getting better, so I expect we will continue to get more refugees."
© 2009 AAPBrought to you by
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
