Nurse alleges bullying, abuse
May 27, 2008, smh
A NURSE broke down while giving evidence at an inquiry into hospitals, saying management bullied staff at Blue Mountains Hospital.
Jane Morley, a midwife at the Katoomba hospital for 21 years, wept yesterday as she told the Special Commission of Inquiry into Acute Care Services in NSW Public Hospitals that maternity staff were forced to take cord blood from newborn babies for testing without knowing why.
She had been talking about heavy workloads - in the past fortnight she worked an 18-hour and an 11-hour shift back to back. "Another thing I want to talk about is the bullying that goes on in the system," she said, breaking down.
Asked by the commissioner, Peter Garling, SC, if the bullying was between colleagues or from the top down, Ms Morley replied: "It's vertical."
"We get … abuse and threats … Most recently we were told that we would suffer disciplinary action if we didn't start collecting [cord blood] from every delivery regardless of whether there was an issue or not."
Mr Garling suggested she speak to his staff confidentially about the bullying allegations.
Natasha Wallace
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
RETAINING NURSING STAFF
Red News Readers,
Alan Gardo's admission that half the nursing staff in RPAH's Intensive Care are under 2
years experience, is a cry of frustration by a manager struggling with the realities of
the nursing workforce created by the policies and actions of the Howard Government, the
State Government, NSW Health and the human resources policies pursued by the Area
Health Services. In recent years experienced staff left the nursing workforce, not just
because they were nearing retirment age, but also because they were encouraged to
leave, as they were considered too expensive to pay for wages, superannuation and leave
entitlements.
In previous years, NSW Health and the nurses union pursued strategies to recruit and
retain nursing staff which met with some measure of success. Where are those strategies
now? Are they still being pursued? Why are they not as effective as they should be?
What needs to be done to recruit and retain nurses is not rocket science. All of the
work has been done. It just needs to be implemented and resourced, and for that we need
to commitment of the Federal and State Governments, and the efficient performance of
NSW Health and the Area Health Services. At a time when the nurses union is negotiating
the next wage round, efficiency by the employer is a very relevant concept.
Jenny Haines
Junior nurses a 'strain'
Kate Benson Medical ReporterMay 21, 2008
HALF the nurses in the intensive care unit of one of Sydney's busiest hospitals have less than two years' experience, and most spend more time filling in paperwork than caring for patients, an inquiry was told yesterday.
Alan Gardo, a nurse manager at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, told a special commission into acute care services in NSW public hospitals that about 47 per cent of his staff were juniors who had only been nursing for "one to two years", putting a huge strain on the senior staff in the unit.
He said it was "extraordinarily hard" to find new nurses in NSW, and the hospital was forced to employ foreigners on short-term contracts of three to six months, increasing staff turnover and causing permanent staff to feel perpetually anxious.
"We just do not have enough staff, and finding more has become a real problem," Mr Gardo said."Putting people on short contracts may be a Band-Aid solution, but just as they settle in they are gone again."
Mr Gardo said the hospital's intensive care unit, which has the capacity for 54 patients, was too big to manage effectively, and nurses spent too much time on "bureaucracy and documentation" when they should be caring for patients.
"It is extraordinarily difficult for one nursing manager to oversee 130 staff. If we want it to work, the unit needs to be a lot smaller."
In other evidence yesterday, a vascular surgeon told the hearing he was concerned that country patients were being refused beds in tertiary hospitals, even though they desperately needed help.
Associate Professor Geoffrey White, the head of vascular surgery at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, said an Ulladulla patient seeking treatment last week for an aneurysm had been rejected by up to five tertiary, or major, hospitals, all citing a lack of beds.
"We have a situation now where patients are accepted or rejected based on resources, not clinical need. To my mind it verges on being unethical and immoral. We can no longer rely on big hospitals, which have everything required to treat people, to be available to patients in smaller city of regional centres."
Alan Gardo's admission that half the nursing staff in RPAH's Intensive Care are under 2
years experience, is a cry of frustration by a manager struggling with the realities of
the nursing workforce created by the policies and actions of the Howard Government, the
State Government, NSW Health and the human resources policies pursued by the Area
Health Services. In recent years experienced staff left the nursing workforce, not just
because they were nearing retirment age, but also because they were encouraged to
leave, as they were considered too expensive to pay for wages, superannuation and leave
entitlements.
In previous years, NSW Health and the nurses union pursued strategies to recruit and
retain nursing staff which met with some measure of success. Where are those strategies
now? Are they still being pursued? Why are they not as effective as they should be?
What needs to be done to recruit and retain nurses is not rocket science. All of the
work has been done. It just needs to be implemented and resourced, and for that we need
to commitment of the Federal and State Governments, and the efficient performance of
NSW Health and the Area Health Services. At a time when the nurses union is negotiating
the next wage round, efficiency by the employer is a very relevant concept.
Jenny Haines
Junior nurses a 'strain'
Kate Benson Medical ReporterMay 21, 2008
HALF the nurses in the intensive care unit of one of Sydney's busiest hospitals have less than two years' experience, and most spend more time filling in paperwork than caring for patients, an inquiry was told yesterday.
Alan Gardo, a nurse manager at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, told a special commission into acute care services in NSW public hospitals that about 47 per cent of his staff were juniors who had only been nursing for "one to two years", putting a huge strain on the senior staff in the unit.
He said it was "extraordinarily hard" to find new nurses in NSW, and the hospital was forced to employ foreigners on short-term contracts of three to six months, increasing staff turnover and causing permanent staff to feel perpetually anxious.
"We just do not have enough staff, and finding more has become a real problem," Mr Gardo said."Putting people on short contracts may be a Band-Aid solution, but just as they settle in they are gone again."
Mr Gardo said the hospital's intensive care unit, which has the capacity for 54 patients, was too big to manage effectively, and nurses spent too much time on "bureaucracy and documentation" when they should be caring for patients.
"It is extraordinarily difficult for one nursing manager to oversee 130 staff. If we want it to work, the unit needs to be a lot smaller."
In other evidence yesterday, a vascular surgeon told the hearing he was concerned that country patients were being refused beds in tertiary hospitals, even though they desperately needed help.
Associate Professor Geoffrey White, the head of vascular surgery at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, said an Ulladulla patient seeking treatment last week for an aneurysm had been rejected by up to five tertiary, or major, hospitals, all citing a lack of beds.
"We have a situation now where patients are accepted or rejected based on resources, not clinical need. To my mind it verges on being unethical and immoral. We can no longer rely on big hospitals, which have everything required to treat people, to be available to patients in smaller city of regional centres."
Monday, May 19, 2008
DEATH THREATS TO TSVANGARAI
Eddie Cross, distributed by the Search Foundation, 18.5.08
We have been in close touch today with the President and his most senior staff. Firm intelligence has been obtained that rogue elements in Zanu PF who fear defeat and its consequences in the June 27th run off are attempting to assassinate him in Zimbabwe. Information was received that his arrival in Harare this morning was to be intercepted and our own assessment was that his unarmed security details and soft skin vehicles were insufficient protection.
Accordingly - and despite the need for him to urgently return home to start his election campaign, it was decided that he should remain in South Africa for a short while longer. Despite this, the rally in Bulawayo will go ahead as planned and the people will be told why he is not yet in the country.
MDC has appealed to the SADC to ensure his security and safety while campaigning for the run off but no satisfactory assurances have yet been obtained. This situation is ongoing. The ruthless use of force in the present campaign against the MDC throughout the country lends substance to this threat as does the arrival of new weapons recently imported from China with the apparent assistance of both South Africa and Angola.
Such actions give us little confidence in the willingness or ability of the SADC leadership to provide security for our leadership or their willingness to help halt the use of force and political violence by Zanu PF in the campaign now under way. This is a completely intolerable situation.
Eddie Cross
17th May at 20.00 hrs.
We have been in close touch today with the President and his most senior staff. Firm intelligence has been obtained that rogue elements in Zanu PF who fear defeat and its consequences in the June 27th run off are attempting to assassinate him in Zimbabwe. Information was received that his arrival in Harare this morning was to be intercepted and our own assessment was that his unarmed security details and soft skin vehicles were insufficient protection.
Accordingly - and despite the need for him to urgently return home to start his election campaign, it was decided that he should remain in South Africa for a short while longer. Despite this, the rally in Bulawayo will go ahead as planned and the people will be told why he is not yet in the country.
MDC has appealed to the SADC to ensure his security and safety while campaigning for the run off but no satisfactory assurances have yet been obtained. This situation is ongoing. The ruthless use of force in the present campaign against the MDC throughout the country lends substance to this threat as does the arrival of new weapons recently imported from China with the apparent assistance of both South Africa and Angola.
Such actions give us little confidence in the willingness or ability of the SADC leadership to provide security for our leadership or their willingness to help halt the use of force and political violence by Zanu PF in the campaign now under way. This is a completely intolerable situation.
Eddie Cross
17th May at 20.00 hrs.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
CHAVEZ: INTERPOL "CLOWN SHOW"
"Clown show" … Hugo Chavez rails against the Interpol findings, alleging a conspiracy between the US and Bogota.
Other related coverage:
Files prove Chavez's rebel links, paper says
Chavez accuses Colombia of warmongering
Rory Carroll in Caracas, smh
May 17, 2008
THE President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is facing serious allegations about his country's links to Colombian guerillas after Interpol bolstered the credibility of intercepted rebel documents.
The international police organisation announced that a two-month forensic investigation of laptops seized in a raid by Colombian security forces concluded they belonged to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
Leaks from the collection of 16,000 files and photographs have suggested high-ranking Venezuelan officials plotted to help the Marxist group obtain weapons and funding for its decades-long insurgency against the Colombian state.
The secretary-general of Interpol, Ronald Noble, said his experts had found "no alteration of the data by Colombian officials". The amount of information - 37,872 documents and 210,880 photographs - was much greater than previously thought.
Analysts have cautioned that FARC's memos may contain misinformation or wishful thinking.
Mr Chavez's ideological affinity with South America's most powerful guerilla force is no secret.
Earlier this year he negotiated the release of six hostages they held.
Providing logistical support, however, would be a radical escalation, given that the US and the European Union list FARC as a terrorist organisation and cocaine trafficker.
Mr Chavez maintains the documents are fakes and an attempt by the US and "imperialist lackeys" in Bogota, Colombia's capital, to smear his style of socialism.
The report, he said, was an Interpol "clown show" and, relations with Colombia as well as co-operation with Interpol would undergo "deep review".
The President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, whose leftist Government is also accused of conspiring with FARC, said the documents "prove absolutely nothing".
The raid on March 1, which resulted in the deaths of at least 25 people, yielded three laptops, three USB memory sticks and two external hard disks, which have been dubbed FARC's "brain".
In one leaked email, dated January 2007, FARC's military chief, Jorge Briceno, tells the rebels' governing secretariat that he planned to ask Mr Chavez for a loan of $US250 million, "to be repaid when we take power".
Republican hawks in Washington want Venezuela listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Syria, Iran and North Korea.
The White House, hostile to Mr Chavez but wary of disrupting oil imports, has soft-pedalled on the issue, asking Venezuela to explain why some officials were "conspiring against a democratic neighbour".
Guardian News & Media,
Agence France-Presse
Other related coverage:
Files prove Chavez's rebel links, paper says
Chavez accuses Colombia of warmongering
Rory Carroll in Caracas, smh
May 17, 2008
THE President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, is facing serious allegations about his country's links to Colombian guerillas after Interpol bolstered the credibility of intercepted rebel documents.
The international police organisation announced that a two-month forensic investigation of laptops seized in a raid by Colombian security forces concluded they belonged to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
Leaks from the collection of 16,000 files and photographs have suggested high-ranking Venezuelan officials plotted to help the Marxist group obtain weapons and funding for its decades-long insurgency against the Colombian state.
The secretary-general of Interpol, Ronald Noble, said his experts had found "no alteration of the data by Colombian officials". The amount of information - 37,872 documents and 210,880 photographs - was much greater than previously thought.
Analysts have cautioned that FARC's memos may contain misinformation or wishful thinking.
Mr Chavez's ideological affinity with South America's most powerful guerilla force is no secret.
Earlier this year he negotiated the release of six hostages they held.
Providing logistical support, however, would be a radical escalation, given that the US and the European Union list FARC as a terrorist organisation and cocaine trafficker.
Mr Chavez maintains the documents are fakes and an attempt by the US and "imperialist lackeys" in Bogota, Colombia's capital, to smear his style of socialism.
The report, he said, was an Interpol "clown show" and, relations with Colombia as well as co-operation with Interpol would undergo "deep review".
The President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, whose leftist Government is also accused of conspiring with FARC, said the documents "prove absolutely nothing".
The raid on March 1, which resulted in the deaths of at least 25 people, yielded three laptops, three USB memory sticks and two external hard disks, which have been dubbed FARC's "brain".
In one leaked email, dated January 2007, FARC's military chief, Jorge Briceno, tells the rebels' governing secretariat that he planned to ask Mr Chavez for a loan of $US250 million, "to be repaid when we take power".
Republican hawks in Washington want Venezuela listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Syria, Iran and North Korea.
The White House, hostile to Mr Chavez but wary of disrupting oil imports, has soft-pedalled on the issue, asking Venezuela to explain why some officials were "conspiring against a democratic neighbour".
Guardian News & Media,
Agence France-Presse
DETAILS OF HEALTH CUTS STILL TO BE SPELT OUT
Details of health cuts still to be spelt out
Mark Metherell, smh
May 17, 2008
THREE days after the budget revealed there would be $503 million of unspecified cuts to the health budget, the Government has kept silent on where the axe will fall.
The cuts were signalled in the budget papers under the title "responsible economic management" and were described as "adjusting the funding for specific health programs" with total savings of $503.7 million over five years.
By late yesterday the office of the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, had detailed less than half of the savings - a total of $246.8 million. A spokesman said the big cuts had been detailed, but numerous smaller items were still to be announced.
It is understood the Health Department came under intense pressure from the Finance Department to cut a swathe through programs where spending had failed to match original estimates.
The savings will offset the Government's promise to establish a $10 billion health infrastructure fund, its $600 million elective surgery campaign, and the planned 31 GP super clinics, which will cost $275 million.
Despite the big promises, health spending will struggle to keep pace with inflation, according to the budget figures, which show total spending will rise from $44.4 billion to $46 billion.
The cuts revealed by Ms Roxon's office yesterday show that areas Labor has identified as priorities have been hit by the Health Department's failure to spend the money as sought by the previous government.
The biggest hit has been to the chronically underfunded area of mental health nursing, which has yielded "savings" of $188 million over four years.
The official explanation is that due to the "limited available workforce", few took up the incentives program for mental health nurses to work in the community.
The Government has left $49.5 million funding for future needs and says targets for the demand-driven program will not be lowered.
Other losers were infrastructure training and support for general practitioners in primary and co-ordinated care, another Labor priority. This would generate cuts of $20 million over four years. A separate primary care fund for one-off projects will save $11.5 million.
A pathology project for remote areas is to lose $12 million in unused funds because "relevant services are now funded under Medicare", and a $10.5 million electronic health project is to be scrapped.
Ms Roxon's office said the Government had adjusted funding for several health programs that had a history of lower than expected spending "by aligning future funding more closely with anticipated demand".
The president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, said spending was already "playing catch-up".
"You have to ask how they are going to screw down the real cost of delivering proper care."
Mark Metherell, smh
May 17, 2008
THREE days after the budget revealed there would be $503 million of unspecified cuts to the health budget, the Government has kept silent on where the axe will fall.
The cuts were signalled in the budget papers under the title "responsible economic management" and were described as "adjusting the funding for specific health programs" with total savings of $503.7 million over five years.
By late yesterday the office of the Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, had detailed less than half of the savings - a total of $246.8 million. A spokesman said the big cuts had been detailed, but numerous smaller items were still to be announced.
It is understood the Health Department came under intense pressure from the Finance Department to cut a swathe through programs where spending had failed to match original estimates.
The savings will offset the Government's promise to establish a $10 billion health infrastructure fund, its $600 million elective surgery campaign, and the planned 31 GP super clinics, which will cost $275 million.
Despite the big promises, health spending will struggle to keep pace with inflation, according to the budget figures, which show total spending will rise from $44.4 billion to $46 billion.
The cuts revealed by Ms Roxon's office yesterday show that areas Labor has identified as priorities have been hit by the Health Department's failure to spend the money as sought by the previous government.
The biggest hit has been to the chronically underfunded area of mental health nursing, which has yielded "savings" of $188 million over four years.
The official explanation is that due to the "limited available workforce", few took up the incentives program for mental health nurses to work in the community.
The Government has left $49.5 million funding for future needs and says targets for the demand-driven program will not be lowered.
Other losers were infrastructure training and support for general practitioners in primary and co-ordinated care, another Labor priority. This would generate cuts of $20 million over four years. A separate primary care fund for one-off projects will save $11.5 million.
A pathology project for remote areas is to lose $12 million in unused funds because "relevant services are now funded under Medicare", and a $10.5 million electronic health project is to be scrapped.
Ms Roxon's office said the Government had adjusted funding for several health programs that had a history of lower than expected spending "by aligning future funding more closely with anticipated demand".
The president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, said spending was already "playing catch-up".
"You have to ask how they are going to screw down the real cost of delivering proper care."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
POW MENTAL HEALTH NURSES IMPOSE BANS
Red News Readers,
Good on these nurses. Given the frustration that must exist amongst mental health nurses about the lack of acute beds in NSW and repeated promises by politicians that so far have not come to much there would be ample justification for all mental health nurses in NSW supporting this action by imposing the same bans. What is needed now is action by governments, state and federal, not just promises of more money one day soon!
Jenny Haines
Nurses place work ban on mental health patients
Natasha Wallace Health Reporter, smh
May 14, 2008
NURSES at the mental health unit at Prince of Wales Hospital are so fed up with bed shortages they have voted to begin work bans from today.
At a union meeting yesterday they decided that no mental health patients would be admitted to the 50-bed Kiloh unit when beds were not available. Until now nurses have had to put patients on couches and in seclusion rooms.
The Herald has been told the ban would include patients being escorted to the hospital by police.
It is understood there has not been a spare bed for several months and up to five patients a night are sleeping on couches or the floor.
The work ban comes after evidence given at the NSW public hospital inquiry that the emergency unit at Prince of Wales was overloaded with mental health patients because there were not enough ward beds.
Sally McCarthy, head of emergency, told the inquiry on May 1 that on average almost five of the 12 acute beds were taken by mental health patients.
The NSW Nurses Association said recently that some patients had to be restrained and sedated because there was not enough staff to properly care for them. Nurses in emergency were frequently assaulted.
Dr McCarthy told the inquiry there had been an 80 per cent increase in the number of mental health patients presenting to emergency since 2002, and most of this had occurred since 2005.
"Taking six beds out of our capacity just for mentally-ill patients severely limits our ability to assess the vast majority of our patients who suffer from other illnesses," she said.
She said the emergency department did not meet any of the NSW Department of Health criteria for a safe environment for mentally ill patients.
"The prolonged stays these patients have is due predominantly to the lack of capacity of the mental health inpatient service to place them in appropriate beds. Our emergency department is not a suitable environment."
Good on these nurses. Given the frustration that must exist amongst mental health nurses about the lack of acute beds in NSW and repeated promises by politicians that so far have not come to much there would be ample justification for all mental health nurses in NSW supporting this action by imposing the same bans. What is needed now is action by governments, state and federal, not just promises of more money one day soon!
Jenny Haines
Nurses place work ban on mental health patients
Natasha Wallace Health Reporter, smh
May 14, 2008
NURSES at the mental health unit at Prince of Wales Hospital are so fed up with bed shortages they have voted to begin work bans from today.
At a union meeting yesterday they decided that no mental health patients would be admitted to the 50-bed Kiloh unit when beds were not available. Until now nurses have had to put patients on couches and in seclusion rooms.
The Herald has been told the ban would include patients being escorted to the hospital by police.
It is understood there has not been a spare bed for several months and up to five patients a night are sleeping on couches or the floor.
The work ban comes after evidence given at the NSW public hospital inquiry that the emergency unit at Prince of Wales was overloaded with mental health patients because there were not enough ward beds.
Sally McCarthy, head of emergency, told the inquiry on May 1 that on average almost five of the 12 acute beds were taken by mental health patients.
The NSW Nurses Association said recently that some patients had to be restrained and sedated because there was not enough staff to properly care for them. Nurses in emergency were frequently assaulted.
Dr McCarthy told the inquiry there had been an 80 per cent increase in the number of mental health patients presenting to emergency since 2002, and most of this had occurred since 2005.
"Taking six beds out of our capacity just for mentally-ill patients severely limits our ability to assess the vast majority of our patients who suffer from other illnesses," she said.
She said the emergency department did not meet any of the NSW Department of Health criteria for a safe environment for mentally ill patients.
"The prolonged stays these patients have is due predominantly to the lack of capacity of the mental health inpatient service to place them in appropriate beds. Our emergency department is not a suitable environment."
DELLA BOSCA WARNS OF SPLIT
Iemma signals power impasse
Andrew Clennell and Brian Robins, smh
May 14, 2008
MORRIS IEMMA indicated that talks between unions and the Government over electricity privatisation were in trouble, as one of his most senior ministers warned caucus that similar splits between the party and government in the past had led to the "collapse of Labor governments".
The Premier's statement yesterday that unions and the Government may have to "agree to disagree" on the power sale is the clearest signal yet that, despite paying lip service to negotiation with the unions, he is prepared, if necessary, to concede nothing.
Earlier yesterday, the NSW Industrial Relations Minister, John Della Bosca, warned a Labor caucus meeting that the Government could be in severe trouble should the party and the Premier and cabinet remain split.
A rift has emerged between state Labor's general and assistant secretaries, Karl Bitar and Luke Foley, on one side, and Mr Iemma and the Treasurer, Michael Costa, on the other since the Premier announced he would proceed with the sale despite the party conference voting against it.
A caucus source said yesterday that Mr Della Bosca had told caucus he wanted to avoid a situation where the Government was "out of sync" with the party's machinery and the party. He spoke of splits in 1913 and the 1960s when Labor governments had "collapsed", the source said.
Several Left MPs spoke to a motion put up by the upper house MP Linda Voltz to recognise the state Labor conference's 702 to 107 vote against the proposed privatisation.
The caucus vote was lost on factional lines, with Left ministers unable to vote against it.
A Right source later said: "What we couldn't work out was why the Left brought the motion on.
We saw Luke Foley and [the union secretary] Andrew Ferguson were floating around today so we wondered if they had anything to do with it."
The source claimed the vote was lost by about 59 votes to 12.
Mr Foley later confirmed he was in Parliament and said he was "talking to lots of people including parliamentarians with a view to solving this dispute".
Mr Iemma told a media conference yesterday that he had had a couple of discussions with the Unions NSW secretary, John Robertson. But it appeared the issue of joint venture proposals - involving private and public ownership of power stations - was a sticking point.
"I'm not holding anything up - I've said we are proceeding and we are and in that context my door's open for discussions. We've had a couple," Mr Iemma said.
While discussions on "pricing, the environment, jobs [and] employment" had been more positive, there had been problems concerning the "structure" of a sale, the Premier said.
"If there's not [a resolution] it'll have to be one of those things we just agree to disagree on when it comes to structure. Certainly as far as some of the other issues, they've raised fair points and we'll go away and do some detailed work on that."
Today, there are question marks as to whether at least two Labor Left MPs will cross the floor over a bill the Greens are introducing to ensure legislation would have to be passed through Parliament to facilitate the sale.
The Greens were confident a small number of Labor Party members would cross the floor to vote for the legislation, which would receive Opposition support, ensuring it went before the lower house for debate.
The Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, said yesterday the Auditor-General should check any proposed transactions to ensure taxpayers got the best deal.
Andrew Clennell and Brian Robins, smh
May 14, 2008
MORRIS IEMMA indicated that talks between unions and the Government over electricity privatisation were in trouble, as one of his most senior ministers warned caucus that similar splits between the party and government in the past had led to the "collapse of Labor governments".
The Premier's statement yesterday that unions and the Government may have to "agree to disagree" on the power sale is the clearest signal yet that, despite paying lip service to negotiation with the unions, he is prepared, if necessary, to concede nothing.
Earlier yesterday, the NSW Industrial Relations Minister, John Della Bosca, warned a Labor caucus meeting that the Government could be in severe trouble should the party and the Premier and cabinet remain split.
A rift has emerged between state Labor's general and assistant secretaries, Karl Bitar and Luke Foley, on one side, and Mr Iemma and the Treasurer, Michael Costa, on the other since the Premier announced he would proceed with the sale despite the party conference voting against it.
A caucus source said yesterday that Mr Della Bosca had told caucus he wanted to avoid a situation where the Government was "out of sync" with the party's machinery and the party. He spoke of splits in 1913 and the 1960s when Labor governments had "collapsed", the source said.
Several Left MPs spoke to a motion put up by the upper house MP Linda Voltz to recognise the state Labor conference's 702 to 107 vote against the proposed privatisation.
The caucus vote was lost on factional lines, with Left ministers unable to vote against it.
A Right source later said: "What we couldn't work out was why the Left brought the motion on.
We saw Luke Foley and [the union secretary] Andrew Ferguson were floating around today so we wondered if they had anything to do with it."
The source claimed the vote was lost by about 59 votes to 12.
Mr Foley later confirmed he was in Parliament and said he was "talking to lots of people including parliamentarians with a view to solving this dispute".
Mr Iemma told a media conference yesterday that he had had a couple of discussions with the Unions NSW secretary, John Robertson. But it appeared the issue of joint venture proposals - involving private and public ownership of power stations - was a sticking point.
"I'm not holding anything up - I've said we are proceeding and we are and in that context my door's open for discussions. We've had a couple," Mr Iemma said.
While discussions on "pricing, the environment, jobs [and] employment" had been more positive, there had been problems concerning the "structure" of a sale, the Premier said.
"If there's not [a resolution] it'll have to be one of those things we just agree to disagree on when it comes to structure. Certainly as far as some of the other issues, they've raised fair points and we'll go away and do some detailed work on that."
Today, there are question marks as to whether at least two Labor Left MPs will cross the floor over a bill the Greens are introducing to ensure legislation would have to be passed through Parliament to facilitate the sale.
The Greens were confident a small number of Labor Party members would cross the floor to vote for the legislation, which would receive Opposition support, ensuring it went before the lower house for debate.
The Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, said yesterday the Auditor-General should check any proposed transactions to ensure taxpayers got the best deal.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
WAITING LISTS INCREASES, TIMES DOWN
Red News Readers,
So it I read this story correctly, the overall number on the waiting list has increased, but the length of times they are waiting has decreased. And the Liberals seem to be saying there should be no adjustment of the Medicare threshold from $50,000 to $100,000. So that means those on middle to low incomes should be penalised for not taking out private insurance, and that the Howard Government were wrong when they set the thresholds 10 years ago? Is that what the Liberals are saying? If they are, they are saying that those on middle to low incomes should financially support the private health system by paying the Medicare levy, when these people are already supporting it through the taxpayer billions that are subsidising the private health insurance industry and private hospital services.
Jenny Haines
Natasha Wallace Health Reporter, smh
May 13, 2008
THE number of patients waiting for surgery at NSW hospitals has climbed to nearly 59,000, or about 55 extra people each week since Reba Meagher became Health Minister just over a year ago, the Opposition says.
"Under Reba Meagher's watch, there are now more people waiting for surgery in NSW than at any other time during the last three years," the Opposition health spokeswoman, Jillian Skinner, said yesterday.
The waiting list would increase further if the Federal Government doubled the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, which applied to taxpayers who did not have private health insurance, because at least 140,000 patients would flood the NSW public system, she said.
Ms Skinner called on the State Government to ensure NSW received more funding for its hospitals to cope with the expected rise in demand. Already overstretched doctors and nurses would come under more pressure from 140,000 extra patients.
Ms Meagher said the numbers waiting for surgery would "naturally rise as the population grows and ages, and the demand for medical services increases".
The Opposition had "missed the point", she said, citing a drop in how long patients waited for surgery from an average of 3.6 months in June 2005 to 2.8 months in March this year.
She said the number of patients waiting more than a year for elective surgery had dropped from more than 10,000 to 255 in March and those waiting more than 30 days for urgent surgery had decreased from more than 5000 in 2005 to 102. "What matters is that people who need elective surgery have their procedure within the clinically recommended time frame, and that is what is happening," she said.
The Opposition says the hospital waiting list dropped from 58,461 in March 2006 to 51,779 in December 2006, the last reported figures before the state election. The figure then jumped to 55,972 in March last year, and was 58,839 a year later, it says.
The Federal Government announced in January it would spend $150 million on cutting elective surgery waiting lists, of which NSW would receive $43.3 million.
So it I read this story correctly, the overall number on the waiting list has increased, but the length of times they are waiting has decreased. And the Liberals seem to be saying there should be no adjustment of the Medicare threshold from $50,000 to $100,000. So that means those on middle to low incomes should be penalised for not taking out private insurance, and that the Howard Government were wrong when they set the thresholds 10 years ago? Is that what the Liberals are saying? If they are, they are saying that those on middle to low incomes should financially support the private health system by paying the Medicare levy, when these people are already supporting it through the taxpayer billions that are subsidising the private health insurance industry and private hospital services.
Jenny Haines
Natasha Wallace Health Reporter, smh
May 13, 2008
THE number of patients waiting for surgery at NSW hospitals has climbed to nearly 59,000, or about 55 extra people each week since Reba Meagher became Health Minister just over a year ago, the Opposition says.
"Under Reba Meagher's watch, there are now more people waiting for surgery in NSW than at any other time during the last three years," the Opposition health spokeswoman, Jillian Skinner, said yesterday.
The waiting list would increase further if the Federal Government doubled the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, which applied to taxpayers who did not have private health insurance, because at least 140,000 patients would flood the NSW public system, she said.
Ms Skinner called on the State Government to ensure NSW received more funding for its hospitals to cope with the expected rise in demand. Already overstretched doctors and nurses would come under more pressure from 140,000 extra patients.
Ms Meagher said the numbers waiting for surgery would "naturally rise as the population grows and ages, and the demand for medical services increases".
The Opposition had "missed the point", she said, citing a drop in how long patients waited for surgery from an average of 3.6 months in June 2005 to 2.8 months in March this year.
She said the number of patients waiting more than a year for elective surgery had dropped from more than 10,000 to 255 in March and those waiting more than 30 days for urgent surgery had decreased from more than 5000 in 2005 to 102. "What matters is that people who need elective surgery have their procedure within the clinically recommended time frame, and that is what is happening," she said.
The Opposition says the hospital waiting list dropped from 58,461 in March 2006 to 51,779 in December 2006, the last reported figures before the state election. The figure then jumped to 55,972 in March last year, and was 58,839 a year later, it says.
The Federal Government announced in January it would spend $150 million on cutting elective surgery waiting lists, of which NSW would receive $43.3 million.
DEBNAM OPPOSES PRIVATISATION
Power play claims Debnam
Brian Robins,smh
May 13, 2008
THE former leader of the Opposition Peter Debnam has promised to vote against power privatisation if it comes to a vote in State Parliament, after quitting the Opposition front bench over the issue yesterday.
His move to the back bench follows the Opposition decision last week to give in-principle support to the State Government's plan to privatise the state-owned power industry.
The Opposition came under pressure from the Government to clarify its stand on the issue in question time last week. "If it is put to a vote I will vote against it," Mr Debnam said yesterday.
"There are people in Government and Opposition for privatisation; there are people opposing it."
Senior party figures, such as the former premier Nick Greiner, wanted the Liberal Party to take the issue of power industry privatisation to the last state election, but Mr Debnam, the then opposition leader, refused, pointing to the drubbing the party took on the issue in the 1999 election.
Labor would "take a hammering on the issue of privatisation" at the next state election, Mr Debnam said yesterday.
He returned from overseas last Wednesday, and was part of Opposition talks on power privatisation later that day and on Thursday, although Opposition sources said he kept his own counsel during those discussions.
"Peter Debnam is entitled to his view," said the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell.
"When you are part of a team, you abide by the team decision."
After Mr Debnam quit the shadow cabinet, Michael Baird was appointed Opposition spokesman on energy, in addition to his role as finance spokesman. Brad Hazzard will add infrastructure to his role as planning spokesman.
Anthony Roberts is to join the shadow cabinet as spokesman for emergency services and juvenile justice, which maintains the factional balance.
Mr Debnam and Mr Roberts are both from the right. Mr Roberts, since his election to Parliament in 2003, has been a parliamentary secretary. Rob Stokes has been appointed parliamentary secretary for planning and infrastructure.
Mr Debnam led the Opposition to a disastrous defeat at the last election, suffering from a voter backlash against the federal government's Work Choices legislation. With Work Choices no longer an issue following a change of government, power privatisation is now dominating the political landscape.
The Treasurer, Michael Costa, had "introduced an enormous weight into the saddles of the ALP on the issue of [power] privatisation", Mr Debnam said.
"Both Morris Iemma and I reassured the community power wouldn't be privatised [at the last election]. Everything changed once the ballot box changed."
Mr Debnam is still believed to harbour leadership ambitions.
Brian Robins,smh
May 13, 2008
THE former leader of the Opposition Peter Debnam has promised to vote against power privatisation if it comes to a vote in State Parliament, after quitting the Opposition front bench over the issue yesterday.
His move to the back bench follows the Opposition decision last week to give in-principle support to the State Government's plan to privatise the state-owned power industry.
The Opposition came under pressure from the Government to clarify its stand on the issue in question time last week. "If it is put to a vote I will vote against it," Mr Debnam said yesterday.
"There are people in Government and Opposition for privatisation; there are people opposing it."
Senior party figures, such as the former premier Nick Greiner, wanted the Liberal Party to take the issue of power industry privatisation to the last state election, but Mr Debnam, the then opposition leader, refused, pointing to the drubbing the party took on the issue in the 1999 election.
Labor would "take a hammering on the issue of privatisation" at the next state election, Mr Debnam said yesterday.
He returned from overseas last Wednesday, and was part of Opposition talks on power privatisation later that day and on Thursday, although Opposition sources said he kept his own counsel during those discussions.
"Peter Debnam is entitled to his view," said the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell.
"When you are part of a team, you abide by the team decision."
After Mr Debnam quit the shadow cabinet, Michael Baird was appointed Opposition spokesman on energy, in addition to his role as finance spokesman. Brad Hazzard will add infrastructure to his role as planning spokesman.
Anthony Roberts is to join the shadow cabinet as spokesman for emergency services and juvenile justice, which maintains the factional balance.
Mr Debnam and Mr Roberts are both from the right. Mr Roberts, since his election to Parliament in 2003, has been a parliamentary secretary. Rob Stokes has been appointed parliamentary secretary for planning and infrastructure.
Mr Debnam led the Opposition to a disastrous defeat at the last election, suffering from a voter backlash against the federal government's Work Choices legislation. With Work Choices no longer an issue following a change of government, power privatisation is now dominating the political landscape.
The Treasurer, Michael Costa, had "introduced an enormous weight into the saddles of the ALP on the issue of [power] privatisation", Mr Debnam said.
"Both Morris Iemma and I reassured the community power wouldn't be privatised [at the last election]. Everything changed once the ballot box changed."
Mr Debnam is still believed to harbour leadership ambitions.
Monday, May 12, 2008
AUSTRALIA'S SUPPORT FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Alternative to invasion - a court for our times
Cynthia Banham, smh
May 12, 2008
Australia almost never runs late in paying its dues to international institutions - it is not another United States, which regularly fails to pay its United Nations fees on time. However, in the final 12 months of the Howard government, it did forget to pay its annual contribution to the International Criminal Court. It wasn't deliberate - merely an administrative oversight - but it does say a lot about the ambivalence with which the previous government viewed the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.
While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade handles Australia's day-to-day involvement with the court, the Attorney-General's Department handles the budget. The former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer was a big supporter of the court, and fought hard against a divided Coalition for Australia to ratify it in 2002. However, Philip Ruddock, the former attorney-general, was not as keen, and it showed.
The Rudd Government is demonstrating greater interest in the court - and so it should. If the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, wants Australia to become an activist middle power, which embraces multilateralism and backs international institutions, it could do no better than throw its support behind a body established to end impunity for politically motivated crimes.
The Rudd Government sees a powerful International Criminal Court as a preferred alternative for dealing with evil politicians who commit atrocities against their own populations, rather than sending in invading armies Iraq-style to rid a people of their dictator.
The Government is understood to be looking at the possibility of having an Australian appointed to an administrative role in the court's registry (it sought advice from the bureaucracy about also having an Australian appointed to the Office of the Prosecutor, but was told that would be too difficult). More immediately, Australia will run for a position in the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties, which meets monthly and has the day-to-day running of the court.
But there is much more Australia could do to help make the court a truly viable jurisdiction for dealing with individuals who engage in crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes, as the Rome Statute, which sets out the court's parameters, purports to do.
The court has limited membership; only 106 countries have ratified the treaty establishing it. Of all the regional groupings, the Asian states - Australia's neighbourhood - have the least members. Japan is there, but there is no China, no Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore or Papua New Guinea. Australia could play a bigger role, perhaps jointly with New Zealand, in trying to encourage more of its neighbours to join.
Nor is the US a member. Professor Tim McCormack, the director of the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, believes that after the US presidential election, Canberra should use its relationship with Washington to "push for a more benign attitude on the part of the US" towards the court. The Bush Administration has been extremely antagonistic towards the court because of fears its young soldiers would be targeted by politically motivated prosecutions. Those fears haven't been realised. The Bush Administration's most passionate opponents of the court, Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton, have gone, and the three presidential nominees are more predisposed towards it. Although it is still unlikely the US under a new administration would become a member - getting the necessary legislation through the US Senate would be very difficult - a less antagonistic US might encourage other countries to join the court.
One of the court's major weaknesses is enforcing arrest warrants. Because it has no police force, states must agree to hand over their nationals indicted by the court. Often the only way to get states to do this is by applying international pressure. Sudan, for instance, is refusing to hand over two of its indicted nationals.
Fergus Hanson was a former Australian diplomat who worked on the court. Now writing for the Lowy Institute's blog, The Interpreter, he believes Australia "should be far more proactive in making public statements" to keep up pressure on recalcitrant states such as Sudan that refuse to co-operate with the court.
Finally there is an opportunity for Australia to play a major role in completing the court's unfinished business on the crime of aggression. It is listed as the fourth of the crimes covered by the court's jurisdiction, but was left undefined by the Rome Statute. Work on this is being done now ahead of the court's 2010 Review Conference.
What the court needs more than anything, however, say diplomats, is to get runs on the board and to conduct some hearings. This will come with time.
The world needs an International Criminal Court if it is to hold individuals to account for outrages against humanity of the kind we've witnessed in Rwanda, the Balkans and Nazi Germany. But not only that. It also needs a court to act as a deterrent for leaders contemplating barbarism. To quote Hanson again, with a more powerful court, the Robert Mugabes of the world might think twice "about launching all out assaults on their opponents, for fear that if things don't work out they might eventually find themselves in the dock".
Cynthia Banham, smh
May 12, 2008
Australia almost never runs late in paying its dues to international institutions - it is not another United States, which regularly fails to pay its United Nations fees on time. However, in the final 12 months of the Howard government, it did forget to pay its annual contribution to the International Criminal Court. It wasn't deliberate - merely an administrative oversight - but it does say a lot about the ambivalence with which the previous government viewed the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.
While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade handles Australia's day-to-day involvement with the court, the Attorney-General's Department handles the budget. The former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer was a big supporter of the court, and fought hard against a divided Coalition for Australia to ratify it in 2002. However, Philip Ruddock, the former attorney-general, was not as keen, and it showed.
The Rudd Government is demonstrating greater interest in the court - and so it should. If the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, wants Australia to become an activist middle power, which embraces multilateralism and backs international institutions, it could do no better than throw its support behind a body established to end impunity for politically motivated crimes.
The Rudd Government sees a powerful International Criminal Court as a preferred alternative for dealing with evil politicians who commit atrocities against their own populations, rather than sending in invading armies Iraq-style to rid a people of their dictator.
The Government is understood to be looking at the possibility of having an Australian appointed to an administrative role in the court's registry (it sought advice from the bureaucracy about also having an Australian appointed to the Office of the Prosecutor, but was told that would be too difficult). More immediately, Australia will run for a position in the Bureau of the Assembly of States Parties, which meets monthly and has the day-to-day running of the court.
But there is much more Australia could do to help make the court a truly viable jurisdiction for dealing with individuals who engage in crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes, as the Rome Statute, which sets out the court's parameters, purports to do.
The court has limited membership; only 106 countries have ratified the treaty establishing it. Of all the regional groupings, the Asian states - Australia's neighbourhood - have the least members. Japan is there, but there is no China, no Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore or Papua New Guinea. Australia could play a bigger role, perhaps jointly with New Zealand, in trying to encourage more of its neighbours to join.
Nor is the US a member. Professor Tim McCormack, the director of the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, believes that after the US presidential election, Canberra should use its relationship with Washington to "push for a more benign attitude on the part of the US" towards the court. The Bush Administration has been extremely antagonistic towards the court because of fears its young soldiers would be targeted by politically motivated prosecutions. Those fears haven't been realised. The Bush Administration's most passionate opponents of the court, Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton, have gone, and the three presidential nominees are more predisposed towards it. Although it is still unlikely the US under a new administration would become a member - getting the necessary legislation through the US Senate would be very difficult - a less antagonistic US might encourage other countries to join the court.
One of the court's major weaknesses is enforcing arrest warrants. Because it has no police force, states must agree to hand over their nationals indicted by the court. Often the only way to get states to do this is by applying international pressure. Sudan, for instance, is refusing to hand over two of its indicted nationals.
Fergus Hanson was a former Australian diplomat who worked on the court. Now writing for the Lowy Institute's blog, The Interpreter, he believes Australia "should be far more proactive in making public statements" to keep up pressure on recalcitrant states such as Sudan that refuse to co-operate with the court.
Finally there is an opportunity for Australia to play a major role in completing the court's unfinished business on the crime of aggression. It is listed as the fourth of the crimes covered by the court's jurisdiction, but was left undefined by the Rome Statute. Work on this is being done now ahead of the court's 2010 Review Conference.
What the court needs more than anything, however, say diplomats, is to get runs on the board and to conduct some hearings. This will come with time.
The world needs an International Criminal Court if it is to hold individuals to account for outrages against humanity of the kind we've witnessed in Rwanda, the Balkans and Nazi Germany. But not only that. It also needs a court to act as a deterrent for leaders contemplating barbarism. To quote Hanson again, with a more powerful court, the Robert Mugabes of the world might think twice "about launching all out assaults on their opponents, for fear that if things don't work out they might eventually find themselves in the dock".
Thursday, May 08, 2008
CURRENT GOVERNMENT HARD ON REFUGEES
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: refugee@lists.justfreedom.org.au >
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 2:44 PM
Subject: [Refugee] Rudd harder than Howard on asylum seekers
Postscript to this story 2.34pm >
A few minutes ago, an asylum seeker was given the bad news that he had been rejected. An ambulance has just taken himto hospital becasue he attempted to kill himself. He is unable to face return to the country from which he fled.
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Rudd harder than Howard on refugees
Margaret Simons, Crikey, 7.4.08
Labor is being tougher and more ruthless with asylum seekers than the Howard Government, according to an analysis of decisions made by the new Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans.
The analysis of the exercise of ministerial discretion shows that Evans has rejected 97.6 per cent of applications since coming to power - the highest rate of rejection since 2001.
The handling of applications for ministerial discretion has been sped up, with 41 rejections being issued in five weeks and other applicants told their cases have been "escalated" which on the current pattern is not good news for them.
Most of those rejected feared for their safety if returned to their countries of origin. Many have mental health problems and spouses and children in Australia from whom they will be separated if deported.
The analysis of the rejections is contained in a document distributed to volunteers by the Asylum Seekers’ Resource Centre, which is the leading aid and advocacy organisation for refugees in Australia. Read the whole document here.
Authored by the CEO Kon Karapanagiotidis, the document analyses 42 decisions made by Evans. All but one of these applications were rejected.
"The injustice continues under an ALP Government when it comes to asylum seekers," Karapanagiotidis says.
"It's still too early to get a complete picture of how the Minister will exercise his power, however it’s sadly looking like a change of government may have brought no real change for asylum seekers."
According to Asylum Seeker Resource Centre campaign co-ordinator, Pamela Curr, the cases Evans has rejected include one of an African woman who had been kidnapped and trafficked to the Middle East. She was abused by her "owners". She came to Australia with her "owners" when they were on holiday. When she was attacked again, she ran away. Since then Australia has been her only experience of relative security.
"This case just shattered us all," says Curr.
Curr says others rejected include compelling cases of people who have good reason to fear death if they are returned to their countries of origin, and families that will be split up if people are deported.
"The people making these decisions are old immigration department officers, the same kind of people who handled Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon. They are still there and they are just saying no."
There has been no cultural change in the department, Curr says.
"This Government will be six months old on the 24 May. We have been patiently waiting to see the new compassionate Government. At this rate we will be disappointed."
In this speech last February Senator Evans talked about the 2000 applications for ministerial intervention on his desk, and expressed reservations about whether he should have so much power.
He said the ministerial discretion, intended as a check on the system, had instead become part of the process. Different personalities and priorities among Immigration Ministers led to different outcomes. He indicated he favoured arms’ length decision making by better supported tribunals.
In fact Philip Ruddock was the only Immigration Minister to closely supervise the exercise of Ministerial discretion, and it was his period in the hot seat that led to the big increase of its use.
He intervened on 2513 occasions from 1996 to October 2003, compared to his predecessor, Nick Bolkus, handling just 311 in three years.
Since Ruddock, the reality is that the so-called Ministerial discretion has been handed to Department of Immigration bureaucrats. Evans has indicated he wants the 2000 files cleared fast, and they are moving through them with ruthless toughness.
Karapanagiotidis writes that he has urged the Department not to send bulk refusals "because they are unmanageable and create a crisis that neither ourselves, other agencies or they can deal with."
Nevertheless, the Centre has had 41 rejections in five weeks.
The Asylum Seekers’ Resource Centre plans to try again for ministerial intervention on some of the most compelling cases.
Meanwhile, Crikey sent a copy of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre document to the Minister’s staff yesterday afternoon, but did not receive comment in time for today’s deadline.
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 2:44 PM
Subject: [Refugee] Rudd harder than Howard on asylum seekers
Postscript to this story 2.34pm >
A few minutes ago, an asylum seeker was given the bad news that he had been rejected. An ambulance has just taken himto hospital becasue he attempted to kill himself. He is unable to face return to the country from which he fled.
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Rudd harder than Howard on refugees
Margaret Simons, Crikey, 7.4.08
Labor is being tougher and more ruthless with asylum seekers than the Howard Government, according to an analysis of decisions made by the new Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans.
The analysis of the exercise of ministerial discretion shows that Evans has rejected 97.6 per cent of applications since coming to power - the highest rate of rejection since 2001.
The handling of applications for ministerial discretion has been sped up, with 41 rejections being issued in five weeks and other applicants told their cases have been "escalated" which on the current pattern is not good news for them.
Most of those rejected feared for their safety if returned to their countries of origin. Many have mental health problems and spouses and children in Australia from whom they will be separated if deported.
The analysis of the rejections is contained in a document distributed to volunteers by the Asylum Seekers’ Resource Centre, which is the leading aid and advocacy organisation for refugees in Australia. Read the whole document here.
Authored by the CEO Kon Karapanagiotidis, the document analyses 42 decisions made by Evans. All but one of these applications were rejected.
"The injustice continues under an ALP Government when it comes to asylum seekers," Karapanagiotidis says.
"It's still too early to get a complete picture of how the Minister will exercise his power, however it’s sadly looking like a change of government may have brought no real change for asylum seekers."
According to Asylum Seeker Resource Centre campaign co-ordinator, Pamela Curr, the cases Evans has rejected include one of an African woman who had been kidnapped and trafficked to the Middle East. She was abused by her "owners". She came to Australia with her "owners" when they were on holiday. When she was attacked again, she ran away. Since then Australia has been her only experience of relative security.
"This case just shattered us all," says Curr.
Curr says others rejected include compelling cases of people who have good reason to fear death if they are returned to their countries of origin, and families that will be split up if people are deported.
"The people making these decisions are old immigration department officers, the same kind of people who handled Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon. They are still there and they are just saying no."
There has been no cultural change in the department, Curr says.
"This Government will be six months old on the 24 May. We have been patiently waiting to see the new compassionate Government. At this rate we will be disappointed."
In this speech last February Senator Evans talked about the 2000 applications for ministerial intervention on his desk, and expressed reservations about whether he should have so much power.
He said the ministerial discretion, intended as a check on the system, had instead become part of the process. Different personalities and priorities among Immigration Ministers led to different outcomes. He indicated he favoured arms’ length decision making by better supported tribunals.
In fact Philip Ruddock was the only Immigration Minister to closely supervise the exercise of Ministerial discretion, and it was his period in the hot seat that led to the big increase of its use.
He intervened on 2513 occasions from 1996 to October 2003, compared to his predecessor, Nick Bolkus, handling just 311 in three years.
Since Ruddock, the reality is that the so-called Ministerial discretion has been handed to Department of Immigration bureaucrats. Evans has indicated he wants the 2000 files cleared fast, and they are moving through them with ruthless toughness.
Karapanagiotidis writes that he has urged the Department not to send bulk refusals "because they are unmanageable and create a crisis that neither ourselves, other agencies or they can deal with."
Nevertheless, the Centre has had 41 rejections in five weeks.
The Asylum Seekers’ Resource Centre plans to try again for ministerial intervention on some of the most compelling cases.
Meanwhile, Crikey sent a copy of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre document to the Minister’s staff yesterday afternoon, but did not receive comment in time for today’s deadline.
RIORDAN'S REPLY TO KEATING
Keating's views as elder statesman respected, but not relevant now
May 8, 2008
Letters to the Editor,smh
I do not agree with Paul Keating in relation to my role as president of the Labor Party ("Unions in the dark ages, says Keating", May 6). Times have changed in the ALP over the past 30 years.
The factional infighting which besieged his presidency is now virtually non-existent.
I view my role as supporting the general secretary and officers, guaranteeing that the views of the members of the party are heard in the appropriate forums and ensuring that the rules of the party are complied with by all party members. I do not see my role as selling out the rank and file of the party.
I believe I know a little bit about the electricity industry in NSW, having been involved in the industry all of my working life as an apprentice, tradesman, union official and director. Mr Keating was a depot clerk about 50 years ago.
In 1997, the figure used by the privatisation proponents Bob Carr and Michael Egan was $25 billion, not $35 billion as quoted by Mr Keating. Also, anyone who knows anything about the industry knows the real value in the industry is tied up in the transmission and distribution networks.
Mr Carr wanted to sell these, Morris Iemma does not - which explains the price differential from $25 billion in 1997 to $10 billion in 2008.
Mr Keating fails to understand that the national energy market does not work as he would have planned because of the lack of capacity in the interconnectors between the states. There is an engineering problem, not to mention the electrical theory of voltage losses, which provides a restriction. The fact is that the provision of baseload generating capacity in NSW is basically a monopoly. Mr Keating's assertion that "much of the electricity is provided by private electricity generators in other states" is simply not true.
The facts are that less than 10 per cent of the state's electricity is supplied from other states (Owen Report).
Finally, the role of the trade union movement in the re-election of the Iemma Government was there for all to see in March last year. Even the Premier made special mention of it in his speech to the conference last Saturday. Mr Keating was in Europe.
Mr Keating is an elder statesman of the ALP. He is entitled to his views and his opinions deserve to be respected - their relevance is up to others to determine.
Bernie Riordan Secretary, Electrical Trades Union of Australia, NSW Branch
May 8, 2008
Letters to the Editor,smh
I do not agree with Paul Keating in relation to my role as president of the Labor Party ("Unions in the dark ages, says Keating", May 6). Times have changed in the ALP over the past 30 years.
The factional infighting which besieged his presidency is now virtually non-existent.
I view my role as supporting the general secretary and officers, guaranteeing that the views of the members of the party are heard in the appropriate forums and ensuring that the rules of the party are complied with by all party members. I do not see my role as selling out the rank and file of the party.
I believe I know a little bit about the electricity industry in NSW, having been involved in the industry all of my working life as an apprentice, tradesman, union official and director. Mr Keating was a depot clerk about 50 years ago.
In 1997, the figure used by the privatisation proponents Bob Carr and Michael Egan was $25 billion, not $35 billion as quoted by Mr Keating. Also, anyone who knows anything about the industry knows the real value in the industry is tied up in the transmission and distribution networks.
Mr Carr wanted to sell these, Morris Iemma does not - which explains the price differential from $25 billion in 1997 to $10 billion in 2008.
Mr Keating fails to understand that the national energy market does not work as he would have planned because of the lack of capacity in the interconnectors between the states. There is an engineering problem, not to mention the electrical theory of voltage losses, which provides a restriction. The fact is that the provision of baseload generating capacity in NSW is basically a monopoly. Mr Keating's assertion that "much of the electricity is provided by private electricity generators in other states" is simply not true.
The facts are that less than 10 per cent of the state's electricity is supplied from other states (Owen Report).
Finally, the role of the trade union movement in the re-election of the Iemma Government was there for all to see in March last year. Even the Premier made special mention of it in his speech to the conference last Saturday. Mr Keating was in Europe.
Mr Keating is an elder statesman of the ALP. He is entitled to his views and his opinions deserve to be respected - their relevance is up to others to determine.
Bernie Riordan Secretary, Electrical Trades Union of Australia, NSW Branch
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
WHAT A STRANGE DEMOCRACY WE LIVE IN!
Red News Readers,
What a strange democracy we live in! Surveys of the people of NSW repeatedly show that 75 to 85% of the population do not want privatisation of the State's electricity assets. The peak policy making body of the State ALP makes a decision by a vote of 7 to 1 to oppose the sale of the State's electricity assets. Yet the Iemma Costa clique in Macquarie Street and their business mates, including Paul Keating who has a clear conflict of interest in that the firm that he consults for Lazard, Wylie Carnegie stands to gain millions of dollars in fees from the sale, completely ignore the people's and the party's wishes.
It is the right of citizens to expect in these circumstances that their elected representatives in the State Parliament will stand up and represent their concerns but instead what we saw yesterday was an extraordinary display of the Labor Parliamentary Caucus's inability to place their trust in the democracy they are supposed to live in, putting their own as yet unexplained concerns ahead of the protection of State assets and the protection of future living standards of the State's citizens.
Our democracy is diminished.
Jenny Haines
Conflicted Keating's retro-analysis does him no favours
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Alex Mitchell writes in Crikey:
Although he is a national living treasure, Paul Keating has done himself no good by weighing into the war between Premier Morris Iemma and the NSW Labor Party over the privatisation of the state’s electricity industry.
The former PM has contributed an opinion piece to today’s Sydney Morning Herald with the clear intention of giving the embattled Iemma some ballast.
Characteristically, his arguments are made incisively and convincingly – with two important exceptions.
First, he delivers this throwaway line mid-way through the piece:
Critics will say that I am writing in these terms because of my association with Lazard Carnegie Wylie, a company chosen to co-advise the State Government on its privatisation proposals. But what motivates me is seeing the last block of the Keating government's electricity reform program into place.
This declaration – more like the admission of a howling conflict of interest? – should have been made at the start of the article. And Keating is being uncommonly modest when he writes of his “association” with Lazard Carnegie Wylie – he’s the International Chairman for heaven’s sake!
And as Crikey financial whizz Stephen Mayne pointed out last week Keating’s fellow director John Wylie is “Australia’s leading energy sector privatisation exponent”.
Wylie led the $30 billion Victorian energy sell-offs for Jeff Kennett in the 1990s for his old firm CS First Boston which collected mouth-watering, Grange-stocking fees of $100 million. Wylie’s take-home from these transactions was well over $20 million, according to Mayne’s contacts.
Now let’s turn to the Latham Diaries, Tuesday, July 15, 2003: “A meeting with Keating and his business partner Mark Carnegie at their office in Park Street, Sydney.” That’s the Carnegie at Lazard Carnegie Wylie, which was formed last July, whose offices are at No 2 Park Street.
So let’s be clear: as the hired help to organise the Iemma Government’s power sell-off, Lazard Wylie Carnegie – that’s John, Mark and Paul – stand to collect tens of millions in fees.
Keating's second error is the concluding flourish in his Herald piece in which he blasts ALP conference delegates who voted down privatisation by a thumping seven to one majority:
The irony is that it is Iemma who is seeing this important part of federal policy into place while the NSW industrial obscurantists are doing their best to retro-rivet the largest state to the 20th century. What is more, they are determined to do it by jettisoning the parliamentary seats of individual state MPs who won their places in difficult circumstances without much help from them.
This is inflammatory stuff, and also deeply ignorant of the 2007 state election campaign. The unwinnable election was won by Iemma because of the support of the NSW trade union movement.
There’s no question about it. It’s a matter of fact. In a novel electioneering approach, the unions mobilised rank and file members in a campaign on the ground in marginal electorates across the State to oppose the Howard Government’s WorkChoices legislation.
From Penrith to Wollondilly, from the Illawarra to the Hunter and the Central Coast, literally hundreds of volunteers gave out leaflets, letterboxed streets and worked shopping centres to secure Iemma his victory.
It proved to be a rehearsal for the union’s highly successful contribution to the federal election in November and the victory of Kevin Rudd.
To claim that individual state MPs were elected “without much help from them” (unionists and rank and file activists) is a gross distortion of history.
State MPs are entitled to accept Keating’s retro-analysis if they like, but they can also forget about any campaign help from the grassroots at the next state election in 2011.
Another beneficiary of "NSW industrial obscurantists”, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, might also pause before rubbishing the democratic decisions of the NSW Labor Party. He has an election one year earlier.
What a strange democracy we live in! Surveys of the people of NSW repeatedly show that 75 to 85% of the population do not want privatisation of the State's electricity assets. The peak policy making body of the State ALP makes a decision by a vote of 7 to 1 to oppose the sale of the State's electricity assets. Yet the Iemma Costa clique in Macquarie Street and their business mates, including Paul Keating who has a clear conflict of interest in that the firm that he consults for Lazard, Wylie Carnegie stands to gain millions of dollars in fees from the sale, completely ignore the people's and the party's wishes.
It is the right of citizens to expect in these circumstances that their elected representatives in the State Parliament will stand up and represent their concerns but instead what we saw yesterday was an extraordinary display of the Labor Parliamentary Caucus's inability to place their trust in the democracy they are supposed to live in, putting their own as yet unexplained concerns ahead of the protection of State assets and the protection of future living standards of the State's citizens.
Our democracy is diminished.
Jenny Haines
Conflicted Keating's retro-analysis does him no favours
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Alex Mitchell writes in Crikey:
Although he is a national living treasure, Paul Keating has done himself no good by weighing into the war between Premier Morris Iemma and the NSW Labor Party over the privatisation of the state’s electricity industry.
The former PM has contributed an opinion piece to today’s Sydney Morning Herald with the clear intention of giving the embattled Iemma some ballast.
Characteristically, his arguments are made incisively and convincingly – with two important exceptions.
First, he delivers this throwaway line mid-way through the piece:
Critics will say that I am writing in these terms because of my association with Lazard Carnegie Wylie, a company chosen to co-advise the State Government on its privatisation proposals. But what motivates me is seeing the last block of the Keating government's electricity reform program into place.
This declaration – more like the admission of a howling conflict of interest? – should have been made at the start of the article. And Keating is being uncommonly modest when he writes of his “association” with Lazard Carnegie Wylie – he’s the International Chairman for heaven’s sake!
And as Crikey financial whizz Stephen Mayne pointed out last week Keating’s fellow director John Wylie is “Australia’s leading energy sector privatisation exponent”.
Wylie led the $30 billion Victorian energy sell-offs for Jeff Kennett in the 1990s for his old firm CS First Boston which collected mouth-watering, Grange-stocking fees of $100 million. Wylie’s take-home from these transactions was well over $20 million, according to Mayne’s contacts.
Now let’s turn to the Latham Diaries, Tuesday, July 15, 2003: “A meeting with Keating and his business partner Mark Carnegie at their office in Park Street, Sydney.” That’s the Carnegie at Lazard Carnegie Wylie, which was formed last July, whose offices are at No 2 Park Street.
So let’s be clear: as the hired help to organise the Iemma Government’s power sell-off, Lazard Wylie Carnegie – that’s John, Mark and Paul – stand to collect tens of millions in fees.
Keating's second error is the concluding flourish in his Herald piece in which he blasts ALP conference delegates who voted down privatisation by a thumping seven to one majority:
The irony is that it is Iemma who is seeing this important part of federal policy into place while the NSW industrial obscurantists are doing their best to retro-rivet the largest state to the 20th century. What is more, they are determined to do it by jettisoning the parliamentary seats of individual state MPs who won their places in difficult circumstances without much help from them.
This is inflammatory stuff, and also deeply ignorant of the 2007 state election campaign. The unwinnable election was won by Iemma because of the support of the NSW trade union movement.
There’s no question about it. It’s a matter of fact. In a novel electioneering approach, the unions mobilised rank and file members in a campaign on the ground in marginal electorates across the State to oppose the Howard Government’s WorkChoices legislation.
From Penrith to Wollondilly, from the Illawarra to the Hunter and the Central Coast, literally hundreds of volunteers gave out leaflets, letterboxed streets and worked shopping centres to secure Iemma his victory.
It proved to be a rehearsal for the union’s highly successful contribution to the federal election in November and the victory of Kevin Rudd.
To claim that individual state MPs were elected “without much help from them” (unionists and rank and file activists) is a gross distortion of history.
State MPs are entitled to accept Keating’s retro-analysis if they like, but they can also forget about any campaign help from the grassroots at the next state election in 2011.
Another beneficiary of "NSW industrial obscurantists”, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, might also pause before rubbishing the democratic decisions of the NSW Labor Party. He has an election one year earlier.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
KEATING OUT OF TOUCH WITH PARTY
Red News Readers,
Paul Keating has actually done the anti privatisation movement a favour with his outburst today in that he has made it very clear to everyone how out of touch he is now with his own party, the party that once fostered and supported him, elevating him to the highest office in the land.
Those in the party who still harbour illusions about Keating, should read his contribution in the Herald today carefully. This is not a man who cares about what happens to working families when services are privatised. Jobs are lost, prices go up, supply of the service is unreliable and service levels go down. This is a man speaking for the interests of the big end of town, despite his denial that he is compromised by his corporate relationships.
Bernie Riordan and John Robertson don't deserve a blast from Keating. They have been courageous, calm and committed through all of the difficulties they have faced, including the bizzare outbursts and behaviour of the Treasurer Michael Costa. Now there's a man who deserves a Keating outburst!!
Jenny Haines
Keating blasts unions
Alexandra Smith and Andrew Clennell, smh
May 6, 2008
Other related coverage
Paul Keating: Iemma deserved better than naked obstructionism
THE former prime minister Paul Keating has delivered a scathing assessment of the unionists leading the charge to stop the State Government privatising the power industry, describing one as "woeful" and the other as a mere T-shirt provider.
As the Premier, Morris Iemma, implored wavering MPs yesterday not to vote against privatisation in caucus - saying it would be a vote against his leadership - Mr Keating came to his rescue.
Writing for the Herald's opinion page today, Mr Keating attacks "lemmings" at the weekend state Labor Party conference and the "industrial obscurantists" who led the humiliating defeat of Mr Iemma with a 702-107 vote against privatisation.
Mr Keating describes Bernie Riordan, the Electrical Trades Union secretary, as a woeful state president of the ALP.
"Bernie Riordan's last foray into this issue was a decade ago when he downed Bob Carr and Michael Egan [when they tried to privatise the industry]," Mr Keating writes. "Then the power stations were worth $35 billion. A decade later the price discussion for the same stations is around $15 billion. That is, $20 billion in lost value; $20 billion that could have been spent on education, health and vital new infrastructure."
He also lambasts the Unions NSW secretary, John Robertson - who "sees his role as providing T-shirts to protesters" - and argues the union chiefs are refusing to accept reality: that there has been no economic or commercial reason for state ownership of power generation since the
Keating government established a national electricity market in 1995. "When lights are turned on in NSW now, much of the electricity is provided by private electricity generators in other states," Mr Keating argues. He says power stations are "expensive lumps" of old technology and the only assets worth owning are the poles and wires, which the Iemma Government intends to keep.
Despite Mr Iemma's internal battle, the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, still refused yesterday to reveal his position on the proposed power sell-off.
There is understood to be a split in the Opposition over the sale that could cause Mr O'Farrell some difficulty, with the energy spokesman and former leader, Peter Debnam, expressing opposition to privatisation.
At least six Labor MPs, including some from the Premier's Right faction, have confirmed publicly they would be prepared to cross the floor in Parliament if legislation to privatise power is introduced. Mr Iemma has been calling right-wing MPs to shore up their support for him before today's caucus meeting and he has written an open letter to taxpayers, which runs in newspapers today, explaining the sale.
"We're taking this action because demand for electricity is growing and will outstrip supply within a few years, unless we act now," the letter says.
Tensions were underlined by a clash in cabinet yesterday between the Industrial Relations Minister, John Della Bosca, and the Treasurer, Michael Costa, over the way the negotiations have been handled, forcing the Premier to intervene.
Mr Della Bosca is understood to have defended himself against Mr Costa's suggestion that he leaked details of negotiations at the state conference. Mr Iemma, Mr Della Bosca and the Deputy Premier, John Watkins, are believed to have told ministers they must remain calm and hold their nerve.
Fireworks are expected at the caucus meeting today, when left-wing members will push for a fresh vote on power privatisation following the conference vote. But they are likely to be blocked by the Right, which will argue that caucus has already voted to support the sell-off.
The party's joint campaign committee - which includes the Premier, Mr Watkins, Mr Costa and Mr Della Bosca, as well as Mr Riordan and senior party officials - will hold an urgent meeting tomorrow.
Mr Robertson said yesterday he would not rule out industrial action over the power sale.
"If the Premier embraces the proposals that were put yesterday at the conference, I don't anticipate any industrial action being taken, [but] I'm not going to speculate on what might happen," he said.
Much of the NSW National Party, including the frontbencher George Souris, is opposed to the sale, and Mr O'Farrell said he needed to see the "detail" before giving the Coalition's position.
He would not indicate if he supported it "in principle", saying: "You can't take the in-principle decision. I could make an in-principle decision to take the train home this evening, but unless I know which way the train is going, it may not be worth my while."
Mr Keating denied he was motivated by his involvement with the investment bank Lazard Carnegie Wylie, which advised Treasury on the privatisation proposal. Rather, he wanted to see the final stage of his own electricity reform implemented.
Paul Keating has actually done the anti privatisation movement a favour with his outburst today in that he has made it very clear to everyone how out of touch he is now with his own party, the party that once fostered and supported him, elevating him to the highest office in the land.
Those in the party who still harbour illusions about Keating, should read his contribution in the Herald today carefully. This is not a man who cares about what happens to working families when services are privatised. Jobs are lost, prices go up, supply of the service is unreliable and service levels go down. This is a man speaking for the interests of the big end of town, despite his denial that he is compromised by his corporate relationships.
Bernie Riordan and John Robertson don't deserve a blast from Keating. They have been courageous, calm and committed through all of the difficulties they have faced, including the bizzare outbursts and behaviour of the Treasurer Michael Costa. Now there's a man who deserves a Keating outburst!!
Jenny Haines
Keating blasts unions
Alexandra Smith and Andrew Clennell, smh
May 6, 2008
Other related coverage
Paul Keating: Iemma deserved better than naked obstructionism
THE former prime minister Paul Keating has delivered a scathing assessment of the unionists leading the charge to stop the State Government privatising the power industry, describing one as "woeful" and the other as a mere T-shirt provider.
As the Premier, Morris Iemma, implored wavering MPs yesterday not to vote against privatisation in caucus - saying it would be a vote against his leadership - Mr Keating came to his rescue.
Writing for the Herald's opinion page today, Mr Keating attacks "lemmings" at the weekend state Labor Party conference and the "industrial obscurantists" who led the humiliating defeat of Mr Iemma with a 702-107 vote against privatisation.
Mr Keating describes Bernie Riordan, the Electrical Trades Union secretary, as a woeful state president of the ALP.
"Bernie Riordan's last foray into this issue was a decade ago when he downed Bob Carr and Michael Egan [when they tried to privatise the industry]," Mr Keating writes. "Then the power stations were worth $35 billion. A decade later the price discussion for the same stations is around $15 billion. That is, $20 billion in lost value; $20 billion that could have been spent on education, health and vital new infrastructure."
He also lambasts the Unions NSW secretary, John Robertson - who "sees his role as providing T-shirts to protesters" - and argues the union chiefs are refusing to accept reality: that there has been no economic or commercial reason for state ownership of power generation since the
Keating government established a national electricity market in 1995. "When lights are turned on in NSW now, much of the electricity is provided by private electricity generators in other states," Mr Keating argues. He says power stations are "expensive lumps" of old technology and the only assets worth owning are the poles and wires, which the Iemma Government intends to keep.
Despite Mr Iemma's internal battle, the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, still refused yesterday to reveal his position on the proposed power sell-off.
There is understood to be a split in the Opposition over the sale that could cause Mr O'Farrell some difficulty, with the energy spokesman and former leader, Peter Debnam, expressing opposition to privatisation.
At least six Labor MPs, including some from the Premier's Right faction, have confirmed publicly they would be prepared to cross the floor in Parliament if legislation to privatise power is introduced. Mr Iemma has been calling right-wing MPs to shore up their support for him before today's caucus meeting and he has written an open letter to taxpayers, which runs in newspapers today, explaining the sale.
"We're taking this action because demand for electricity is growing and will outstrip supply within a few years, unless we act now," the letter says.
Tensions were underlined by a clash in cabinet yesterday between the Industrial Relations Minister, John Della Bosca, and the Treasurer, Michael Costa, over the way the negotiations have been handled, forcing the Premier to intervene.
Mr Della Bosca is understood to have defended himself against Mr Costa's suggestion that he leaked details of negotiations at the state conference. Mr Iemma, Mr Della Bosca and the Deputy Premier, John Watkins, are believed to have told ministers they must remain calm and hold their nerve.
Fireworks are expected at the caucus meeting today, when left-wing members will push for a fresh vote on power privatisation following the conference vote. But they are likely to be blocked by the Right, which will argue that caucus has already voted to support the sell-off.
The party's joint campaign committee - which includes the Premier, Mr Watkins, Mr Costa and Mr Della Bosca, as well as Mr Riordan and senior party officials - will hold an urgent meeting tomorrow.
Mr Robertson said yesterday he would not rule out industrial action over the power sale.
"If the Premier embraces the proposals that were put yesterday at the conference, I don't anticipate any industrial action being taken, [but] I'm not going to speculate on what might happen," he said.
Much of the NSW National Party, including the frontbencher George Souris, is opposed to the sale, and Mr O'Farrell said he needed to see the "detail" before giving the Coalition's position.
He would not indicate if he supported it "in principle", saying: "You can't take the in-principle decision. I could make an in-principle decision to take the train home this evening, but unless I know which way the train is going, it may not be worth my while."
Mr Keating denied he was motivated by his involvement with the investment bank Lazard Carnegie Wylie, which advised Treasury on the privatisation proposal. Rather, he wanted to see the final stage of his own electricity reform implemented.
ANOTHER BABY IN TOILET AT RNSH
Baby born in hospital toilet, says dad
May 6, 2008 - 11:20AM, smh
A father says his wife had to give birth without anaesthetic in a toilet at Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital.
The man, identified as Nick Patfaidif, called Fairfax Radio Network in Sydney on Tuesday, saying staff had been "too busy" to administer an epidural.
"Basically we were told to wait, there was no staff," he said.
"She was basically screaming down the whole place, she was screaming in agony.
"(We) requested an epidural an hour and half before the water was broken.
"(We were told) `Guess what guys, the anesthetist is too busy' ... the anesthetist never showed up."
Mr Patfaidif said his wife got up and screamed in agony.
"The midwife's not done anything, just held my wife there, not done an internal examination or anything," he said.
"My wife then said, `I need go to the toilet'.
"As she's in the toilet, the midwife's disappeared.
"My wife says, `Something's coming out of me, there's a head coming out of me'.
"And I ran into the toilet, and there's my little baby girl, coming out of my wife with the umbilical cord around her neck, turning blue.
"This baby gets pushed out, I held it, then all the nurses come in, and basically I went into shock myself, lost complete control, walked straight out."
Mr Patfaidif said both his wife and daughter were in good health. The Nine Network said the incident happened on Tuesday.
He also said that he was then barred access to his wife by hospital security.
"The midwives got the security on to me ... to basically tell me that I can't go up there unless I calm down," he said.
He was very critical of the hospital's staff and expressed concern that the alleged incident happens regularly.
"They were too busy, everyone was too busy. The whole day we were there, there was no activity," he said.
"Apparently this is normal, guys, and this happens all the time."
The case has similarities to the ordeal of Jana Horska at the same hospital in September last year.
Ms Horska miscarried in a toilet after waiting in the emergency department for two hours.
Her husband Mark Dreyer said the hospital staff provided no care and comfort to his wife.
An inquiry into hospitals in NSW, triggered by another incident at Royal North Shore Hospital, is currently underway.
Urgent comment is being sought from health authorities.
© 2008 AAPBrought to you by
May 6, 2008 - 11:20AM, smh
A father says his wife had to give birth without anaesthetic in a toilet at Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital.
The man, identified as Nick Patfaidif, called Fairfax Radio Network in Sydney on Tuesday, saying staff had been "too busy" to administer an epidural.
"Basically we were told to wait, there was no staff," he said.
"She was basically screaming down the whole place, she was screaming in agony.
"(We) requested an epidural an hour and half before the water was broken.
"(We were told) `Guess what guys, the anesthetist is too busy' ... the anesthetist never showed up."
Mr Patfaidif said his wife got up and screamed in agony.
"The midwife's not done anything, just held my wife there, not done an internal examination or anything," he said.
"My wife then said, `I need go to the toilet'.
"As she's in the toilet, the midwife's disappeared.
"My wife says, `Something's coming out of me, there's a head coming out of me'.
"And I ran into the toilet, and there's my little baby girl, coming out of my wife with the umbilical cord around her neck, turning blue.
"This baby gets pushed out, I held it, then all the nurses come in, and basically I went into shock myself, lost complete control, walked straight out."
Mr Patfaidif said both his wife and daughter were in good health. The Nine Network said the incident happened on Tuesday.
He also said that he was then barred access to his wife by hospital security.
"The midwives got the security on to me ... to basically tell me that I can't go up there unless I calm down," he said.
He was very critical of the hospital's staff and expressed concern that the alleged incident happens regularly.
"They were too busy, everyone was too busy. The whole day we were there, there was no activity," he said.
"Apparently this is normal, guys, and this happens all the time."
The case has similarities to the ordeal of Jana Horska at the same hospital in September last year.
Ms Horska miscarried in a toilet after waiting in the emergency department for two hours.
Her husband Mark Dreyer said the hospital staff provided no care and comfort to his wife.
An inquiry into hospitals in NSW, triggered by another incident at Royal North Shore Hospital, is currently underway.
Urgent comment is being sought from health authorities.
© 2008 AAPBrought to you by
Monday, May 05, 2008
COSTA'S OBSCENE OUTBURST AT UNIONS
Andrew West and Andrew Clennell, smh
May 5, 2008
MICHAEL COSTA stormed across the room - his face flushed, his hands clenched - towards John Robertson, the secretary of Unions NSW. "You blokes can get f---ed," he screamed.
"You're going to look like dickheads on Monday morning."
The state Treasurer was enraged that his ministerial colleagues and union leaders were trying to compromise his dream of privatising the state's electricity industry.
One witness, a vice-president of the NSW branch, Sarah Kaine, later told Robertson she "thought Costa was going to thump you".
It was the flashpoint in a weekend of extraordinary drama at the Labor state conference, as Robertson and the senior minister John Della Bosca, tried to throw the Premier, Morris Iemma, a lifeline that would spare him the humiliation of his party voting down his planned sale.
The confrontation occurred about 2pm on Saturday, in a meeting room at the Sydney Convention Centre.
A spokesman for the Treasurer said: "The discussion was conducted in the usual colourful Labor fashion, with colour coming from both sides." Della Bosca and his colleague the Minister for Energy, Ian Macdonald, had been cloistered since noon with Mr Robertson, Bernie Riordan, the ALP state president and leader of the Electrical Trades Union, Stephen Turner of the Public Service Association; Lorraine Usher of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Paul Bastian of the Manufacturing Workers Union, and Ben Kruse of the United Services Union.
At various times the party's general secretary, Karl Bitar, the Minister for Roads, Eric Roozendaal, and Mr Costa's most devout ally, the Minister for Ports, Joe Tripodi, scurried in and out of the room.
As the tension in the room built, Mr Roozendaal opened the door, revealing tables littered with hamburger wrappings."We were only eating McDonald's," he joked as he left the room.
The deal involved Mr Iemma accepting the party's opposition to privatisation.
In turn, the party that had put Mr Iemma into Parliament, and the machine that had delivered him the premier's job, would allow him to revise his plan for electricity.
The Herald understands that Mr Della Bosca and Mr Macdonald began their negotiations with Mr Iemma's blessing but the compromise the party was proposing was ultimately unacceptable - and Mr Costa told them so.
A senior Government source said: "The deal was being discussed and Costa spoke to the Premier and said: 'This is what they're offering.' He ran through the points, and Morris said: 'No, go in and tell them it's not acceptable."'
As it turned out, Mr Iemma held a news conference at 2.30pm yesterday, saying he was going ahead with the sale no matter what, but he was still prepared to talk to unions. Although he had rejected a deal, a senior party source insisted that until Mr Costa's dramatic intervention, they were on the cusp of a face-saving deal. Holding up his thumb and index finger, he said the negotiators had been "this close".
The proposed resolution would have kept the Government and unions talking. It would have given Mr Iemma some wriggle room to retreat from the hardline position that Mr Costa had advocated.
The motion was to have been moved by Macdonald and seconded by Mr Robertson - a tangible sign of co-operation between the party's parliamentary and industrial wings.
At one stage Mr Costa appeared willing to accept a resolution that allowed continuing consultation - while he proceeded to draw up privatisation legislation - but he and Mr Iemma would not cop an accompanying resolution that explicitly ruled out a power sale.
By 3pm negotiations with Mr Costa had broken down. He and Mr Robertson appeared together briefly on an escalator, their fixed smiles and forced bonhomie clear, but Mr Tripodi was now acting as Mr Costa's proxy. At least three times he darted up the escalator, between the room full of union leaders, and Mr Della Bosca, Mr Macdonald and Mr Costa, isolated upstairs.
A Government source said: "A number of times since it all started, deals were about to be made, Costa's intervened every time and stopped them, jumped in over the top unilaterally. Della Bosca and Macdonald have been blocked at every turn by it. The lack of trust Costa has in the union movement is legendary now."
After the argy-bargy was over, a Government staffer said the final resolution had been presented only about 20 minutes before the vote. Union officials are said to have taken only a paragraph at a time into the negotiations. The staffer said unions had in effect told the Government: "We're going to stab you through the heart on the stage of conference."
In the week before the conference, Mr Robertson, Mr Della Bosca and Mr Macdonald tried to reach a compromise between Mr Costa's determination to privatise and the unions' resolve to keep the energy industry in public ownership.
The parties met on Tuesday night and then late on Thursday night. The clock was ticking down to conference and Mr Iemma was under growing pressure from his backbench to avoid what would be for them a ghastly dilemma - obey the Premier, Treasurer and cabinet and support privatisation or uphold the rules, traditions and policies of the party that put them in Parliament.
The first explosion of temper occurred on Thursday night, as Mr Robertson, Mr Riordan, Mr Bastian and Mr Kruse assembled with Mr Della Bosca, Mr Macdonald and Mr Costa in Mr Iemma's conference room on the 40th floor of Governor Macquarie Tower. The unions were pushing for a deal that would "keep the overwhelming portion of base-load electricity generation in public ownership" but allow private participation.
Mr Costa and Mr Iemma repaired to the Premier's private office but the Treasurer could be heard yelling, "How can you go and accept the conference decision? You will look like a fool."
In the end Mr Costa took to the stage on Saturday. His arms were flailing, his voice rising. On ABC TV yesterday it was referred to as a "Mussolini-like" performance. The vote went 702 votes to 107 against him.
Just before the negotiations ended, Mr Tripodi, outside the meeting room, turned to the assembled unionists and said: "We're dead, anyway."
Asked whether Mr Tripodi was referring to the union or the Government, a union source said: "I think he meant the whole shebang, the conference, the party, the lot."
May 5, 2008
MICHAEL COSTA stormed across the room - his face flushed, his hands clenched - towards John Robertson, the secretary of Unions NSW. "You blokes can get f---ed," he screamed.
"You're going to look like dickheads on Monday morning."
The state Treasurer was enraged that his ministerial colleagues and union leaders were trying to compromise his dream of privatising the state's electricity industry.
One witness, a vice-president of the NSW branch, Sarah Kaine, later told Robertson she "thought Costa was going to thump you".
It was the flashpoint in a weekend of extraordinary drama at the Labor state conference, as Robertson and the senior minister John Della Bosca, tried to throw the Premier, Morris Iemma, a lifeline that would spare him the humiliation of his party voting down his planned sale.
The confrontation occurred about 2pm on Saturday, in a meeting room at the Sydney Convention Centre.
A spokesman for the Treasurer said: "The discussion was conducted in the usual colourful Labor fashion, with colour coming from both sides." Della Bosca and his colleague the Minister for Energy, Ian Macdonald, had been cloistered since noon with Mr Robertson, Bernie Riordan, the ALP state president and leader of the Electrical Trades Union, Stephen Turner of the Public Service Association; Lorraine Usher of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Paul Bastian of the Manufacturing Workers Union, and Ben Kruse of the United Services Union.
At various times the party's general secretary, Karl Bitar, the Minister for Roads, Eric Roozendaal, and Mr Costa's most devout ally, the Minister for Ports, Joe Tripodi, scurried in and out of the room.
As the tension in the room built, Mr Roozendaal opened the door, revealing tables littered with hamburger wrappings."We were only eating McDonald's," he joked as he left the room.
The deal involved Mr Iemma accepting the party's opposition to privatisation.
In turn, the party that had put Mr Iemma into Parliament, and the machine that had delivered him the premier's job, would allow him to revise his plan for electricity.
The Herald understands that Mr Della Bosca and Mr Macdonald began their negotiations with Mr Iemma's blessing but the compromise the party was proposing was ultimately unacceptable - and Mr Costa told them so.
A senior Government source said: "The deal was being discussed and Costa spoke to the Premier and said: 'This is what they're offering.' He ran through the points, and Morris said: 'No, go in and tell them it's not acceptable."'
As it turned out, Mr Iemma held a news conference at 2.30pm yesterday, saying he was going ahead with the sale no matter what, but he was still prepared to talk to unions. Although he had rejected a deal, a senior party source insisted that until Mr Costa's dramatic intervention, they were on the cusp of a face-saving deal. Holding up his thumb and index finger, he said the negotiators had been "this close".
The proposed resolution would have kept the Government and unions talking. It would have given Mr Iemma some wriggle room to retreat from the hardline position that Mr Costa had advocated.
The motion was to have been moved by Macdonald and seconded by Mr Robertson - a tangible sign of co-operation between the party's parliamentary and industrial wings.
At one stage Mr Costa appeared willing to accept a resolution that allowed continuing consultation - while he proceeded to draw up privatisation legislation - but he and Mr Iemma would not cop an accompanying resolution that explicitly ruled out a power sale.
By 3pm negotiations with Mr Costa had broken down. He and Mr Robertson appeared together briefly on an escalator, their fixed smiles and forced bonhomie clear, but Mr Tripodi was now acting as Mr Costa's proxy. At least three times he darted up the escalator, between the room full of union leaders, and Mr Della Bosca, Mr Macdonald and Mr Costa, isolated upstairs.
A Government source said: "A number of times since it all started, deals were about to be made, Costa's intervened every time and stopped them, jumped in over the top unilaterally. Della Bosca and Macdonald have been blocked at every turn by it. The lack of trust Costa has in the union movement is legendary now."
After the argy-bargy was over, a Government staffer said the final resolution had been presented only about 20 minutes before the vote. Union officials are said to have taken only a paragraph at a time into the negotiations. The staffer said unions had in effect told the Government: "We're going to stab you through the heart on the stage of conference."
In the week before the conference, Mr Robertson, Mr Della Bosca and Mr Macdonald tried to reach a compromise between Mr Costa's determination to privatise and the unions' resolve to keep the energy industry in public ownership.
The parties met on Tuesday night and then late on Thursday night. The clock was ticking down to conference and Mr Iemma was under growing pressure from his backbench to avoid what would be for them a ghastly dilemma - obey the Premier, Treasurer and cabinet and support privatisation or uphold the rules, traditions and policies of the party that put them in Parliament.
The first explosion of temper occurred on Thursday night, as Mr Robertson, Mr Riordan, Mr Bastian and Mr Kruse assembled with Mr Della Bosca, Mr Macdonald and Mr Costa in Mr Iemma's conference room on the 40th floor of Governor Macquarie Tower. The unions were pushing for a deal that would "keep the overwhelming portion of base-load electricity generation in public ownership" but allow private participation.
Mr Costa and Mr Iemma repaired to the Premier's private office but the Treasurer could be heard yelling, "How can you go and accept the conference decision? You will look like a fool."
In the end Mr Costa took to the stage on Saturday. His arms were flailing, his voice rising. On ABC TV yesterday it was referred to as a "Mussolini-like" performance. The vote went 702 votes to 107 against him.
Just before the negotiations ended, Mr Tripodi, outside the meeting room, turned to the assembled unionists and said: "We're dead, anyway."
Asked whether Mr Tripodi was referring to the union or the Government, a union source said: "I think he meant the whole shebang, the conference, the party, the lot."
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
MACQUARIE MODEL BLOWTORCHED
POLITICIANS AS HISTORY STUDENTS
Monday, 28 April, 2008
By Ross Smith
Here is a journalist and a newspaper (see below) that have finally had the integrity to show the public what has been suspected for many a year - that the Macquarie Group Model is a huge charge on the public purse and a recipe for potential financial disaster.
The vehicle used by the model has heavily featured the Public Private Partnership {PPP] concept. The result is the extraction of massive fees as well as the conventional rate of commercial return on funds invested. The income stream generated by the Macquarie Group Model practitioners is ultimately financed by the public, whether as users or taxpayers.
The model, through the use of various accounting practices that have the capacity to provide an overly robust picture of a fund's profitability, presents a glowing picture in good times, but when the market turns ........
The article and the report it refers to should be ringing alarm bells loud and clear in the ears of all governments that are using the PPP model as a vehicle for infrastructure supply.
The lure of instant supply should not dazzle the reality that the government of the day has to pick up the bits and pay for their repair in the event of collapse of the private component of any PPP.
There have been some recent PPP model disasters in NSW, such as the Green Square railway station and Toll Roads/Tunnels that failed to perform financially [ not to mention the ones that physically collapsed]. NSW is currently looking to utilising a Macquarie model style operation for its electricity system and is engaged in a Macquarie model style operation for housing. Other states have also endured PPP disasters.
It would seem that our politicians should take a lead from the media and have a very close look at the expense of the Macquarie model, both short and long term, before deciding to embrace it. History is a good building block, especially when building for the future, and is also a good teacher. Lets hope our politicians are equally good pupils.
Ross Smith
Waterloo
Macquarie model blowtorched
'Of prurient interest is their work on fees.'
SMH April 4, 2008 New York-based corporate governance service RiskMetrics Group has delivered a stinging rebuke to Australia 's infrastructure sector, and in particular the "Macquarie Model" which has been mimicked by Babcock & Brown, and has spawned a generation of toll-roads, airports, telecommunications and power generation stocks.
In the most detailed independent research of Macquarie Group and Babcock satellites to be published, Risk Metrics critiques the financially-engineered infrastructure model for its high debt levels, high fees, paying distributions out of capital rather than cashflow, overpaying for assets, related-party transactions, booking profits from revaluations, poor disclosure, myriad conflicts of interest, auditor conflicts and other poor corporate governance.
The RiskMetrics research is likely to send shockwaves through the sector and give both state and federal governments cause for concern as governments have mostly privatised public assets via these structures.
RiskMetrics is a leading adviser to institutional investors both in Australia and overseas. They have been a critic for some time of individual transactions, but this is first time they have strung all the pieces together, and raised doubts about the model's viability.
An example of RiskMetrics' previous scepticism was its advice to domestic institutions to vote against the Macquarie Bank remuneration report last year. The result was a 20% protest vote against the bank's pay structures.
Anyway, this report is a haymaker.
Although the report has not put a figure on it, fees in the billions above normal public-private partnership (PPP) rates of return have gone to the investment banks.
"The infrastructure model raises investment-related concerns that can be grouped as follows: a series of issues related to the sustainability of the model; a danger of overpaying for assets; fee structures that deliver high fees and provide an incentive to increase a fund's size; and accounting practices that have the capacity to provide an overly robust picture of a fund's profitability,'' says the report.
The model was "pioneered by Australia's Macquarie Group" and the research covers Macquarie Airports, Macquarie Capital Alliance Group, Macquarie Communications Infrastructure Group, Macquarie Media Group and the original and largest fund:
Macquarie Infrastructure Group and Babcock & Brown spinoffs Babcock & Brown Infrastructure, Babcock & Brown Capital, Babcock & Brown Environmental Investments (presently subject to a takeover offer by Babcock & Brown), Babcock & Brown Wind Partners and Babcock & Brown Power, as well as Rivercity Motorway, Duet, Hastings Diversified, Challenger, ConnectEast SP AusNet and Spark Infrastructure.
The initial success of the model, at least in capital raising and fee generation terms, has allowed the growth in infrastructure funds to expand overseas into US and European markets.
RiskMetrics, meanwhile, had been chipping away earlier at the more ambitious deals being done by Macquarie-type acolytes, such as Allco Finance Group.
For example, it recommended strongly against the Allco proposal to buy Rubicon Asset Management last year, and institutions came close to voting the deal down.
Allco principal David Coe had led an Allco roadshow to spruik the merits of the deal and it finally scraped through.
In retrospect, Allco shareholders should have taken RiskMetrics' advice. The Rubicon transaction proved disastrous.
The three Rubicon trusts are now down more than 80% in just a few months and Allco teeters on the verge of insolvency.
In the case of Allco, the proxy adviser raised doubts about corporate governance and potential conflicts of interest on the Rubicon.
It should also be noted that the adviser was a critic of MFS, Centro and ABC Learning for some of the same reasons it has criticised Babcock and Macquarie in its latest, most in-depth, paper.
Those three, like Allco and Rubicon, are close to corporate extinction.
MFS, Allco and Centro all favoured the externally-managed model as does the Hedley pubs stable of companies which has just fallen into trouble. Many real estate trusts or REITs also have the trust structure.
Their underperformance has been significant since the downturn in credit markets as the aggressive financing practices, and booking profits from revaluations, hamper performance when credit spreads blow out and asset values come under pressure.
But back to the latest RiskMetrics report. Of prurient interest is their work on fees.
As an extreme example, it takes Babcock & Brown Wind Partners which "had operating cash flow of $14.2 million in the 2006 financial year, but paid distributions totalling $48 million in relation to that year. The distributions were equivalent to 54% of the total cash receipts from customers during the year,'' says the report.
"Even the most mature infrastructure fund of all, Macquarie Infrastructure Group, is no exception.
It had operating cash flow of $306.9 million in the 2006 financial year, but paid distributions totalling $512.9 million in relation to that year.
Furthermore, the distributions were equivalent to 116% of the total toll revenue received during the year.''
The ''stapled'' entities of the infrastructure model "have multiple boards, and are run by an external management company employed under a management agreement providing for substantial fees.
Many of the features of these vehicles appear to make it practically difficult, and possibly expensive, for investors to replace the external manager if dissatisfied with its performance.''
In sum, RiskMetrics finds the model probably has more in common with private equity than with publicly traded property funds.
http://business.smh.com.au/macquarie-model-blowtorched/20080404-23oy.html?page=1
Report Link:
http://www.riskmetrics.com/pdf/RMG_Infrastructure_Funds_080326.pdf
The RIMFIRE Review is the weekly opinion publication of the National Tenant Support Network. It offers readers an opportunity to say what should be said, as distinct from what can be said, with anonymity, in the public arena. You are welcome to submit considered and robust opinion pieces for publication in the RIMFIRE Review, however, final editorial privilege will be vested in the Coordinator of the National TSN. 2007©RIMFIRE REVIEW
Dougal Siam
Monday, 28 April, 2008
By Ross Smith
Here is a journalist and a newspaper (see below) that have finally had the integrity to show the public what has been suspected for many a year - that the Macquarie Group Model is a huge charge on the public purse and a recipe for potential financial disaster.
The vehicle used by the model has heavily featured the Public Private Partnership {PPP] concept. The result is the extraction of massive fees as well as the conventional rate of commercial return on funds invested. The income stream generated by the Macquarie Group Model practitioners is ultimately financed by the public, whether as users or taxpayers.
The model, through the use of various accounting practices that have the capacity to provide an overly robust picture of a fund's profitability, presents a glowing picture in good times, but when the market turns ........
The article and the report it refers to should be ringing alarm bells loud and clear in the ears of all governments that are using the PPP model as a vehicle for infrastructure supply.
The lure of instant supply should not dazzle the reality that the government of the day has to pick up the bits and pay for their repair in the event of collapse of the private component of any PPP.
There have been some recent PPP model disasters in NSW, such as the Green Square railway station and Toll Roads/Tunnels that failed to perform financially [ not to mention the ones that physically collapsed]. NSW is currently looking to utilising a Macquarie model style operation for its electricity system and is engaged in a Macquarie model style operation for housing. Other states have also endured PPP disasters.
It would seem that our politicians should take a lead from the media and have a very close look at the expense of the Macquarie model, both short and long term, before deciding to embrace it. History is a good building block, especially when building for the future, and is also a good teacher. Lets hope our politicians are equally good pupils.
Ross Smith
Waterloo
Macquarie model blowtorched
'Of prurient interest is their work on fees.'
SMH April 4, 2008 New York-based corporate governance service RiskMetrics Group has delivered a stinging rebuke to Australia 's infrastructure sector, and in particular the "Macquarie Model" which has been mimicked by Babcock & Brown, and has spawned a generation of toll-roads, airports, telecommunications and power generation stocks.
In the most detailed independent research of Macquarie Group and Babcock satellites to be published, Risk Metrics critiques the financially-engineered infrastructure model for its high debt levels, high fees, paying distributions out of capital rather than cashflow, overpaying for assets, related-party transactions, booking profits from revaluations, poor disclosure, myriad conflicts of interest, auditor conflicts and other poor corporate governance.
The RiskMetrics research is likely to send shockwaves through the sector and give both state and federal governments cause for concern as governments have mostly privatised public assets via these structures.
RiskMetrics is a leading adviser to institutional investors both in Australia and overseas. They have been a critic for some time of individual transactions, but this is first time they have strung all the pieces together, and raised doubts about the model's viability.
An example of RiskMetrics' previous scepticism was its advice to domestic institutions to vote against the Macquarie Bank remuneration report last year. The result was a 20% protest vote against the bank's pay structures.
Anyway, this report is a haymaker.
Although the report has not put a figure on it, fees in the billions above normal public-private partnership (PPP) rates of return have gone to the investment banks.
"The infrastructure model raises investment-related concerns that can be grouped as follows: a series of issues related to the sustainability of the model; a danger of overpaying for assets; fee structures that deliver high fees and provide an incentive to increase a fund's size; and accounting practices that have the capacity to provide an overly robust picture of a fund's profitability,'' says the report.
The model was "pioneered by Australia's Macquarie Group" and the research covers Macquarie Airports, Macquarie Capital Alliance Group, Macquarie Communications Infrastructure Group, Macquarie Media Group and the original and largest fund:
Macquarie Infrastructure Group and Babcock & Brown spinoffs Babcock & Brown Infrastructure, Babcock & Brown Capital, Babcock & Brown Environmental Investments (presently subject to a takeover offer by Babcock & Brown), Babcock & Brown Wind Partners and Babcock & Brown Power, as well as Rivercity Motorway, Duet, Hastings Diversified, Challenger, ConnectEast SP AusNet and Spark Infrastructure.
The initial success of the model, at least in capital raising and fee generation terms, has allowed the growth in infrastructure funds to expand overseas into US and European markets.
RiskMetrics, meanwhile, had been chipping away earlier at the more ambitious deals being done by Macquarie-type acolytes, such as Allco Finance Group.
For example, it recommended strongly against the Allco proposal to buy Rubicon Asset Management last year, and institutions came close to voting the deal down.
Allco principal David Coe had led an Allco roadshow to spruik the merits of the deal and it finally scraped through.
In retrospect, Allco shareholders should have taken RiskMetrics' advice. The Rubicon transaction proved disastrous.
The three Rubicon trusts are now down more than 80% in just a few months and Allco teeters on the verge of insolvency.
In the case of Allco, the proxy adviser raised doubts about corporate governance and potential conflicts of interest on the Rubicon.
It should also be noted that the adviser was a critic of MFS, Centro and ABC Learning for some of the same reasons it has criticised Babcock and Macquarie in its latest, most in-depth, paper.
Those three, like Allco and Rubicon, are close to corporate extinction.
MFS, Allco and Centro all favoured the externally-managed model as does the Hedley pubs stable of companies which has just fallen into trouble. Many real estate trusts or REITs also have the trust structure.
Their underperformance has been significant since the downturn in credit markets as the aggressive financing practices, and booking profits from revaluations, hamper performance when credit spreads blow out and asset values come under pressure.
But back to the latest RiskMetrics report. Of prurient interest is their work on fees.
As an extreme example, it takes Babcock & Brown Wind Partners which "had operating cash flow of $14.2 million in the 2006 financial year, but paid distributions totalling $48 million in relation to that year. The distributions were equivalent to 54% of the total cash receipts from customers during the year,'' says the report.
"Even the most mature infrastructure fund of all, Macquarie Infrastructure Group, is no exception.
It had operating cash flow of $306.9 million in the 2006 financial year, but paid distributions totalling $512.9 million in relation to that year.
Furthermore, the distributions were equivalent to 116% of the total toll revenue received during the year.''
The ''stapled'' entities of the infrastructure model "have multiple boards, and are run by an external management company employed under a management agreement providing for substantial fees.
Many of the features of these vehicles appear to make it practically difficult, and possibly expensive, for investors to replace the external manager if dissatisfied with its performance.''
In sum, RiskMetrics finds the model probably has more in common with private equity than with publicly traded property funds.
http://business.smh.com.au/macquarie-model-blowtorched/20080404-23oy.html?page=1
Report Link:
http://www.riskmetrics.com/pdf/RMG_Infrastructure_Funds_080326.pdf
The RIMFIRE Review is the weekly opinion publication of the National Tenant Support Network. It offers readers an opportunity to say what should be said, as distinct from what can be said, with anonymity, in the public arena. You are welcome to submit considered and robust opinion pieces for publication in the RIMFIRE Review, however, final editorial privilege will be vested in the Coordinator of the National TSN. 2007©RIMFIRE REVIEW
Dougal Siam
Monday, April 28, 2008
CHASER CASE DROPPED
Chaser APEC case dropped: DPP tells why
Published in Crikey, 28.4.08
A statement by the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, 28.4.08:
ABC Online reports: The case against members of ABC TV's The Chaser's War on Everything has been dropped.Eleven people associated with the popular program were arrested last September for breaching an APEC restricted zone without justification. As part of a comedy sketch, they drove a fake motorcade through Sydney's CBD. The stunt was only uncovered when the convoy stopped and Chaser team member Chas Licciardello climbed out dressed as Osama bin Laden.
The DPP tells why:
Direction Today
I have directed that there be no further proceedings on all charges against 11 persons involved in The Chasers War on Everything entry into a restricted area during the APEC Meeting in Sydney in September 2007: Julian Morrow, Charles ("Chas") Licciardello, Nathan Earl, Giles Hardie, Lauren Howard, Geoffrey Lye, Alexander Morrow, Benson Simpson, Esteban Alegria, Mark Kordi and Rodrigo Pena.
The matters are listed for mention in the Local Court tomorrow, 29 April 2008, when the charges will be withdrawn. In the unusual circumstances of this case I consider it appropriate to give some explanation for this course.
Background
On Thursday 6 September 2007, during the APEC Meeting in Sydney, two presenting members of The Chasers War on Everything ABC comedy/satire team were charged, along with six Chasers crew and production team members and three hire car drivers, with entering a restricted area without special justification, contrary to section 19(1) of the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Act 2007. The legislation (which was in force from 4 July 2007 to 13 September 2007) provided for "declared areas" (setting in effect an outer perimeter of affected space) and "restricted areas" inside declared areas established around APEC Meeting venues and accommodation. The relevant areas for present purposes were along Macquarie Street, Sydney, north of King Street where a declared area was in place and north of a gate approximately 30 metres south of Bridge Street where a restricted area commenced. Short Facts The Chasers created a fake "motorcade" consisting of, in order: two motorcycle outriders, a black 4WD vehicle, a black sedan and another black 4WD. Five male members of the team (including Morrow who was directing operations) walked alongside the motorcade.
After reaching Bent Street the motorcyclists dropped to the rear. The three vehicles had obviously bogus APEC identification stickers and Canada identification stickers on their windscreens. The sedan had Australian and Canadian national flags on its bonnet. All had tinted windows. The five runners also wore obviously bogus identification. One of the motorcyclists wore jeans. Nine cameras were in operation, some fixed, some handheld and worn and some with audio recording. Recordings from those cameras have been taken into consideration. At about 11.30am on Thursday 6 September 2007 the fake motorcade approached along Macquarie Street from the south and stopped at the intersection of Bent Street. One of the motorcyclists and Morrow pointed forward. Police waved the motorcade on and indicated in a northerly direction along Macquarie Street towards the restricted area. It then proceeded through an open gate further into the declared area. The motorcade then stopped briefly before moving north again towards a second open gate which in fact marked the beginning of the restricted area (although police in the vicinity were unaware of that and the Chasers were uncertain where the restricted area began).
The motorcade then stopped just short of the second gate. Morrow asked people with whom he was in contact about the restricted area and was given to understand that it commenced at Bridge Street. The motorcade then proceeded again through the second open gate towards the intersection of Macquarie and Bridge Streets. There was no attempt by police lining the route to inspect or stop it. The motorcade then stopped short of the intersection of Bridge Street and Morrow told police that there had been a change of plans and that they needed to turn back. Morrow suspected that they had entered the restricted area, which he had not intended to do. Macquarie Street had been narrowed by fencing and barriers between Bent and Bridge Streets and it was necessary to advance into the intersection to turn around. Police waved the motorcade forward into the intersection to enable that to occur.
The motorcade then stopped in the turn, Morrow consulted with Licciardello and he (dressed as Osama Bin Laden) got out of the sedan and with Morrow started to walk south in Macquarie Street. Police then arrested the 11 accused and seized items. (The two motorcyclists rode away.) The Chasers had carried out an examination of the area on 5 September 2007 when police procedures had been different from those followed on 6 September 2007. The Chasers had also conducted a planning session on the morning of 6 September 2007 and some video and audio recording of that has been considered. The evidence establishes that the Chasers plan, in what was considered the unlikely event that they were allowed to pass through any gates, was to stop short of the restricted area and to get Licciardello out of the vehicle. Referral to ODPPPolice prosecutors were primarily responsible for the conduct of the prosecutions, they being for summary offences in the Local Court. A large amount of evidentiary material was made available to the police prosecutors, along with representations on behalf of the accused and advice from senior officers and the Crown Solicitor. Police could have prosecuted or withdrawn any or all of the charges.
The case was first referred to the ODPP for the purpose of giving advice on 13 March 2008. On 14 March 2008 it was decided that the ODPP would conduct the matters and they were then taken over from police. The matters have been assessed in this Office in the usual way for all briefs received. Regard has been had to the applicable law, the admissible evidence and the Prosecution Guidelines.
There has been some urgency in the treatment of the matter by reason of the elapsed time since the events and the listing of the matters in court. Reasons It was an offence to enter a restricted area without special justification. Special justification was defined in section 37 of the Act and included circumstances where a person was permitted to be in the area by a police officer and where the person was required to be in the area for a work-related purpose. The offence is one of strict liability. Consequently, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available to the accused. Put another way, it is a defence to establish, or to raise a reasonable doubt that there existed, an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in a set of facts which, if they had existed, would have rendered the conduct innocent.
In the cases of all 11 accused I am satisfied that on the evidence presently available the prosecution would not be able to negate, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of an honest and reasonable (but ultimately mistaken) belief that they would not enter or be taken into the restricted area and that, when they did enter it, it was with the permission of police (given by waving them through the Bent Street intersection towards the first gate north along Macquarie Street, then allowing them through the second gate unhindered and then directing them to turn in the intersection of Bridge Street). Police permission in fact constitutes special justification for entry.
Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect of conviction and for that reason the prosecutions should not proceed. In the cases of Licciardello, the six crew and production staff members and the three hire car drivers a further defence may be available that they had special justification by reason of their requirement to be there for work-related purposes in the circumstances that unfolded. Morrow was directing the progress of all who were employed for the purposes of the stunt and they either followed or were swept along by the directions that he gave.
I am also satisfied that, if the prosecution proceeded against Morrow only on the basis that his situation could be distinguished from the rest, the court would be bound to find that the motorcade entered the restricted area in error and if the offence were otherwise proved (which I consider unlikely) it would be probable that a magistrate would dismiss the charge without conviction under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (considering also Morrow’s otherwise good character). That would provide an additional discretionary basis for not proceeding in Morrow’s case, in accordance with the Prosecution Guidelines.
Published in Crikey, 28.4.08
A statement by the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, 28.4.08:
ABC Online reports: The case against members of ABC TV's The Chaser's War on Everything has been dropped.Eleven people associated with the popular program were arrested last September for breaching an APEC restricted zone without justification. As part of a comedy sketch, they drove a fake motorcade through Sydney's CBD. The stunt was only uncovered when the convoy stopped and Chaser team member Chas Licciardello climbed out dressed as Osama bin Laden.
The DPP tells why:
Direction Today
I have directed that there be no further proceedings on all charges against 11 persons involved in The Chasers War on Everything entry into a restricted area during the APEC Meeting in Sydney in September 2007: Julian Morrow, Charles ("Chas") Licciardello, Nathan Earl, Giles Hardie, Lauren Howard, Geoffrey Lye, Alexander Morrow, Benson Simpson, Esteban Alegria, Mark Kordi and Rodrigo Pena.
The matters are listed for mention in the Local Court tomorrow, 29 April 2008, when the charges will be withdrawn. In the unusual circumstances of this case I consider it appropriate to give some explanation for this course.
Background
On Thursday 6 September 2007, during the APEC Meeting in Sydney, two presenting members of The Chasers War on Everything ABC comedy/satire team were charged, along with six Chasers crew and production team members and three hire car drivers, with entering a restricted area without special justification, contrary to section 19(1) of the APEC Meeting (Police Powers) Act 2007. The legislation (which was in force from 4 July 2007 to 13 September 2007) provided for "declared areas" (setting in effect an outer perimeter of affected space) and "restricted areas" inside declared areas established around APEC Meeting venues and accommodation. The relevant areas for present purposes were along Macquarie Street, Sydney, north of King Street where a declared area was in place and north of a gate approximately 30 metres south of Bridge Street where a restricted area commenced. Short Facts The Chasers created a fake "motorcade" consisting of, in order: two motorcycle outriders, a black 4WD vehicle, a black sedan and another black 4WD. Five male members of the team (including Morrow who was directing operations) walked alongside the motorcade.
After reaching Bent Street the motorcyclists dropped to the rear. The three vehicles had obviously bogus APEC identification stickers and Canada identification stickers on their windscreens. The sedan had Australian and Canadian national flags on its bonnet. All had tinted windows. The five runners also wore obviously bogus identification. One of the motorcyclists wore jeans. Nine cameras were in operation, some fixed, some handheld and worn and some with audio recording. Recordings from those cameras have been taken into consideration. At about 11.30am on Thursday 6 September 2007 the fake motorcade approached along Macquarie Street from the south and stopped at the intersection of Bent Street. One of the motorcyclists and Morrow pointed forward. Police waved the motorcade on and indicated in a northerly direction along Macquarie Street towards the restricted area. It then proceeded through an open gate further into the declared area. The motorcade then stopped briefly before moving north again towards a second open gate which in fact marked the beginning of the restricted area (although police in the vicinity were unaware of that and the Chasers were uncertain where the restricted area began).
The motorcade then stopped just short of the second gate. Morrow asked people with whom he was in contact about the restricted area and was given to understand that it commenced at Bridge Street. The motorcade then proceeded again through the second open gate towards the intersection of Macquarie and Bridge Streets. There was no attempt by police lining the route to inspect or stop it. The motorcade then stopped short of the intersection of Bridge Street and Morrow told police that there had been a change of plans and that they needed to turn back. Morrow suspected that they had entered the restricted area, which he had not intended to do. Macquarie Street had been narrowed by fencing and barriers between Bent and Bridge Streets and it was necessary to advance into the intersection to turn around. Police waved the motorcade forward into the intersection to enable that to occur.
The motorcade then stopped in the turn, Morrow consulted with Licciardello and he (dressed as Osama Bin Laden) got out of the sedan and with Morrow started to walk south in Macquarie Street. Police then arrested the 11 accused and seized items. (The two motorcyclists rode away.) The Chasers had carried out an examination of the area on 5 September 2007 when police procedures had been different from those followed on 6 September 2007. The Chasers had also conducted a planning session on the morning of 6 September 2007 and some video and audio recording of that has been considered. The evidence establishes that the Chasers plan, in what was considered the unlikely event that they were allowed to pass through any gates, was to stop short of the restricted area and to get Licciardello out of the vehicle. Referral to ODPPPolice prosecutors were primarily responsible for the conduct of the prosecutions, they being for summary offences in the Local Court. A large amount of evidentiary material was made available to the police prosecutors, along with representations on behalf of the accused and advice from senior officers and the Crown Solicitor. Police could have prosecuted or withdrawn any or all of the charges.
The case was first referred to the ODPP for the purpose of giving advice on 13 March 2008. On 14 March 2008 it was decided that the ODPP would conduct the matters and they were then taken over from police. The matters have been assessed in this Office in the usual way for all briefs received. Regard has been had to the applicable law, the admissible evidence and the Prosecution Guidelines.
There has been some urgency in the treatment of the matter by reason of the elapsed time since the events and the listing of the matters in court. Reasons It was an offence to enter a restricted area without special justification. Special justification was defined in section 37 of the Act and included circumstances where a person was permitted to be in the area by a police officer and where the person was required to be in the area for a work-related purpose. The offence is one of strict liability. Consequently, the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is available to the accused. Put another way, it is a defence to establish, or to raise a reasonable doubt that there existed, an honest and reasonable but mistaken belief in a set of facts which, if they had existed, would have rendered the conduct innocent.
In the cases of all 11 accused I am satisfied that on the evidence presently available the prosecution would not be able to negate, beyond reasonable doubt, the existence of an honest and reasonable (but ultimately mistaken) belief that they would not enter or be taken into the restricted area and that, when they did enter it, it was with the permission of police (given by waving them through the Bent Street intersection towards the first gate north along Macquarie Street, then allowing them through the second gate unhindered and then directing them to turn in the intersection of Bridge Street). Police permission in fact constitutes special justification for entry.
Accordingly, there is no reasonable prospect of conviction and for that reason the prosecutions should not proceed. In the cases of Licciardello, the six crew and production staff members and the three hire car drivers a further defence may be available that they had special justification by reason of their requirement to be there for work-related purposes in the circumstances that unfolded. Morrow was directing the progress of all who were employed for the purposes of the stunt and they either followed or were swept along by the directions that he gave.
I am also satisfied that, if the prosecution proceeded against Morrow only on the basis that his situation could be distinguished from the rest, the court would be bound to find that the motorcade entered the restricted area in error and if the offence were otherwise proved (which I consider unlikely) it would be probable that a magistrate would dismiss the charge without conviction under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (considering also Morrow’s otherwise good character). That would provide an additional discretionary basis for not proceeding in Morrow’s case, in accordance with the Prosecution Guidelines.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
VICTORIAN ELDER ABUSE HOTLINE
Red News Readers,
It seems that aged care workers and care service employees have finally caught up with the aged care providers!
Jenny Haines
Elderly abuse reporting hotline set up
Article from: AAP
April 27, 2008 12:05pm
VICTORIA'S elderly people who suffer abuse now have access to a telephone helpline, launched today by the State Government.
The Seniors Rights Victoria hotline will provide support and advice to older people suffering abuse, Senior Victorians Minister Lisa Neville said.
She said the $2.6m service would allow anyone to access support and advice to respond to the abuse, mistreatment or neglect of older people.
Ms Neville said elder abuse was not just physical but could be financial, emotional, social or psychological, and involve mistreatment or neglect.
"It can include such instances as families pressuring elderly relatives for money, forcing them to sign documents they do not understand or restricting their contact with friends.
"Other examples include older people's health needs being ignored or physical abuse, including pushing and shoving.''
Studies have estimated that between one and five per cent of older people experience some form of abuse or neglect, Ms Neville said.
Research commissioned by the Department of Planning and Community Development showed 15 per cent of people over the age of 18 had either witnessed financial abuse of an older person or knew the person affected.
The survey also found that 18 per cent of people either witnessed or knew of a senior suffering psychological abuse and 90 per cent supported action to prevent it.
The hotline 1300 386 821 will begin taking calls from 10am (AEST) tomorrow (April 28.)
It seems that aged care workers and care service employees have finally caught up with the aged care providers!
Jenny Haines
Elderly abuse reporting hotline set up
Article from: AAP
April 27, 2008 12:05pm
VICTORIA'S elderly people who suffer abuse now have access to a telephone helpline, launched today by the State Government.
The Seniors Rights Victoria hotline will provide support and advice to older people suffering abuse, Senior Victorians Minister Lisa Neville said.
She said the $2.6m service would allow anyone to access support and advice to respond to the abuse, mistreatment or neglect of older people.
Ms Neville said elder abuse was not just physical but could be financial, emotional, social or psychological, and involve mistreatment or neglect.
"It can include such instances as families pressuring elderly relatives for money, forcing them to sign documents they do not understand or restricting their contact with friends.
"Other examples include older people's health needs being ignored or physical abuse, including pushing and shoving.''
Studies have estimated that between one and five per cent of older people experience some form of abuse or neglect, Ms Neville said.
Research commissioned by the Department of Planning and Community Development showed 15 per cent of people over the age of 18 had either witnessed financial abuse of an older person or knew the person affected.
The survey also found that 18 per cent of people either witnessed or knew of a senior suffering psychological abuse and 90 per cent supported action to prevent it.
The hotline 1300 386 821 will begin taking calls from 10am (AEST) tomorrow (April 28.)
PAULINE'S AT IT AGAIN!
Red News Readers,
It is easy to make allegations, and not all of them have to be proven as perception is everything in politics. But the problem for Pauline is that this is not the first time such allegations have been made. In fact she has been to jail over financial irregularities with party money. And here we are again. Pauline is once again being shown for the greedy, grasping, selfish person that she is. It is vile that the media give her celebrity status when she has done so much damage to the fabric of this nation and it is about time that those who supported her in the past realised that they were misled by Pauline and finally move on to someone who can more ably represent them.
Jenny Haines
Pauline Hanson please explain missing $200,000
By political editor Glenn Milne, Sunday Telegraph
April 27, 2008 12:00am
PAULINE Hanson has been accused of siphoning off more than $200,000 in taxpayers' money from the bank accounts of her own party.
In a recorded telephone call between the former MP and her party treasurer, Ms Hanson admits taking funds because she was not "going to put the money in the hands of anyone else''.
The tape, heard by The Sunday Telegraph, is likely to increase pressure on the Federal Government to crack down on serial campaigners like Ms Hanson.
The $202,440 was paid into the accounts of Ms Hanson's United Australia Party - the vehicle for her Senate candidacy last year.
Bank records, sighted by The Sunday Telegraph, show transfers of Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) funds - out of an account controlled jointly by party officials and Ms Hanson, into another account controlled by Ms Hanson and a close friend.
Citing privacy laws, Suncorp Bank refused to explain how Ms Hanson was able to transfer funds out of an account that required two of the three signatures of the party treasurer, Graham McDonald, his wife Jan and Ms Hanson.
Mr McDonald, a Brisbane businessman, told The Sunday Telegraph he now believed Ms Hanson stood at the election in order to receive public funding.
"I'm so disappointed,'' he said. ``She never really put the effort into the campaign. If she's not going to run (again), what's going to happen to the money?
"You just don't have this money as a gift. I thought she'd changed. I feel just stabbed in the back.
"I feel more sorry for the members. We paid most of the bills.
"So whatever she ran up in expenses, I don't know. But they should have all been done through the party. I should have receipts for them and pay them out.''
Mr McDonald said he hadn't seen one receipt from Ms Hanson. He recalled a "threatening'' visit after the election by Ms Hanson and three men, including her Queensland Senate running mate, David Saville, when they demanded that he hand over all party bank records, membership lists and cheque books.
He refused and told Ms Hanson's ex-adviser, John Pasquarelli, of the visit. Mr Pasquarelli notified Australian Federal Police.
Confronted by The Sunday Telegraph, Ms Hanson claimed she and close friend, Bronwyn Boag, who earlier stood as a Tasmanian One Nation candidate, had put the money into another party account. She refused to say who controlled that account.
She said Ms Boag was the party "designated agent'' with the AEC and the funds had been put into the wrong account by the AEC. Ms Boag had alerted the AEC, which rectified the "mistake''.
An AEC spokesman denied this: "Once the monies have been disbursed in the first instance, the AEC has no further involvement''.
An angry Ms Hanson told The Sunday Telegraph: "Everything's above board. I'm not going to justify myself to you. I'm not going to have discussions with you and the media. You've reported s***. You've given me bloody hell.''
But the taped phone recording reveals Ms Hanson admitting she now has the money
Responding to Mr McDonald's warnings that this is "not the right way'' to do things because the money belongs to the party, Ms Hanson responds: "I've haven't put all this bloody hard work in to hand control over to it (the party).
"I'm not putting the money in the hands of anyone else. I haven't even drawn any money out of the account myself, as yet. My bills are still sitting there.
"There's nothing illegal about it. It's not going to happen to me again. I'm not going to be just out there, just pushing the wheelbarrow for everyone else. I'm sick of all these bloody idiots around me.''
Mr Pasquarelli said: ``The unauthorised removal of the election funding monies from the (party) account is beyond belief, inexcusable and possibly punishable under the criminal law.
"These monies do not belong to Pauline Hanson, but to the party, which is a properly constituted and recognised body. This sorry mess will result in urgent and drastic corrective legislation
Taxpayer funding of elections should be abolished, but the big parties would never agree to this.''
It is easy to make allegations, and not all of them have to be proven as perception is everything in politics. But the problem for Pauline is that this is not the first time such allegations have been made. In fact she has been to jail over financial irregularities with party money. And here we are again. Pauline is once again being shown for the greedy, grasping, selfish person that she is. It is vile that the media give her celebrity status when she has done so much damage to the fabric of this nation and it is about time that those who supported her in the past realised that they were misled by Pauline and finally move on to someone who can more ably represent them.
Jenny Haines
Pauline Hanson please explain missing $200,000
By political editor Glenn Milne, Sunday Telegraph
April 27, 2008 12:00am
PAULINE Hanson has been accused of siphoning off more than $200,000 in taxpayers' money from the bank accounts of her own party.
In a recorded telephone call between the former MP and her party treasurer, Ms Hanson admits taking funds because she was not "going to put the money in the hands of anyone else''.
The tape, heard by The Sunday Telegraph, is likely to increase pressure on the Federal Government to crack down on serial campaigners like Ms Hanson.
The $202,440 was paid into the accounts of Ms Hanson's United Australia Party - the vehicle for her Senate candidacy last year.
Bank records, sighted by The Sunday Telegraph, show transfers of Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) funds - out of an account controlled jointly by party officials and Ms Hanson, into another account controlled by Ms Hanson and a close friend.
Citing privacy laws, Suncorp Bank refused to explain how Ms Hanson was able to transfer funds out of an account that required two of the three signatures of the party treasurer, Graham McDonald, his wife Jan and Ms Hanson.
Mr McDonald, a Brisbane businessman, told The Sunday Telegraph he now believed Ms Hanson stood at the election in order to receive public funding.
"I'm so disappointed,'' he said. ``She never really put the effort into the campaign. If she's not going to run (again), what's going to happen to the money?
"You just don't have this money as a gift. I thought she'd changed. I feel just stabbed in the back.
"I feel more sorry for the members. We paid most of the bills.
"So whatever she ran up in expenses, I don't know. But they should have all been done through the party. I should have receipts for them and pay them out.''
Mr McDonald said he hadn't seen one receipt from Ms Hanson. He recalled a "threatening'' visit after the election by Ms Hanson and three men, including her Queensland Senate running mate, David Saville, when they demanded that he hand over all party bank records, membership lists and cheque books.
He refused and told Ms Hanson's ex-adviser, John Pasquarelli, of the visit. Mr Pasquarelli notified Australian Federal Police.
Confronted by The Sunday Telegraph, Ms Hanson claimed she and close friend, Bronwyn Boag, who earlier stood as a Tasmanian One Nation candidate, had put the money into another party account. She refused to say who controlled that account.
She said Ms Boag was the party "designated agent'' with the AEC and the funds had been put into the wrong account by the AEC. Ms Boag had alerted the AEC, which rectified the "mistake''.
An AEC spokesman denied this: "Once the monies have been disbursed in the first instance, the AEC has no further involvement''.
An angry Ms Hanson told The Sunday Telegraph: "Everything's above board. I'm not going to justify myself to you. I'm not going to have discussions with you and the media. You've reported s***. You've given me bloody hell.''
But the taped phone recording reveals Ms Hanson admitting she now has the money
Responding to Mr McDonald's warnings that this is "not the right way'' to do things because the money belongs to the party, Ms Hanson responds: "I've haven't put all this bloody hard work in to hand control over to it (the party).
"I'm not putting the money in the hands of anyone else. I haven't even drawn any money out of the account myself, as yet. My bills are still sitting there.
"There's nothing illegal about it. It's not going to happen to me again. I'm not going to be just out there, just pushing the wheelbarrow for everyone else. I'm sick of all these bloody idiots around me.''
Mr Pasquarelli said: ``The unauthorised removal of the election funding monies from the (party) account is beyond belief, inexcusable and possibly punishable under the criminal law.
"These monies do not belong to Pauline Hanson, but to the party, which is a properly constituted and recognised body. This sorry mess will result in urgent and drastic corrective legislation
Taxpayer funding of elections should be abolished, but the big parties would never agree to this.''
ALP SHUNS PARLIAMENTARY LEADERSHIP ON POWER
Red News Readers,
Isn't it interesting! Costa and Iemma talk up what they see as the benefits of privatisation but if you go online and read the blogs, those who live in states where electricity has been privatised for some time can tell us of the disadvantages as they have already experienced them, higher prices, job losses, unreliable supply, poor service, particularly after storms. There is no doubt that Labor Party members and the people of NSW don't want their utilities privatised. Costa and Iemma - listen before it is too late!!
Jenny Haines
By Linda Silmalis and Andrew Chesterton, Sunday Telegraph
April 27, 2008 12:00am
PREMIER Morris Iemma and Treasurer Michael Costa have lost the support of the party membership, with just one ALP branch backing the proposed power sale.
In a further blow to the Government, industry experts have warned that it may receive far less than the $10 billion it anticipates from privatising electricity resources.
The National Generator Forum claims tough new environmental guidelines and ageing infrastructure have decreased the value of power generators by as much as $20 billion over the past 10 years.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal Labor's rank and file is almost unanimous in its opposition to the privatisation plan.
And, in a move that reflects the deep political tensions facing the party, the resolutions to be put to the ALP State conference next Saturday carry strong anti-government sentiment targeting Mr Iemma and Mr Costa.
Labor members in the Marrickville, Merewether, Paddington, Vaucluse and Westmead branches have warned the plan could spell the end of the Iemma government.
In a combined statement, the branches say public ownership of the NSW electricity industry is the only way to ensure a reliable power supply and acceptable pricing.
"Any form of electricity privatisation is clearly opposed by the vast majority of NSW voters,'' they say.
"The proposal puts the re-election of the Iemma government in great jeopardy.''
In Newcastle, members of the ALP's Adamstown branch have warned of job losses, particularly in regional areas.
"Consultation on this proposal has been abysmal,'' they said.
"There was no inkling that such a proposal was on the table at the last election: it was not election olicy.''
Members in Balmain and Leichhardt - in the seat of Balmain, held by Labor's Verity Firth _ have attacked Mr Iemma and Mr Costa directly.
"It is unacceptable that Premier Iemma and Treasurer Costa appear intent on treating the party's membership withdisdain,'' they wrote.
"Accordingly, the conference calls on the Government to discontinue the pursuit of this inherently stupid program.''
The resolutions follow revelations last week that the Alexandria branch had lodged a formal misconduct complaint against Mr Iemma and Mr Costa for declaring they would defy the State ALP conference.
In a separate move, the NSW National Party has come out to oppose the plan.
National Party leader Andrew Stoner said that members would move to block the legislation whenit is introduced in Parliament.
"Members have serious concerns about jobs, services and prices and none of these concerns have been adequately addressed by the Government,'' he said.
Isn't it interesting! Costa and Iemma talk up what they see as the benefits of privatisation but if you go online and read the blogs, those who live in states where electricity has been privatised for some time can tell us of the disadvantages as they have already experienced them, higher prices, job losses, unreliable supply, poor service, particularly after storms. There is no doubt that Labor Party members and the people of NSW don't want their utilities privatised. Costa and Iemma - listen before it is too late!!
Jenny Haines
By Linda Silmalis and Andrew Chesterton, Sunday Telegraph
April 27, 2008 12:00am
PREMIER Morris Iemma and Treasurer Michael Costa have lost the support of the party membership, with just one ALP branch backing the proposed power sale.
In a further blow to the Government, industry experts have warned that it may receive far less than the $10 billion it anticipates from privatising electricity resources.
The National Generator Forum claims tough new environmental guidelines and ageing infrastructure have decreased the value of power generators by as much as $20 billion over the past 10 years.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal Labor's rank and file is almost unanimous in its opposition to the privatisation plan.
And, in a move that reflects the deep political tensions facing the party, the resolutions to be put to the ALP State conference next Saturday carry strong anti-government sentiment targeting Mr Iemma and Mr Costa.
Labor members in the Marrickville, Merewether, Paddington, Vaucluse and Westmead branches have warned the plan could spell the end of the Iemma government.
In a combined statement, the branches say public ownership of the NSW electricity industry is the only way to ensure a reliable power supply and acceptable pricing.
"Any form of electricity privatisation is clearly opposed by the vast majority of NSW voters,'' they say.
"The proposal puts the re-election of the Iemma government in great jeopardy.''
In Newcastle, members of the ALP's Adamstown branch have warned of job losses, particularly in regional areas.
"Consultation on this proposal has been abysmal,'' they said.
"There was no inkling that such a proposal was on the table at the last election: it was not election olicy.''
Members in Balmain and Leichhardt - in the seat of Balmain, held by Labor's Verity Firth _ have attacked Mr Iemma and Mr Costa directly.
"It is unacceptable that Premier Iemma and Treasurer Costa appear intent on treating the party's membership withdisdain,'' they wrote.
"Accordingly, the conference calls on the Government to discontinue the pursuit of this inherently stupid program.''
The resolutions follow revelations last week that the Alexandria branch had lodged a formal misconduct complaint against Mr Iemma and Mr Costa for declaring they would defy the State ALP conference.
In a separate move, the NSW National Party has come out to oppose the plan.
National Party leader Andrew Stoner said that members would move to block the legislation whenit is introduced in Parliament.
"Members have serious concerns about jobs, services and prices and none of these concerns have been adequately addressed by the Government,'' he said.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
EXCUSES RING HOLLOW AS THE WORLD IDLY WAITS FOR MUGABE'S DISASTER
Red News Readers,
Thank you Cynthia Banham for addressing the amazing inertia in the developed nations over action on Zimbabwe. How much of a basket case does Zimbabwe have to become before we see some real action by Great Britain , the US and Australia. Turning back the arms shipment is the first step. Surely more can be done to make South Africa, the African Union and the Southern African Development Corporation take a more interventionist role in the situation in Zimbabwe. How much more do the Zimbabwean people have to suffer? What are we waiting for? A genocide?
Jenny Haines
Excuses ring hollow as the world idly waits for Mugabe's disaster
Cynthia Banham, smh
April 26, 2008
Other related coverage
China defends weapons cargo
Tsvangirai fears attack should he return
A decade ago I travelled through Zimbabwe, where I befriended a family with whom I have stayed in contact until this day. Zimbabwe was a very different place then to the country that now stands on the precipice of a major humanitarian disaster. As I trucked through game parks and white-water rafted down the mighty Zambezi River - just a couple of years before the President, Robert Mugabe, made his great grab for white-owned farms - it seemed to be one of the most stable countries in Africa.
Tourism, of course, no longer exists in the Zimbabwe of today. The place is in economic ruins, with agricultural production having almost completely halted, inflation running at more than 165,000 per cent, and widespread food shortages.
My friends no longer live in Zimbabwe. They fled the country, like a third of the population have, a few years ago. But they remain close to people who are still there, and they have insights into what daily life is like in their former home, insights they have shared with me.
What they show is how ominous things have begun to feel inside Zimbabwe. Nearly a month has passed since Mugabe lost the March 29 presidential election, yet his electoral commission refuses to release any official results, while it conducts a recount, which is widely believed will be rigged (results of the recount will supposedly be announced this weekend).
Stories have emerged of violence and killings of political opponents, and a few days ago the churches warned of possible genocide similar to what has occurred in Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi. This week dock workers in South Africa (thankfully) refused to unload a ship of arms from China which - chillingly - were en route to Mugabe's regime.
A few days after the election, my friends told me there was nervousness about the possibility of violence breaking out, and a belief that the delay in publicising election results was deliberate, meant to "stir the people up and cause bloodshed". People "want change now, and to wait the extra time will be pure agony" they told me. If there was no change, locals predicted industries would grind to a halt by August. Inflation was already ridiculous, with shops having to knock off three zeros on their checkout tills because the machines could not cope. Zimbabwe's inflation levels were underscored by the banks releasing two new notes, a $25,000,000 and a $50,000,000.
A week later, the mood in Zimbabwe had dropped. Mugabe was clearly hanging on, and the frustration was growing at not knowing what would happen next. Their few friends left in Zimbabwe, though they did not want to leave, were beginning to contemplate how they might do it. Inflation soared again. "One good thing is at least the rest of the world can see just how desperate this man is, and how little regard he has for the law." Then came this insight, from just a couple of days ago: "I have no words to describe the level of frustration felt by everyone and of course the underlying fear of violence erupting." Those friends left in Zimbabwe were now fretting about getting out of the country safely should things explode - what would they do with their pets? What about those who did not have passports? The Government in Zimbabwe has stopped issuing new ones. Would they be able to make it across the border? There were widespread reports of post-election intimidation and beatings. An extraordinary number of police patrolled the streets, they had set up multiple road blocks and were pulling cars over at random. The shelves in the shops were getting emptier than ever. International intervention, these friends believe, is the "only answer to our problem".
Which brings us to the question: what exactly is the international community doing about Zimbabwe? Diplomats say the situation is tricky, that so dire is Zimbabwe's economy, suspending it from global financial bodies such as the World Bank or imposing further sanctions (Australia has had "smart sanctions" targeting the regime since 2002) will have little effect. Zimbabwe has already been expelled from the Commonwealth, so that card has been played, and any moves by the United Nations Security Council will never get up because of expected opposition from China and Russia. Diplomats argue tough action by Western nations will only isolate Mugabe further, allowing him to portray their moves as a colonial plot. They argue countries such as Australia have done all they can. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, like the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have all spoken out in strong terms against Mugabe's regime. The best thing now, diplomats say, is to work with Zimbabwe's African neighbours and regional bodies such as the African Union and the Southern African Development Community who have the moral force and the ability through direct action (South Africa for example could cut off electrical power to Zimbabwe) to force out Mugabe.
Unfortunately many African nations have been reluctant to do this, and South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki's insistence on "quiet diplomacy" - publicly denying there is any crisis in Zimbabwe - has met with disappointment and outrage. This might yet change.
Is there really no more the international community can do in a situation such as Zimbabwe's, without waiting for some genocidal catastrophe to occur first, at which point it will have no choice but to send in troops as has happened elsewhere in Africa in the past? Certainly there are those within the Rudd Government who say there is more that could be done, even if it is through the UN's various human rights bodies. A friend from South Africa likened the situation in Zimbabwe to a family in crisis, where nobody wants to call DOCS until it is too late and the children have been abused.
Cynthia Banham is the Herald's Diplomatic Editor
Thank you Cynthia Banham for addressing the amazing inertia in the developed nations over action on Zimbabwe. How much of a basket case does Zimbabwe have to become before we see some real action by Great Britain , the US and Australia. Turning back the arms shipment is the first step. Surely more can be done to make South Africa, the African Union and the Southern African Development Corporation take a more interventionist role in the situation in Zimbabwe. How much more do the Zimbabwean people have to suffer? What are we waiting for? A genocide?
Jenny Haines
Excuses ring hollow as the world idly waits for Mugabe's disaster
Cynthia Banham, smh
April 26, 2008
Other related coverage
China defends weapons cargo
Tsvangirai fears attack should he return
A decade ago I travelled through Zimbabwe, where I befriended a family with whom I have stayed in contact until this day. Zimbabwe was a very different place then to the country that now stands on the precipice of a major humanitarian disaster. As I trucked through game parks and white-water rafted down the mighty Zambezi River - just a couple of years before the President, Robert Mugabe, made his great grab for white-owned farms - it seemed to be one of the most stable countries in Africa.
Tourism, of course, no longer exists in the Zimbabwe of today. The place is in economic ruins, with agricultural production having almost completely halted, inflation running at more than 165,000 per cent, and widespread food shortages.
My friends no longer live in Zimbabwe. They fled the country, like a third of the population have, a few years ago. But they remain close to people who are still there, and they have insights into what daily life is like in their former home, insights they have shared with me.
What they show is how ominous things have begun to feel inside Zimbabwe. Nearly a month has passed since Mugabe lost the March 29 presidential election, yet his electoral commission refuses to release any official results, while it conducts a recount, which is widely believed will be rigged (results of the recount will supposedly be announced this weekend).
Stories have emerged of violence and killings of political opponents, and a few days ago the churches warned of possible genocide similar to what has occurred in Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi. This week dock workers in South Africa (thankfully) refused to unload a ship of arms from China which - chillingly - were en route to Mugabe's regime.
A few days after the election, my friends told me there was nervousness about the possibility of violence breaking out, and a belief that the delay in publicising election results was deliberate, meant to "stir the people up and cause bloodshed". People "want change now, and to wait the extra time will be pure agony" they told me. If there was no change, locals predicted industries would grind to a halt by August. Inflation was already ridiculous, with shops having to knock off three zeros on their checkout tills because the machines could not cope. Zimbabwe's inflation levels were underscored by the banks releasing two new notes, a $25,000,000 and a $50,000,000.
A week later, the mood in Zimbabwe had dropped. Mugabe was clearly hanging on, and the frustration was growing at not knowing what would happen next. Their few friends left in Zimbabwe, though they did not want to leave, were beginning to contemplate how they might do it. Inflation soared again. "One good thing is at least the rest of the world can see just how desperate this man is, and how little regard he has for the law." Then came this insight, from just a couple of days ago: "I have no words to describe the level of frustration felt by everyone and of course the underlying fear of violence erupting." Those friends left in Zimbabwe were now fretting about getting out of the country safely should things explode - what would they do with their pets? What about those who did not have passports? The Government in Zimbabwe has stopped issuing new ones. Would they be able to make it across the border? There were widespread reports of post-election intimidation and beatings. An extraordinary number of police patrolled the streets, they had set up multiple road blocks and were pulling cars over at random. The shelves in the shops were getting emptier than ever. International intervention, these friends believe, is the "only answer to our problem".
Which brings us to the question: what exactly is the international community doing about Zimbabwe? Diplomats say the situation is tricky, that so dire is Zimbabwe's economy, suspending it from global financial bodies such as the World Bank or imposing further sanctions (Australia has had "smart sanctions" targeting the regime since 2002) will have little effect. Zimbabwe has already been expelled from the Commonwealth, so that card has been played, and any moves by the United Nations Security Council will never get up because of expected opposition from China and Russia. Diplomats argue tough action by Western nations will only isolate Mugabe further, allowing him to portray their moves as a colonial plot. They argue countries such as Australia have done all they can. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, like the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, have all spoken out in strong terms against Mugabe's regime. The best thing now, diplomats say, is to work with Zimbabwe's African neighbours and regional bodies such as the African Union and the Southern African Development Community who have the moral force and the ability through direct action (South Africa for example could cut off electrical power to Zimbabwe) to force out Mugabe.
Unfortunately many African nations have been reluctant to do this, and South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki's insistence on "quiet diplomacy" - publicly denying there is any crisis in Zimbabwe - has met with disappointment and outrage. This might yet change.
Is there really no more the international community can do in a situation such as Zimbabwe's, without waiting for some genocidal catastrophe to occur first, at which point it will have no choice but to send in troops as has happened elsewhere in Africa in the past? Certainly there are those within the Rudd Government who say there is more that could be done, even if it is through the UN's various human rights bodies. A friend from South Africa likened the situation in Zimbabwe to a family in crisis, where nobody wants to call DOCS until it is too late and the children have been abused.
Cynthia Banham is the Herald's Diplomatic Editor
LABOR PROTECTS MPs OPPOSING IEMMA
Labor protects MPs opposing Iemma
Andrew West and Andrew Clennell, smh
April 26, 2008
Latest related coverage:
There's a price to pay for power sell-off
THE president of the NSW Labor Party has confirmed he will protect any Labor MP who votes against the privatisation of the state's electricity industry, setting the stage for a split in the Iemma Government.
Bernie Riordan, secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, and chairman of the ALP's powerful administrative committee, has told the Herald that MPs who uphold party policy by defying the Premier will not be expelled or lose their endorsement.
His statement - before next weekend's ALP conference, which is now almost certain to reject a privatisation push by Morris Iemma and the Treasurer, Michael Costa - could license up to 20 Labor MPs who have publicly opposed privatisation to cross the floor.
If the Coalition also rejects the privatisation, the bills will be defeated, inflicting the worst blow on a Labor premier since William Holman was expelled from his own party in 1916. "I expect every Labor MP to follow the policy that our party democratically resolves next weekend, and that includes the Premier," Mr Riordan said.
"Any MP who follows party policy by opposing privatisation in the parliament will certainly have my support in any disciplinary matter that comes before the administrative committee."
Mr Riordan's stand is backed by all the left-wing members of the administrative committee, and most of the right-wing members.
The unions are unlikely to use the blunt instrument of expelling Mr Iemma and Mr Costa because they do not want to bully a premier but to support MPs loyal to the party platform.
The right-wingers on the administrative committee also plan to make pro-privatisation MPs endorsed before the last election without the support of local branches face rank and file preselections before 2011. This would mean the defeat of at least eight MPs, including Jodi McKay in Newcastle, Lylea McMahon from the Illawarra, Tanya Gadiel in Parramatta and David Harris on the Central Coast.
Last night a spokeswoman for Mr Iemma said only: "The cabinet and the caucus have already voted in favour of doing what is necessary for the future of NSW."
The Premier is so concerned about a likely loss by 650 votes to 150 that he has enlisted the backroom powerbroker Eddie Obeid to lobby union secretaries and backbench MPs.
Another controversial Labor figure, the former senator Graham Richardson, has publicly acknowledged the privatisation plan is doomed, and privately counselled Mr Costa against defying the party and proceeding with the sell-off.
The Herald has learned that Mr Obeid has lobbied several right-wing union leaders, including the influential secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, Nick Lewocki, asking them to "talk round" Mr Riordan. The Premier's spokesman would not comment on Mr Obeid's role in the negotiations. Mr Obeid could not be reached for comment.
Mr Richardson confirmed meeting Mr Costa two months ago and discussing privatisation but would not give details. He also conceded to a Labor branch leader that the Premier would be trounced at the conference.
The secretary of the Darlington branch, Trevor Davies, said that when he encountered Mr Richardson last week "Graham … grinned, like he always does, and told me he expected a massive victory for our side of the debate".
Andrew West and Andrew Clennell, smh
April 26, 2008
Latest related coverage:
There's a price to pay for power sell-off
THE president of the NSW Labor Party has confirmed he will protect any Labor MP who votes against the privatisation of the state's electricity industry, setting the stage for a split in the Iemma Government.
Bernie Riordan, secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, and chairman of the ALP's powerful administrative committee, has told the Herald that MPs who uphold party policy by defying the Premier will not be expelled or lose their endorsement.
His statement - before next weekend's ALP conference, which is now almost certain to reject a privatisation push by Morris Iemma and the Treasurer, Michael Costa - could license up to 20 Labor MPs who have publicly opposed privatisation to cross the floor.
If the Coalition also rejects the privatisation, the bills will be defeated, inflicting the worst blow on a Labor premier since William Holman was expelled from his own party in 1916. "I expect every Labor MP to follow the policy that our party democratically resolves next weekend, and that includes the Premier," Mr Riordan said.
"Any MP who follows party policy by opposing privatisation in the parliament will certainly have my support in any disciplinary matter that comes before the administrative committee."
Mr Riordan's stand is backed by all the left-wing members of the administrative committee, and most of the right-wing members.
The unions are unlikely to use the blunt instrument of expelling Mr Iemma and Mr Costa because they do not want to bully a premier but to support MPs loyal to the party platform.
The right-wingers on the administrative committee also plan to make pro-privatisation MPs endorsed before the last election without the support of local branches face rank and file preselections before 2011. This would mean the defeat of at least eight MPs, including Jodi McKay in Newcastle, Lylea McMahon from the Illawarra, Tanya Gadiel in Parramatta and David Harris on the Central Coast.
Last night a spokeswoman for Mr Iemma said only: "The cabinet and the caucus have already voted in favour of doing what is necessary for the future of NSW."
The Premier is so concerned about a likely loss by 650 votes to 150 that he has enlisted the backroom powerbroker Eddie Obeid to lobby union secretaries and backbench MPs.
Another controversial Labor figure, the former senator Graham Richardson, has publicly acknowledged the privatisation plan is doomed, and privately counselled Mr Costa against defying the party and proceeding with the sell-off.
The Herald has learned that Mr Obeid has lobbied several right-wing union leaders, including the influential secretary of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, Nick Lewocki, asking them to "talk round" Mr Riordan. The Premier's spokesman would not comment on Mr Obeid's role in the negotiations. Mr Obeid could not be reached for comment.
Mr Richardson confirmed meeting Mr Costa two months ago and discussing privatisation but would not give details. He also conceded to a Labor branch leader that the Premier would be trounced at the conference.
The secretary of the Darlington branch, Trevor Davies, said that when he encountered Mr Richardson last week "Graham … grinned, like he always does, and told me he expected a massive victory for our side of the debate".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
