Tom Allard, SMH, 25.6.11
A YOUNG Burmese refugee was rounded up, sent to prison for three months and lashed three times with a rattan cane last year even though he possessed a coveted refugee card supposed to offer protection from persecution in Malaysia.
Kap Lian's account of his arrest, incarceration and punishment, the first by an actual holder of a refugee card, raises new questions about the federal government's guarantee that no asylum seeker it sends to Malaysia will be abused under its proposed refugee swap deal.
Malaysia and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees insist protections of refugees have improved substantially in recent times. In a significant development, it was announced on Thursday that the feared volunteer corps, known by its Malay acronym RELA, has ceased operations against irregular migrants since March.
Advertisement: Story continues below But Mr Kap Lian's nightmare occurred when the UNHCR was supposed to have an arrangement with the police and immigration authorities that any genuine refugees would not be detained, let alone punished with caning.
It all began, Mr Kap Lian tells the Herald, when RELA cadres stormed his apartment block in Kuala Lumpur in the early hours of March 11 last year.
''There were 20 of us picked up and six of us had UNHCR cards,'' says Mr Kap Lian, a quietly spoken 20-year-old from the persecuted Chin ethnic minority. ''We showed them the cards, but they just took them from us and kept them … and then took us to prison.''
After 14 days, Mr Kap Lian was taken before a court. But, he says, they had no legal representation and could not understand what was happening because they did not speak Malay. ''The sentence was three months and three hits with the cane. It was the same for all six of us.''
Trussed up and naked except for a blindfold and a small piece of cloth to cover his genitalia, Mr Kap Lian said he took three hits across his buttocks from the long rattan cane. The pain was like no other he had experienced.
''It was very bad,'' he says. ''For one week I couldn't sleep. For two weeks, I couldn't sit down.'' He was given medicine just once.
Mr Kap Lian's story could not be independently verified with the UNHCR but the young Chin bears the scars of his ordeal. He explained he couldn't contact the UNHCR because his card, which contained a hotline number on the back that he could call for help, was confiscated. Guards at the detention centre also refused to let him call community leaders who might have been able to help him, he said.
As a 14-year-old, Mr Kap Lian says he was intermittently pressganged by Burma's military, and forced to serve as a porter. At 18, told he would have to serve full-time, he left to join 40,000 other Chin in Malaysia.
As he waits for resettlement, he works illegally as a construction worker, earning about $15 a day.
''If I could come to Australia, well, it would be better than Malaysia,'' he says. ''Even better, though, would be if the government changed in Burma and I could go back.''
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
REFUGEES SHOULD NOT BE LOCKED UP
Refugees shouldn't be locked up and should live in the community, argues Susie O'Brien.
Source: Herald Sun, 21.6.11
LIFE isn't easy in the outer suburbs. There's not much work, little public transport and nothing much to do.
Everywhere is more expensive, and it seems like everyone is trying to rip off hard-working families.
Racism is an issue, because there's lots of pockets of new Australians who don't speak much English, and don't seem to want to fit in.
And so we lash out at the most desperate, pathetic group of foreigners of all - those who arrive here by sea seeking refuge.
But don't blame these asylum seekers, who are doing nothing more than coming here lawfully, seeking a better life.
They're nothing more than scapegoats in boats.
What do you think? Blog all day with Susie at The Big O
Instead, blame successive governments for not doing enough to help Aussie battlers get by.
And blame them for creating fear and loathing in our community towards asylum seekers.
It's a political con, and too many Australians - particularly those living in multicultural outer suburbs -- are falling for it.
And so we believe it when they tell us that these foreign dark-skinned people are going to harm us if they're allowed to roam free in the community.
It's got so bad that we don't want them in our suburbs, and so we lock them up in our deserts. And we're going even further with offshore processing, now making sure they don't even make it here in the first place.
Sadly, the scare campaign is working and 85 per cent of Australians in a recent poll said they didn't want Australia to allow more boat arrivals.
But I don't blame individuals, I blame successive governments who have used asylum seekers as political pawns.
It's no wonder many people - especially those who are doing it tough themselves - are scared of asylum seekers and what they represent.
We're told we're being swamped by boat arrivals - even though we're not.
We're told they're getting more generous welfare handouts than us - even though they don't.
We're made to feel like they're a threat to our Aussie way of life - even though most of them are just people like you and me who need somewhere safe to live.
We're told they're queue-jumpers, even though there are no orderly migration queues in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq, and only 1 per cent of refugees worldwide are in UN "queues".
But trust me, everyone looks like a criminal when they're viewed from behind razor wire in the middle of Australia's most hostile locations.
However, during Refugee Week, I think it's time to get smarter than that, and to expose some of the myths and lies circulating about asylum seekers. And we need to end the twin evils of mandatory detention and offshore processing.
FACT: Mandatory detention isn't working as a deterrent, so why do we persist with it?
In 2001, 43 boats containing 5516 asylum seekers arrived. In 2000, it was 2939 people on 51 boats, and the year before that, 3721 people on 86 boats.
Clearly, mandatory detention, brought in by the Keating Labor government in 1992, hasn't been any sort of real deterrent for boat arrivals.
Yes, the number of boats coming to Australia is high at present, but the number of refugees around the world is at a 15-year high.
FACT: Offshore processing isn't reducing the number of boats coming to Australia.
The number of unauthorised boat arrivals dropped after 2001, when the Howard government introduced offshore processing. But that doesn't mean it worked. The policy continued under Labor, and in 2009 the number of arrivals suddenly jumped from 161 in 2008 to 2726 in 2009.
The simple fact is that the number of onshore arrivals has waxed and waned over the years according to the wars, famine and conflict around the world.
FACT: Genuine refugees from the Middle East don't pose any safety risk to law-abiding Australians.
The vast majority of those arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees, who go on to be productive members of our community. Around 99.7 per cent of Afghans are found to be legitimate refugees, but only 42 per cent of those from China are.
FACT: Air arrivals are less likely to be genuine refugees.
Only 40 per cent of unauthorised air arrivals will be found to be refugees, compared with 94 per cent of all those who arrive by boat.
But no one is making a fuss about these people who arrive with a valid visa, then are given a bridging visa and allowed to stay in the community until their protection visa has been processed.
FACT: Australia is not being swamped by illegal immigrants.
Throughout 2010, 134 boats containing 6500 asylum seekers came to Australia. Yes, it sounds like a lot, but it's just a fraction of the 400,000 people who come to live in Australia each year from other countries. And it's just a fraction of the world's refugee population.
It's time that Australian people demand an end for the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and to the policy of offshore processing.
Those who pose a safety risk, or cannot be identified easily, should be detained until their security status can be ascertained. Others should be housed in the community, at a fraction of the cost of detention centres.
We really have nothing to be afraid of.
After all, between 1948 and 1992, when the Keating government brought in mandatory detention, around 450,000 refugees lived peacefully in the wider community while their claims were being processed.
No one wants people to die on leaky boats en route to Australian shores. And no one wants people smugglers to win. But we can do more to crack down on this deadly industry without detaining innocent refugees.
Don't forget: when governments spend most of their time and money fighting an imagined enemy, they're not improving the quality of life for the rest of us.
Source: Herald Sun, 21.6.11
LIFE isn't easy in the outer suburbs. There's not much work, little public transport and nothing much to do.
Everywhere is more expensive, and it seems like everyone is trying to rip off hard-working families.
Racism is an issue, because there's lots of pockets of new Australians who don't speak much English, and don't seem to want to fit in.
And so we lash out at the most desperate, pathetic group of foreigners of all - those who arrive here by sea seeking refuge.
But don't blame these asylum seekers, who are doing nothing more than coming here lawfully, seeking a better life.
They're nothing more than scapegoats in boats.
What do you think? Blog all day with Susie at The Big O
Instead, blame successive governments for not doing enough to help Aussie battlers get by.
And blame them for creating fear and loathing in our community towards asylum seekers.
It's a political con, and too many Australians - particularly those living in multicultural outer suburbs -- are falling for it.
And so we believe it when they tell us that these foreign dark-skinned people are going to harm us if they're allowed to roam free in the community.
It's got so bad that we don't want them in our suburbs, and so we lock them up in our deserts. And we're going even further with offshore processing, now making sure they don't even make it here in the first place.
Sadly, the scare campaign is working and 85 per cent of Australians in a recent poll said they didn't want Australia to allow more boat arrivals.
But I don't blame individuals, I blame successive governments who have used asylum seekers as political pawns.
It's no wonder many people - especially those who are doing it tough themselves - are scared of asylum seekers and what they represent.
We're told we're being swamped by boat arrivals - even though we're not.
We're told they're getting more generous welfare handouts than us - even though they don't.
We're made to feel like they're a threat to our Aussie way of life - even though most of them are just people like you and me who need somewhere safe to live.
We're told they're queue-jumpers, even though there are no orderly migration queues in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq, and only 1 per cent of refugees worldwide are in UN "queues".
But trust me, everyone looks like a criminal when they're viewed from behind razor wire in the middle of Australia's most hostile locations.
However, during Refugee Week, I think it's time to get smarter than that, and to expose some of the myths and lies circulating about asylum seekers. And we need to end the twin evils of mandatory detention and offshore processing.
FACT: Mandatory detention isn't working as a deterrent, so why do we persist with it?
In 2001, 43 boats containing 5516 asylum seekers arrived. In 2000, it was 2939 people on 51 boats, and the year before that, 3721 people on 86 boats.
Clearly, mandatory detention, brought in by the Keating Labor government in 1992, hasn't been any sort of real deterrent for boat arrivals.
Yes, the number of boats coming to Australia is high at present, but the number of refugees around the world is at a 15-year high.
FACT: Offshore processing isn't reducing the number of boats coming to Australia.
The number of unauthorised boat arrivals dropped after 2001, when the Howard government introduced offshore processing. But that doesn't mean it worked. The policy continued under Labor, and in 2009 the number of arrivals suddenly jumped from 161 in 2008 to 2726 in 2009.
The simple fact is that the number of onshore arrivals has waxed and waned over the years according to the wars, famine and conflict around the world.
FACT: Genuine refugees from the Middle East don't pose any safety risk to law-abiding Australians.
The vast majority of those arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees, who go on to be productive members of our community. Around 99.7 per cent of Afghans are found to be legitimate refugees, but only 42 per cent of those from China are.
FACT: Air arrivals are less likely to be genuine refugees.
Only 40 per cent of unauthorised air arrivals will be found to be refugees, compared with 94 per cent of all those who arrive by boat.
But no one is making a fuss about these people who arrive with a valid visa, then are given a bridging visa and allowed to stay in the community until their protection visa has been processed.
FACT: Australia is not being swamped by illegal immigrants.
Throughout 2010, 134 boats containing 6500 asylum seekers came to Australia. Yes, it sounds like a lot, but it's just a fraction of the 400,000 people who come to live in Australia each year from other countries. And it's just a fraction of the world's refugee population.
It's time that Australian people demand an end for the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and to the policy of offshore processing.
Those who pose a safety risk, or cannot be identified easily, should be detained until their security status can be ascertained. Others should be housed in the community, at a fraction of the cost of detention centres.
We really have nothing to be afraid of.
After all, between 1948 and 1992, when the Keating government brought in mandatory detention, around 450,000 refugees lived peacefully in the wider community while their claims were being processed.
No one wants people to die on leaky boats en route to Australian shores. And no one wants people smugglers to win. But we can do more to crack down on this deadly industry without detaining innocent refugees.
Don't forget: when governments spend most of their time and money fighting an imagined enemy, they're not improving the quality of life for the rest of us.
Monday, June 20, 2011
WORLD REFUGEE DAY 2011
Red News Readers,
Doug Cameron is not speaking in accordance with Labor Policy here, nor the policy of Labor for Refugees
Jenny Haines
Thousands turn out for World Refugee Day
ABC News, 20.6.11
The World Refugee Day rallies on Sunday saw about 1,000 people protest in Melbourne, another 1,000 in Sydney, 100 in Adelaide and a smaller crowd in Darwin.
In Melbourne, prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside warned Australia will take a huge step backwards if the Government's Malaysia solution goes ahead, while in Darwin, a man being held in detention there jumped the fence to talk to protesters.
The single Iraqi father, who introduced himself as Raheem, carried his young daughter to meet the small group of people gathered outside Darwin's Airport Lodge.
The hotel is used to house asylum seekers who do not fit into the city's overflowing detention centre.
Raheem told the group he suffers insomnia after almost a year in detention.
"Ten months. No mother. Problem for baby. No sleep tonight. Problem," he said.
"What have they done wrong?" he said, referring to children in detention.
'Groundhog Day'
In Melbourne and Sydney, thousands turned out to protest the Government's asylum seeker deal with Malaysia.
The UN refugee agency has criticised the deal that will see 800 asylum seekers who arrive by boat in Australia transferred to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australian plans to take 4,000 people already granted refugee status in Malaysia.
Prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside told Melbourne's World Refugee Day rally that 10 years after the Howard government's children overboard incident, nothing had changed.
"Welcome to Groundhog Day," he told the crowd.
"Here we are at the start of refugee week about to take an enormous step backwards with the Government's idea of the Malaysian solution."
Mr Burnside said the Malaysia solution was worse than the Opposition's alternative to reopen Nauru "only in the sense that garrotting is worse than hanging".
He said anyone who fled war and was forced to live indefinitely in Indonesia without legal access to a job or schools would become desperate enough to make a dash for safety across dangerous seas to Australia.
He said he wanted to ask Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott what they would do in that situation.
"If (Ms Gillard) were in that position, what would she do? What would you do? Wouldn't you want to make a run for safety? Wouldn't you want to get your kids to safety, wouldn't you want to do what it takes to get yourself to safety and make sure you have a life," he asked the rally.
"If you got an honest answer from (Tony Abbott) ... he might say that he'd make a dash for it as well, because Tony Abbott, like all of us, has the human impulse for survival and that's what refugees are all about.
"So why do we have to mistreat the people who do nothing more than what we would do if we were unlucky enough to be in their shoes."
'Playing politics'
Also in Melbourne, Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt tried to turn the tide by harking back to the golden days of Australian immigration.
"What would Carlton be like if we didn't open our arms to refugees? What would Richmond be like," he said.
He told the rally allowing people to live in the community while their asylum claims were processed was the humane, practical and cheap alternative to detention.
"No-one's ever accused me of being an economic rationalist before but what is very clear is that it's also the cheapest alternative when we have a Government spending a billion dollars on offshore processing while we can't find enough money for schools," he said.
Mr Bandt said now was a great time to have a seismic shift in Australian politics and to end mandatory detention once and for all.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Sydney rally the Federal Government should stop jumping at the ghosts of the former Howard government with its asylum seeker policies.
"Don't simply brush this off as another political fight. It's time that politicians started acting with decency, respect, compassion, spine and stopped playing politics with people's lives," she said.
Labor left
Earlier, Labor Senator Doug Cameron reiterated the party's left faction will only support the Federal Government's proposed asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia if it is backed by the UN's refugee agency.
The Government is still negotiating the terms of the agreement with the Malaysian government and says it is working with the UNHCR to make sure asylum seekers taken to Malaysia are treated humanely.
Senator Cameron says it is vital to get the UNHCR on board.
"What we've said is that any Malaysian agreement must include the UNHCR. They have to sign off on it, it has to be consistent with our international obligations," he told Sky News.
He also dismissed the Opposition's plan to reopen the detention centre on Nauru, which unlike Malaysia is in the process of signing up to the UN convention on refugees.
"Sending people to Nauru, putting them out of sight out of mind for five years until they end up mentally disturbed, is not the way we want to go," he said.
- ABC/AAP
Doug Cameron is not speaking in accordance with Labor Policy here, nor the policy of Labor for Refugees
Jenny Haines
Thousands turn out for World Refugee Day
ABC News, 20.6.11
The World Refugee Day rallies on Sunday saw about 1,000 people protest in Melbourne, another 1,000 in Sydney, 100 in Adelaide and a smaller crowd in Darwin.
In Melbourne, prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside warned Australia will take a huge step backwards if the Government's Malaysia solution goes ahead, while in Darwin, a man being held in detention there jumped the fence to talk to protesters.
The single Iraqi father, who introduced himself as Raheem, carried his young daughter to meet the small group of people gathered outside Darwin's Airport Lodge.
The hotel is used to house asylum seekers who do not fit into the city's overflowing detention centre.
Raheem told the group he suffers insomnia after almost a year in detention.
"Ten months. No mother. Problem for baby. No sleep tonight. Problem," he said.
"What have they done wrong?" he said, referring to children in detention.
'Groundhog Day'
In Melbourne and Sydney, thousands turned out to protest the Government's asylum seeker deal with Malaysia.
The UN refugee agency has criticised the deal that will see 800 asylum seekers who arrive by boat in Australia transferred to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australian plans to take 4,000 people already granted refugee status in Malaysia.
Prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside told Melbourne's World Refugee Day rally that 10 years after the Howard government's children overboard incident, nothing had changed.
"Welcome to Groundhog Day," he told the crowd.
"Here we are at the start of refugee week about to take an enormous step backwards with the Government's idea of the Malaysian solution."
Mr Burnside said the Malaysia solution was worse than the Opposition's alternative to reopen Nauru "only in the sense that garrotting is worse than hanging".
He said anyone who fled war and was forced to live indefinitely in Indonesia without legal access to a job or schools would become desperate enough to make a dash for safety across dangerous seas to Australia.
He said he wanted to ask Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott what they would do in that situation.
"If (Ms Gillard) were in that position, what would she do? What would you do? Wouldn't you want to make a run for safety? Wouldn't you want to get your kids to safety, wouldn't you want to do what it takes to get yourself to safety and make sure you have a life," he asked the rally.
"If you got an honest answer from (Tony Abbott) ... he might say that he'd make a dash for it as well, because Tony Abbott, like all of us, has the human impulse for survival and that's what refugees are all about.
"So why do we have to mistreat the people who do nothing more than what we would do if we were unlucky enough to be in their shoes."
'Playing politics'
Also in Melbourne, Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt tried to turn the tide by harking back to the golden days of Australian immigration.
"What would Carlton be like if we didn't open our arms to refugees? What would Richmond be like," he said.
He told the rally allowing people to live in the community while their asylum claims were processed was the humane, practical and cheap alternative to detention.
"No-one's ever accused me of being an economic rationalist before but what is very clear is that it's also the cheapest alternative when we have a Government spending a billion dollars on offshore processing while we can't find enough money for schools," he said.
Mr Bandt said now was a great time to have a seismic shift in Australian politics and to end mandatory detention once and for all.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Sydney rally the Federal Government should stop jumping at the ghosts of the former Howard government with its asylum seeker policies.
"Don't simply brush this off as another political fight. It's time that politicians started acting with decency, respect, compassion, spine and stopped playing politics with people's lives," she said.
Labor left
Earlier, Labor Senator Doug Cameron reiterated the party's left faction will only support the Federal Government's proposed asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia if it is backed by the UN's refugee agency.
The Government is still negotiating the terms of the agreement with the Malaysian government and says it is working with the UNHCR to make sure asylum seekers taken to Malaysia are treated humanely.
Senator Cameron says it is vital to get the UNHCR on board.
"What we've said is that any Malaysian agreement must include the UNHCR. They have to sign off on it, it has to be consistent with our international obligations," he told Sky News.
He also dismissed the Opposition's plan to reopen the detention centre on Nauru, which unlike Malaysia is in the process of signing up to the UN convention on refugees.
"Sending people to Nauru, putting them out of sight out of mind for five years until they end up mentally disturbed, is not the way we want to go," he said.
- ABC/AAP
Thursday, June 16, 2011
PROTESTORS DESCEND ON SYDNEY
SMH 16.6.11, AAP
Thousands of furious public sector workers have descended on Sydney's CBD, blocking off the street as they gather outside NSW Parliament House.
Nurses, police, firefighters and other frontline workers stopped worked today to attend the rally, turning Macquarie Street into a sea of flags and banners.
A group of at least 6000 people chanted "Back off Barry" and "Two, four, six eight, Barry O'Farrell you have no mandate".
Advertisement: Story continues below They were also holding banners that read: "Barry O'Farrell workers' rights are human rights".
Earlier, NSW president of the Fire Bridge Employees union, Darin Sullivan, addressed hundreds of firefighters from the top of a fire truck outside St Mary's Cathedral.
"We don't take this sort of action often," he told the gathering.
"We've left ourselves a lot of room to escalate should we need to, this is just the first step."
Organisers revised the number of protesters upwards to 1200 shortly before 12.25pm.
Their ranks were swollen by stonemasons, port workers and other public sector employees who marched from the Opera House.
Premier Barry O'Farrell's controversial industrial relations changes are expected to be debated by the lower house this week, possibly as early as tonight, after they were passed by the NSW upper house yesterday.
Politicians, mayors and possibly magistrates could also have their pay rises capped at 2.5 per cent, as the government attempts to dilute criticism of its crackdown on the wages of nurses, teachers and firefighters.
The government bill strips the NSW Industrial Relations Commission of its powers to set wages and conditions for all frontline public servants.
The mostly male group marching from the Opera House were carrying red and while CFMEU banners and yelling: "What do we want, fair wages, when do we want it, now!"
Paul Connell from Public Works NSW said the conditions under the government's bill, which is set to be rubber stamped by the Coalition-controlled lower house, would not keep up with the cost of living.
"It doesn't keep up with the cost of living which more around 4 per cent and we can't argue for anything more than 2½ per cent," he said.
Mr Connell said without the avenue of Industrial Relations Commission, it would be harder to protect workers' current conditions.
"They are already going after family, community services leave," he said.
Mr Connell is concerned that the changes would make it harder to attract new stone workers to a craft that has already seen its numbers decline.
"There's a limited supply of stonemasons as there is, we find it very difficult to get stonemasons and these changes don't create any sort of incentive for people to work with the NSW government."
The stonemasons and port workers' march was one of several to State Parliament.
Speaking on the sidelines, Unions NSW secretary Mark Lennon said the NSW government should listen to the thousands of workers rallying and "withdraw" the legislation.
"You can see from the turnout here today that there is a lot of anger out there," he said.
"We've already filled Macquarie Street, this shows how upset and outraged the public sector workforce is about this proposed legislation."
Mr Lennon said the ball was in the government's court.
"The government still has the opportunity to rethink this legislation and withdraw it," he said.
Rain failed to dampen the spirits of the workers, who continued to chant and cheer.
Unions NSW president Marilyn Issanchon spoke to the crowd as the rain pelted down.
"No one is going to rain on our parade," she said to cheers.
"We will fight for our rights at work."
She thanked workers for coming from as far as Dubbo and the Riverina.
"The whole of NSW is represented here today," Ms Issanchon said.
Addressing the swelling crowd on Macquarie Street, ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence raised the unions' successful Your Rights at Work campaign, which led to the death of the Howard government's unpopular WorkChoices laws.
"Five minutes after being elected into government, without a hint to the electorate who voted them in only three months ago, the O'Farrell Liberal government has waged an attack on workers the likes of which we haven't seen since WorkChoices," he told the rowdy crowd.
"We are standing together today because these laws are so wrong. It's in the interests if every working person in Australia to see them gone.
"We can't allow these laws to be passed, and if they are, we've got to continue to fight to get rid of them.
"Every member of Parliament who votes for them today or tomorrow must be held to account."
Mr Lawrence called on federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to lobby his NSW counterpart Mr O'Farrell to scrap the public sector wage changes.
"Tony Abbott thinks he doesn't have to take a stand, he thinks he can hide behind the fact that this is a state issue," Mr Lawrence said.
"I challenge Tony Abbott today to tell Barry O'Farrell to get rid of these laws, and if he doesn't you can only conclude that this is a template for what a coalition government would do federally if it gets half a chance."
Mr Lennon ended the rally by reading out letters of support from union movements in Western Australia and the United States.
He thanked the crowd for their attendance saying it was the biggest worker rally on Macquarie Street "in over 20 years".
Mr Lennon urged workers to continue their efforts until legislation was repealed.
"People have questioned what level of concern there is about these laws," he said.
"Well there's no question today."
He warned that future action would follow, saying "this is not the first time our movement has come under attack".
The workers joined in song to mark the end of the protest, singing in unison "we shall not be moved".
AAP
Thousands of furious public sector workers have descended on Sydney's CBD, blocking off the street as they gather outside NSW Parliament House.
Nurses, police, firefighters and other frontline workers stopped worked today to attend the rally, turning Macquarie Street into a sea of flags and banners.
A group of at least 6000 people chanted "Back off Barry" and "Two, four, six eight, Barry O'Farrell you have no mandate".
Advertisement: Story continues below They were also holding banners that read: "Barry O'Farrell workers' rights are human rights".
Earlier, NSW president of the Fire Bridge Employees union, Darin Sullivan, addressed hundreds of firefighters from the top of a fire truck outside St Mary's Cathedral.
"We don't take this sort of action often," he told the gathering.
"We've left ourselves a lot of room to escalate should we need to, this is just the first step."
Organisers revised the number of protesters upwards to 1200 shortly before 12.25pm.
Their ranks were swollen by stonemasons, port workers and other public sector employees who marched from the Opera House.
Premier Barry O'Farrell's controversial industrial relations changes are expected to be debated by the lower house this week, possibly as early as tonight, after they were passed by the NSW upper house yesterday.
Politicians, mayors and possibly magistrates could also have their pay rises capped at 2.5 per cent, as the government attempts to dilute criticism of its crackdown on the wages of nurses, teachers and firefighters.
The government bill strips the NSW Industrial Relations Commission of its powers to set wages and conditions for all frontline public servants.
The mostly male group marching from the Opera House were carrying red and while CFMEU banners and yelling: "What do we want, fair wages, when do we want it, now!"
Paul Connell from Public Works NSW said the conditions under the government's bill, which is set to be rubber stamped by the Coalition-controlled lower house, would not keep up with the cost of living.
"It doesn't keep up with the cost of living which more around 4 per cent and we can't argue for anything more than 2½ per cent," he said.
Mr Connell said without the avenue of Industrial Relations Commission, it would be harder to protect workers' current conditions.
"They are already going after family, community services leave," he said.
Mr Connell is concerned that the changes would make it harder to attract new stone workers to a craft that has already seen its numbers decline.
"There's a limited supply of stonemasons as there is, we find it very difficult to get stonemasons and these changes don't create any sort of incentive for people to work with the NSW government."
The stonemasons and port workers' march was one of several to State Parliament.
Speaking on the sidelines, Unions NSW secretary Mark Lennon said the NSW government should listen to the thousands of workers rallying and "withdraw" the legislation.
"You can see from the turnout here today that there is a lot of anger out there," he said.
"We've already filled Macquarie Street, this shows how upset and outraged the public sector workforce is about this proposed legislation."
Mr Lennon said the ball was in the government's court.
"The government still has the opportunity to rethink this legislation and withdraw it," he said.
Rain failed to dampen the spirits of the workers, who continued to chant and cheer.
Unions NSW president Marilyn Issanchon spoke to the crowd as the rain pelted down.
"No one is going to rain on our parade," she said to cheers.
"We will fight for our rights at work."
She thanked workers for coming from as far as Dubbo and the Riverina.
"The whole of NSW is represented here today," Ms Issanchon said.
Addressing the swelling crowd on Macquarie Street, ACTU secretary Jeff Lawrence raised the unions' successful Your Rights at Work campaign, which led to the death of the Howard government's unpopular WorkChoices laws.
"Five minutes after being elected into government, without a hint to the electorate who voted them in only three months ago, the O'Farrell Liberal government has waged an attack on workers the likes of which we haven't seen since WorkChoices," he told the rowdy crowd.
"We are standing together today because these laws are so wrong. It's in the interests if every working person in Australia to see them gone.
"We can't allow these laws to be passed, and if they are, we've got to continue to fight to get rid of them.
"Every member of Parliament who votes for them today or tomorrow must be held to account."
Mr Lawrence called on federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to lobby his NSW counterpart Mr O'Farrell to scrap the public sector wage changes.
"Tony Abbott thinks he doesn't have to take a stand, he thinks he can hide behind the fact that this is a state issue," Mr Lawrence said.
"I challenge Tony Abbott today to tell Barry O'Farrell to get rid of these laws, and if he doesn't you can only conclude that this is a template for what a coalition government would do federally if it gets half a chance."
Mr Lennon ended the rally by reading out letters of support from union movements in Western Australia and the United States.
He thanked the crowd for their attendance saying it was the biggest worker rally on Macquarie Street "in over 20 years".
Mr Lennon urged workers to continue their efforts until legislation was repealed.
"People have questioned what level of concern there is about these laws," he said.
"Well there's no question today."
He warned that future action would follow, saying "this is not the first time our movement has come under attack".
The workers joined in song to mark the end of the protest, singing in unison "we shall not be moved".
AAP
Monday, June 13, 2011
NSW IN DEBT - PUBLIC SECTOR PAYS
Red News Readers,
The O’Farrell Government is worrying the financial markets not because the government has alienated the public sector so early in its term of government (what do the financial markets care about that?) but because of its borrowing program of $11.5 billion next year to fund infrastructure building. State Treasury is now forecasting that the State Debt will balloon to $80 billion over the next 4 years, up from $60 billion. Apparently what worries the financial markets is that this level of debt is being incurred without it being clear what the O’Farrell Government financial plans are.
Well now we know, at least in part. They plan public private partnerships wherever they can despite the fact that in opposition they were most critical of the Labor Government’s relationships with the private sector. To achieve all this infrastructure building , and repay debt, it seems that public sector wages hours and working conditions are going to be slashed, either by legislative control of wage increases, or contracting out the work of public servants to private contractors, not a worry to the O’Farrell Government as they don’t see public sector workers, particularly unionists, as part of their voting power base. But a very big worry to those public sector workers affected.
In my profession, nursing, how are we going to maintain wages and working conditions that recruit and retain quality staff? This is the big question that plagued the Labor Government and the Industrial Relations Commission over the past 16 years. Awards ratified by the Commission in that time were mostly consent awards between the Government and the Union, intent on addressing the nursing shortage, and the quality of care issues in the health system. The O’Farrell Government has most unfairly placed the blame for what they call the blowout in public sector wages under the Labor Government squarely on the shoulders of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, but the truth of the matter is that as the awards made were consent awards, and the blame , if there is a need for blame, should be sheeted home to the negotiating parties.
All of this means a lot to the 12,000 public sector workers who gathered in Macquarie Street today. It would have been interesting to see how many public sector workers attended had there not been the level of intimidation and harassment in the workplace by managers who instructed public sector workers that they were not to attend the Rally, despite the fact that those workers were members of a union, and entitled under this country’s recognition of the freedom of association to attend. Where did the instructions for this level of intimidation come from?
The O’Farrell Government has started a war with the public sector unions. The Labor Opposition and the unions must be thanking O’Farrell for the organising gift that has been given to the labour movement which will unite and gel around a vigorous defence of the public sector. What the O’Farrell Government needs to consider very deeply, is what quality do they want to have in the provision of services traditionally provided by the public sector? Now that the Government has got the public sector’s back up, they can hardly expect that public sector workers are going to put their noses to the grindstone and make it all happen for a Government that has made it clear that it does not value the public sector. But obviously the big stick that is going to be held by the O’Farrell Government over public sector workers and unions is, do what we say, or we will contract your work out to the private sector.
Jenny Haines
NSW government to reassure backers
Eric Johnston. smh
June 8, 2011
.
THE O'Farrell Liberal government will attempt to reassure New South Wales's biggest financial backers this month amid growing uncertainty about the scope of its infrastructure spending spree.
The meeting between Treasurer Mike Baird and the bond investors comes as the government pushes ahead with an $11.5 billion borrowing program over the next year, on the heels of last year's record $12 billion debt issue. Much of the latest funding issue is to roll over existing debt.
Figures from the state's financing arm, NSW Treasury Corp, revealed the state's debt is likely to balloon to as much as $80 billion within four years, up from about $60 billion.
Much of the increase is expected to come from increased investment by power generators. As well as raising funds from global and Australian investors to fund the budget, NSW Treasury Corp also raises funds on behalf of government enterprises such as EnergyAustralia and RailCorp.
With the O'Farrell government not scheduled to hand down its first budget until September, investors have expressed concerns about buying debt without knowing what its financial plans are.
This could push up the borrowing costs, particularly as problems with some debt-laden European governments are causing global credit jitters.
Economists have speculated that the government's infrastructure spending spree could see its borrowing program over the next year blow out by as much as $5 billion.
''There still remains a high level of uncertainty over the priorities for fiscal policy in the coming year in light of the clear mandate to increase infrastructure delivery at the March election,'' said ANZ's head of interest rate strategy, Tony Morriss.
The government has raised suggestions that it could call in the private sector to help fund its centrepiece project, the north-west rail link, which will cost about $8 billion. But its first step will be to thrash out with banks and finance houses ways of paying for it through a public-private partnership.
Last month the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's reaffirmed NSW's AAA rating, saying the state was in a sound financial position.
Separately, the new head of the federal government's financing arm yesterday raised the prospect that the Commonwealth could become a big investor in bonds issued by state governments.
The chief executive of the Australian Office of Financial Management, Rob Nicholl, told an economics forum there was ''nothing to prevent us'' buying state bonds once the Commonwealth government started running budget surpluses. Such a move would make it easier for states with big funding needs to borrow.
The O’Farrell Government is worrying the financial markets not because the government has alienated the public sector so early in its term of government (what do the financial markets care about that?) but because of its borrowing program of $11.5 billion next year to fund infrastructure building. State Treasury is now forecasting that the State Debt will balloon to $80 billion over the next 4 years, up from $60 billion. Apparently what worries the financial markets is that this level of debt is being incurred without it being clear what the O’Farrell Government financial plans are.
Well now we know, at least in part. They plan public private partnerships wherever they can despite the fact that in opposition they were most critical of the Labor Government’s relationships with the private sector. To achieve all this infrastructure building , and repay debt, it seems that public sector wages hours and working conditions are going to be slashed, either by legislative control of wage increases, or contracting out the work of public servants to private contractors, not a worry to the O’Farrell Government as they don’t see public sector workers, particularly unionists, as part of their voting power base. But a very big worry to those public sector workers affected.
In my profession, nursing, how are we going to maintain wages and working conditions that recruit and retain quality staff? This is the big question that plagued the Labor Government and the Industrial Relations Commission over the past 16 years. Awards ratified by the Commission in that time were mostly consent awards between the Government and the Union, intent on addressing the nursing shortage, and the quality of care issues in the health system. The O’Farrell Government has most unfairly placed the blame for what they call the blowout in public sector wages under the Labor Government squarely on the shoulders of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, but the truth of the matter is that as the awards made were consent awards, and the blame , if there is a need for blame, should be sheeted home to the negotiating parties.
All of this means a lot to the 12,000 public sector workers who gathered in Macquarie Street today. It would have been interesting to see how many public sector workers attended had there not been the level of intimidation and harassment in the workplace by managers who instructed public sector workers that they were not to attend the Rally, despite the fact that those workers were members of a union, and entitled under this country’s recognition of the freedom of association to attend. Where did the instructions for this level of intimidation come from?
The O’Farrell Government has started a war with the public sector unions. The Labor Opposition and the unions must be thanking O’Farrell for the organising gift that has been given to the labour movement which will unite and gel around a vigorous defence of the public sector. What the O’Farrell Government needs to consider very deeply, is what quality do they want to have in the provision of services traditionally provided by the public sector? Now that the Government has got the public sector’s back up, they can hardly expect that public sector workers are going to put their noses to the grindstone and make it all happen for a Government that has made it clear that it does not value the public sector. But obviously the big stick that is going to be held by the O’Farrell Government over public sector workers and unions is, do what we say, or we will contract your work out to the private sector.
Jenny Haines
NSW government to reassure backers
Eric Johnston. smh
June 8, 2011
.
THE O'Farrell Liberal government will attempt to reassure New South Wales's biggest financial backers this month amid growing uncertainty about the scope of its infrastructure spending spree.
The meeting between Treasurer Mike Baird and the bond investors comes as the government pushes ahead with an $11.5 billion borrowing program over the next year, on the heels of last year's record $12 billion debt issue. Much of the latest funding issue is to roll over existing debt.
Figures from the state's financing arm, NSW Treasury Corp, revealed the state's debt is likely to balloon to as much as $80 billion within four years, up from about $60 billion.
Much of the increase is expected to come from increased investment by power generators. As well as raising funds from global and Australian investors to fund the budget, NSW Treasury Corp also raises funds on behalf of government enterprises such as EnergyAustralia and RailCorp.
With the O'Farrell government not scheduled to hand down its first budget until September, investors have expressed concerns about buying debt without knowing what its financial plans are.
This could push up the borrowing costs, particularly as problems with some debt-laden European governments are causing global credit jitters.
Economists have speculated that the government's infrastructure spending spree could see its borrowing program over the next year blow out by as much as $5 billion.
''There still remains a high level of uncertainty over the priorities for fiscal policy in the coming year in light of the clear mandate to increase infrastructure delivery at the March election,'' said ANZ's head of interest rate strategy, Tony Morriss.
The government has raised suggestions that it could call in the private sector to help fund its centrepiece project, the north-west rail link, which will cost about $8 billion. But its first step will be to thrash out with banks and finance houses ways of paying for it through a public-private partnership.
Last month the credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's reaffirmed NSW's AAA rating, saying the state was in a sound financial position.
Separately, the new head of the federal government's financing arm yesterday raised the prospect that the Commonwealth could become a big investor in bonds issued by state governments.
The chief executive of the Australian Office of Financial Management, Rob Nicholl, told an economics forum there was ''nothing to prevent us'' buying state bonds once the Commonwealth government started running budget surpluses. Such a move would make it easier for states with big funding needs to borrow.
UNIONS AT WAR WITH O'FARRELL GOVT
Unions declare war on Premier
Alexandra Smith, smh
June 13, 2011
.
Them's fighting words ... unions representing nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers are preparing to launch a campaign against Premier Barry O'Farrell's wage reforms.
THE national union movement has thrown its weight behind a campaign against Barry O'Farrell's plans to overhaul wages for public servants in NSW and plans a week of protests against the contentious bill.
Nurses, teachers and firefighters will be joined by unions from across the country in a rally outside Parliament House on Wednesday as they step up their campaign before the wages bill goes to a final vote in the lower house this week.
The bill states that wage rises of more than 2.5 per cent will be paid only after they are matched by employee-related savings. The Industrial Relations Commission will be stripped of its powers and will have to abide by the policy.
Advertisement: Story continues below Police were given an exemption from the policy after a deal was reached between the crossbench MPs, who hold the balance of power in the upper house, and the government but the unions have vowed to step up their opposition.
In a letter to Mr O'Farrell on Friday, the ACTU secretary, Jeff Lawrence, said the Premier had no mandate to introduce the changes, which Mr Lawrence described as a ''clear breach of international law''.
"Australian unions will campaign to make sure that all NSW working people and their families know that their rights at work are worth fighting for, and worth voting for," Mr Lawrence said.
He said the bill would remove the right to bargain or take industrial action to secure better wages.
''This would not only be unjust, but it would be a clear breach of international law and Australia's obligation to respect human rights, which include labour rights,'' Mr Lawrence's letter said.
The NSW Nurses Association has warned the government that it should brace itself for rolling statewide strikes after its members voted to start industrial action on Wednesday with a mass rally in Macquarie Street.
The secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Lennon, said unions would not stand by and watch the government's ''outright attack'' on the rights of workers and their families.
"This unfair attack will mean nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers will have the weakest workplace rights in the nation," he said.
"The ACTU's intervention shows the gravity of the situation. It's heartening to know that the entire Australian trade union movement is behind us as we take our campaign into the community.''
The Greens' industrial relations spokesman, David Shoebridge, said the proposed changes would put pressure on the federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, to state his position on workplace laws.
''This is a real test for Tony Abbott. Will he distance himself from the NSW Coalition's radical new IR laws or will he embrace them and risk having a fresh federal battle on industrial relations,'' Mr Shoebridge said.
''Despite all its flaws, even under Work Choices unions could approach the Commonwealth Industrial Relations Commission to set minimum entitlements without being threatened with a veto by the government.
''Under O'Farrell's new laws, all bets are off, and the government of the day will get the power to veto wage rises, and cut back on conditions, by simply issuing a regulation.''
A spokesman for Mr Abbott would not be drawn on the issue and said wages for public servants were an issue for Mr O'Farrell but the Premier should ''be supported in doing what he thinks is the best for NSW''.
When asked what Mr O'Farrell's plans meant for the federal Coalition, the spokesman said the opposition had not moved from its position that ''Work Choice was dead, buried and cremated''.
The government maintains it needs to rein in public sector wages and says the legislation will save taxpayers $1.96 billion over the next four years and still allow for fair wage rises if public servants can make more productivity savings.
Alexandra Smith, smh
June 13, 2011
.
Them's fighting words ... unions representing nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers are preparing to launch a campaign against Premier Barry O'Farrell's wage reforms.
THE national union movement has thrown its weight behind a campaign against Barry O'Farrell's plans to overhaul wages for public servants in NSW and plans a week of protests against the contentious bill.
Nurses, teachers and firefighters will be joined by unions from across the country in a rally outside Parliament House on Wednesday as they step up their campaign before the wages bill goes to a final vote in the lower house this week.
The bill states that wage rises of more than 2.5 per cent will be paid only after they are matched by employee-related savings. The Industrial Relations Commission will be stripped of its powers and will have to abide by the policy.
Advertisement: Story continues below Police were given an exemption from the policy after a deal was reached between the crossbench MPs, who hold the balance of power in the upper house, and the government but the unions have vowed to step up their opposition.
In a letter to Mr O'Farrell on Friday, the ACTU secretary, Jeff Lawrence, said the Premier had no mandate to introduce the changes, which Mr Lawrence described as a ''clear breach of international law''.
"Australian unions will campaign to make sure that all NSW working people and their families know that their rights at work are worth fighting for, and worth voting for," Mr Lawrence said.
He said the bill would remove the right to bargain or take industrial action to secure better wages.
''This would not only be unjust, but it would be a clear breach of international law and Australia's obligation to respect human rights, which include labour rights,'' Mr Lawrence's letter said.
The NSW Nurses Association has warned the government that it should brace itself for rolling statewide strikes after its members voted to start industrial action on Wednesday with a mass rally in Macquarie Street.
The secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Lennon, said unions would not stand by and watch the government's ''outright attack'' on the rights of workers and their families.
"This unfair attack will mean nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers will have the weakest workplace rights in the nation," he said.
"The ACTU's intervention shows the gravity of the situation. It's heartening to know that the entire Australian trade union movement is behind us as we take our campaign into the community.''
The Greens' industrial relations spokesman, David Shoebridge, said the proposed changes would put pressure on the federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, to state his position on workplace laws.
''This is a real test for Tony Abbott. Will he distance himself from the NSW Coalition's radical new IR laws or will he embrace them and risk having a fresh federal battle on industrial relations,'' Mr Shoebridge said.
''Despite all its flaws, even under Work Choices unions could approach the Commonwealth Industrial Relations Commission to set minimum entitlements without being threatened with a veto by the government.
''Under O'Farrell's new laws, all bets are off, and the government of the day will get the power to veto wage rises, and cut back on conditions, by simply issuing a regulation.''
A spokesman for Mr Abbott would not be drawn on the issue and said wages for public servants were an issue for Mr O'Farrell but the Premier should ''be supported in doing what he thinks is the best for NSW''.
When asked what Mr O'Farrell's plans meant for the federal Coalition, the spokesman said the opposition had not moved from its position that ''Work Choice was dead, buried and cremated''.
The government maintains it needs to rein in public sector wages and says the legislation will save taxpayers $1.96 billion over the next four years and still allow for fair wage rises if public servants can make more productivity savings.
Monday, June 06, 2011
UNIONS PLAN PROTEST
Unions plan protest rally against new salary cap
Anna Patty, Alexandra Smith
June 6, 2011
PUBLIC sector unions will step up their campaign today in protest against the state government's controversial wages policy, which will cap salary increases at 2.5 per cent.
Unions, including those representing 70,000 teachers, 36,000 nurses and 45,000 public sector workers, will meet today to plan a strategy against the wages policy, which Parliament is expected to pass next week.
The president of the Public Service Association, Sue Walsh, said she would propose staging a rally in opposition to the policy, which will require public sector workers to make savings before any salary increases above 2.5 per cent are awarded.
Advertisement: Story continues below ''There is no doubt in my mind we will step things up and there will be a huge protest against the O'Farrell government,'' Ms Walsh said.
The associaton, which has 45,000 members, has a wage case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Ms Walsh said she expected this would have resulted in an increase of 3.5 to 4 per cent.
The NSW Nurses Association, which has 35,000 members in public hospitals and 1200 in disability services, is also negotiating an increase in penalty rates for night staff. Nurses who work in disability services and aged care will also negotiate a new award this month.
They had expected to achieve the 3.9 per cent already awarded to public hospital nurses this financial year as part of a three-year agreement. The agreement will deliver 3 per cent from July and 2.5 per cent the following financial year.
The general secretary of the Nurses Association, Brett Holmes, said disability nurses faced getting a 2.5 per cent increase ''while their colleagues across the road in hospitals get 3 per cent at the end of this month''.
''We have this bizarre situation where police were able to lobby the Shooters and Christian Democrats, but we didn't get in to see them, so we are not going to have the same rights, it appears,'' Mr Homes said.
Police are the only public sector workers who have been exempted from the 2.5 per cent cap.
The Christian Democrats MP Fred Nile said he pushed the government for the exemption because the police had a wage case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Asked why he had not requested the same exemptions for disability nurses and the Public Service Association, he said they had not approached him.
The president of the Police Association, Scott Weber, said the crossbench MPs had listened to the concerns of police, but the association was not convinced it could take the government on its word.
''Before the election, Barry O'Farrell said we would retain our right to an independent umpire. But less than two months after the election, he tried to take it away,'' Mr Weber said. ''How can we trust this government again?''
The government released a statement on Saturday that said the wages bill had passed the Legislative Council, but a spokesman for Mr O'Farrell yesterday conceded this was premature.
The spokesman said the bill would need to return to the upper house for the third reading on June 14 and would then go to a vote in the lower house before it becomes law.
Anna Patty, Alexandra Smith
June 6, 2011
PUBLIC sector unions will step up their campaign today in protest against the state government's controversial wages policy, which will cap salary increases at 2.5 per cent.
Unions, including those representing 70,000 teachers, 36,000 nurses and 45,000 public sector workers, will meet today to plan a strategy against the wages policy, which Parliament is expected to pass next week.
The president of the Public Service Association, Sue Walsh, said she would propose staging a rally in opposition to the policy, which will require public sector workers to make savings before any salary increases above 2.5 per cent are awarded.
Advertisement: Story continues below ''There is no doubt in my mind we will step things up and there will be a huge protest against the O'Farrell government,'' Ms Walsh said.
The associaton, which has 45,000 members, has a wage case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Ms Walsh said she expected this would have resulted in an increase of 3.5 to 4 per cent.
The NSW Nurses Association, which has 35,000 members in public hospitals and 1200 in disability services, is also negotiating an increase in penalty rates for night staff. Nurses who work in disability services and aged care will also negotiate a new award this month.
They had expected to achieve the 3.9 per cent already awarded to public hospital nurses this financial year as part of a three-year agreement. The agreement will deliver 3 per cent from July and 2.5 per cent the following financial year.
The general secretary of the Nurses Association, Brett Holmes, said disability nurses faced getting a 2.5 per cent increase ''while their colleagues across the road in hospitals get 3 per cent at the end of this month''.
''We have this bizarre situation where police were able to lobby the Shooters and Christian Democrats, but we didn't get in to see them, so we are not going to have the same rights, it appears,'' Mr Homes said.
Police are the only public sector workers who have been exempted from the 2.5 per cent cap.
The Christian Democrats MP Fred Nile said he pushed the government for the exemption because the police had a wage case before the Industrial Relations Commission. Asked why he had not requested the same exemptions for disability nurses and the Public Service Association, he said they had not approached him.
The president of the Police Association, Scott Weber, said the crossbench MPs had listened to the concerns of police, but the association was not convinced it could take the government on its word.
''Before the election, Barry O'Farrell said we would retain our right to an independent umpire. But less than two months after the election, he tried to take it away,'' Mr Weber said. ''How can we trust this government again?''
The government released a statement on Saturday that said the wages bill had passed the Legislative Council, but a spokesman for Mr O'Farrell yesterday conceded this was premature.
The spokesman said the bill would need to return to the upper house for the third reading on June 14 and would then go to a vote in the lower house before it becomes law.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
WORKCHOICES ALL OVER AGAIN
A policy Liberals love but dare not speak its name
Paul Howes From: The Sunday Telegraph June 05, 2011
AS the saying goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same. And last week, when it came to conservatives and industrial relations, that saying couldn't be more relevant.
First we had NSW's Barry O'Farrell introduce legislation that John Robertson rightly called "worse than WorkChoices" that goes further than even John Howard dared to - and there was not one whisper of it before the election.
Then we had the Liberal's federal workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz announce he would look at reviewing the Fair Work Act in 2012 - despite his own pre-election promise to the contrary.
And, finally, we had the usual suspects from the employer lobby make baseless claims about union "boogy men" and how Labor's IR system was the end of the world as they knew it.
Abetz was responding to yet another policy paper from the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The chamber, like many other employer lobby groups, blabbed on about how hard it is for employers to be fair and reasonable under Labor's Fair Work legislation and tried to paint a picture of massive industrial unrest because of Labor's laws.
A day after they released their report, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their own quarterly update of industrial disputes, which showed workplace unrests had fallen to new record lows.
The ABS figures destroy the credibility of employer groups who claim the Fair Work system has given rise to some kind of industrial "anarchy".
Abetz, a man who never lets the facts get in the way of his own twisted ideology, still seized on the chamber's report to announce he will push for a full review of Fair Work in 2012.
That is strange considering the federal election isn't until 2013, but maybe it signals that for the first time the Coalition will be open and honest about its plans for industrial relations before an election.
Despite Tony Abbott's "dead, buried, cremated" promise on WorkChoices during the last election, the reality is the Coalition still wants to return to its beloved policy so the bosses hold all the cards.
And despite there being no mention of changing NSW's industrial relations system during this year's state election, Barry O'Farrell is still trying to ram his own personal version of WorkChoices through the state parliament.
We shouldn't be surprised about O'Farrell not mentioning his plans during the election campaign - after all, John Howard never mentioned WorkChoices during the 2004 federal election, yet he still claimed he had a mandate to introduce the hated legislation less than 12 months later.
Some people may say that such tactics are no different to those used by Julia Gillard over the carbon pollution scheme. But of course, these people are wrong.
There's a big difference between re-negotiating pre-election policy positions in a minority government, as the prime minister has done, to whacking stuff through just because you have a record majority, as O'Farrell has done.
It's the same folly that brought Howard unstuck when he used his Senate majority to push through WorkChoices after the disastrous "Latham election".
I'll give them one thing - these Liberals are as brave as they are silly. Nobody could accuse them of learning from their past mistakes.
Towards the end of last week, Labor and the Greens launched a valiant effort to defeat NSW WorkChoices. MPs warned of the Bill's dangers and how it will rip away the hard-won rights of the state's frontline public servants.
The new laws will deny workers rights "guaranteed" under international law, such as the right to freely bargain and collectively organise. It attacks police officers, nurses, and teachers. O'Farrell thinks they're all overpaid.
But, as we have seen this week, you just can't trust the Liberals when it comes to protecting industrial rights.
Whether they are in Canberra or Macquarie St, WorkChoices is ingrained deep in the DNA and psyche of every Liberal MP.
It's the love that dare not speak its name. It's their very reason for being.
There's a real sense of dejavu in politics at the moment. It feels like 2004 and the "Your Rights At Work" campaign all over again.
But then, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union
Paul Howes From: The Sunday Telegraph June 05, 2011
AS the saying goes: the more things change, the more they stay the same. And last week, when it came to conservatives and industrial relations, that saying couldn't be more relevant.
First we had NSW's Barry O'Farrell introduce legislation that John Robertson rightly called "worse than WorkChoices" that goes further than even John Howard dared to - and there was not one whisper of it before the election.
Then we had the Liberal's federal workplace relations spokesman Eric Abetz announce he would look at reviewing the Fair Work Act in 2012 - despite his own pre-election promise to the contrary.
And, finally, we had the usual suspects from the employer lobby make baseless claims about union "boogy men" and how Labor's IR system was the end of the world as they knew it.
Abetz was responding to yet another policy paper from the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The chamber, like many other employer lobby groups, blabbed on about how hard it is for employers to be fair and reasonable under Labor's Fair Work legislation and tried to paint a picture of massive industrial unrest because of Labor's laws.
A day after they released their report, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released their own quarterly update of industrial disputes, which showed workplace unrests had fallen to new record lows.
The ABS figures destroy the credibility of employer groups who claim the Fair Work system has given rise to some kind of industrial "anarchy".
Abetz, a man who never lets the facts get in the way of his own twisted ideology, still seized on the chamber's report to announce he will push for a full review of Fair Work in 2012.
That is strange considering the federal election isn't until 2013, but maybe it signals that for the first time the Coalition will be open and honest about its plans for industrial relations before an election.
Despite Tony Abbott's "dead, buried, cremated" promise on WorkChoices during the last election, the reality is the Coalition still wants to return to its beloved policy so the bosses hold all the cards.
And despite there being no mention of changing NSW's industrial relations system during this year's state election, Barry O'Farrell is still trying to ram his own personal version of WorkChoices through the state parliament.
We shouldn't be surprised about O'Farrell not mentioning his plans during the election campaign - after all, John Howard never mentioned WorkChoices during the 2004 federal election, yet he still claimed he had a mandate to introduce the hated legislation less than 12 months later.
Some people may say that such tactics are no different to those used by Julia Gillard over the carbon pollution scheme. But of course, these people are wrong.
There's a big difference between re-negotiating pre-election policy positions in a minority government, as the prime minister has done, to whacking stuff through just because you have a record majority, as O'Farrell has done.
It's the same folly that brought Howard unstuck when he used his Senate majority to push through WorkChoices after the disastrous "Latham election".
I'll give them one thing - these Liberals are as brave as they are silly. Nobody could accuse them of learning from their past mistakes.
Towards the end of last week, Labor and the Greens launched a valiant effort to defeat NSW WorkChoices. MPs warned of the Bill's dangers and how it will rip away the hard-won rights of the state's frontline public servants.
The new laws will deny workers rights "guaranteed" under international law, such as the right to freely bargain and collectively organise. It attacks police officers, nurses, and teachers. O'Farrell thinks they're all overpaid.
But, as we have seen this week, you just can't trust the Liberals when it comes to protecting industrial rights.
Whether they are in Canberra or Macquarie St, WorkChoices is ingrained deep in the DNA and psyche of every Liberal MP.
It's the love that dare not speak its name. It's their very reason for being.
There's a real sense of dejavu in politics at the moment. It feels like 2004 and the "Your Rights At Work" campaign all over again.
But then, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union
MY TRIBUTE TO BOB GOULD
Red News Readers,
This is my Tribute to Bob Gould, read at his Funeral on Thursday 26th May 2011. For further Obituaries and Tributes, go to the Ozleft Website.
Jenny Haines
TRIBUTE TO BOB by Jenny Haines
BOB’S FUNERAL – 26.5.11
Thank you all for coming today. Bob would have been really pleased to see friends and foes, Labor, Green and Far Left supporters all in the same room and he would have been trying to figure in his head how it could all be turned in to a political force and not just a gathering at his funeral. One thing he wanted to see in his lifetime was a resurgence of the Left and he could only see it ever happening through supporters of all the parties and groups putting aside their differences and working on the commonalities.
You could go through the dictionary and the thesaurus pulling out adjectives to describe Bob. He was an Australian of Irish Catholic origin and very proud of his heritage, but he never drank beer, smoked cigarettes or went to the footy. Bob’s achievements were of the mind and the brain and the heart. One of his old school mates once told me that they tried to have him play footy at St Pat’s but he was so poorly co-ordinated they had to sit him on the sidelines where he read books, voraciously. Bob had a fierce intellect. He was reading the works of major Catholic intellectuals in his teens, then, as he moved past his faith into political beliefs, he moved into reading Marx and Lenin and Trotsky. Old compatriots of Bob who ended up in other factions of the ALP remember Bob coming to meetings of Young Labor in his school uniform and even then impressing many with his idealism and his commitment.
Bob had many friends and many alliances some of which lasted, some did not. He was an idealist in a post-idealistic world, particularly in his later life. We need more idealists. Bob worked in partnership with Jim and John Percy in setting up the Third World Bookshop in the City, an enterprise that had a stormy relationship with the law over censorship. I remember telling an art historian when I was travelling in Europe in 1987 that the police had raided a store in Sydney in the 1960s and taken away a picture of Michaelangelo’s David as being pornographic. She was stunned with disbelief.
The partnership with the Percys fell apart and Bob went on to take over the book business, building it into an empire. He opened 12 shops and closed 11. On paper at some stage he may have been a millionaire but he never had the cash flow of a millionaire, and in more recent times struggled against the perils of the Global Financial Crisis. Bob put his money where his mouth was, much to the chagrin of his family and friends. But there are thousands of workers and trade unionists across Australia who owe Bob a debt of gratitude for the wise counsel and political experience he gave to rank and file trade union campaigns and party members. A number of those trade union campaigns were successful in obtaining office in a union. One of the campaigns that he was most proud to be associated with was the campaign run by the rank and file in the wharfies union to save the building from being sold for a song to redevelopers, saving union members millions of dollars. He was also proud to be associated with the campaign run by the Nurses Association in the 1980s in opposition to the cuts to mental health funding proposed in the Richmond Report. This was a campaign that the union ran among its members and took to the floor of the NSW ALP State Conference, achieving significant changes to the original proposals with a significantly better funding base than first proposed.
But his greatest effort and greatest achievement was the Vietnam Action Campaign. Mairi Petersen his then wife can tell you stories of their house being turned into a mailing centre. There was no internet then. His role as Secretary of the Vietnam Action Committee, challenging the Communist Party and its friendly organisations, was central to the campaign against the Vietnam War in Sydney. Bob and Wayne Haylen and others, led some of the first sit downs in the streets against the war that gave inspiration to thousands of others later to march against the war. Bob always said that one of the proudest days of his life was the day the North Vietnamese took over Saigon. But Bob had a heart and when the South Vietnamese took to rickety boats to get out of South Vietnam, he welcomed them coming to Australia against the protestations of many in the Labor Party. Some may see that as contradictory, but that was Bob, full of contradictions! And he understood his contradictions and could explain them. He knew that life is full of contradictions that can tear us apart or make us better human beings if we understand them.
I first met Bob at a rank and file conference in 1980. He did not impress me much at first, but when he and his then compatriot Paul Ford talked about scientific socialism, it sparked my interest. I went to some of his Sunday afternoon meetings in the George Street Shop where he and George Petersen talked passionately about labor history. Bob and I became close friends and have stayed close friends to this day. Economic rationalism was becoming popular with governments and we set up the Defeat the Health Cuts Campaign, a Labor Party rank and file campaign . This led to nurses, disgusted with the lack of leadership by their union on the health cuts, and award changes, setting up the Nurses Reform Campaign. The Nurses Reform Campaign were successful in the 1982 elections. I was elected Secretary of the Union and Bronwyn Ridgway Assistant Secretary. We stayed in office for five turbulent years, and although we did not achieve all we set out to achieve, those years and the subsequent years I spent as a Delegate in the Nurses Association, candidate in elections, along with the commitment of many, many nurses who were polticised by the events, were important in building the Nurses Union into the leading force that it has become. We could not have done any of it without Bob’s inspiration, and Janet Bonser’s typesetting skills. What we learned from our experience is that unions, like parliaments, need a government and an opposition to thrive. Bland boring consensus kills unions. My old friend Terry Muldoon, now deceased, once told me that after I left office in the union, that my successor Pat Staunton once told NSW Health that they may have thought they had trouble with the Nurses Reform leadership, but she was going to give them hell if they did not concede what she wanted. And if they wanted the Nurses Reform leadership back she could arrange that! They conceded. Good cop, bad cop, and that is what unions need to negotiate effectively.
In his later years Bob wrote as well as read voraciously. He and Ed Lewis set up a website, Ozleft, which is an online record of Bob’s writings. He never did get to write his autobiography that we urged him to write but his online work on Ozleft is a wonderful collection of his writings on politics, society and religion. Ed Lewis his partner in setting up Ozleft, has , in the last couple of days opened some pages on Ozleft where anyone who wishes can place tributes or obituaries. Just Google Ozleft and it will readily come up if you wish to contribute.
I will miss him. We had an unusual life, spending time together mostly in the mornings and then he went to work in the shop and I went to work in nursing and now at the university. When we ate together I could look up and he would have discarded the Murdoch media with disgust, and could be reading anything from medieval history to engineering books to sci-fi novels. One of the signs of his declining health in recent weeks was he stopped reading and just sat with the newspaper. We travelled together, mostly to book fairs where we bought the books that stock the shop, but we tried to take diversions and have a bit of time just away from the city. The 60s and 70s were Bob’s time and he felt brushed aside and forgotten in more recent years, one of the curses of growing older.
I could go on and on but I just want to read a poem that I heard read a couple of years ago and it stopped me in my tracks as it reflected what I thought I would save to say at Bob’s Funeral, whenever it was to be. I had hoped there would be more years of his life before I had to read this , but that was not to be
WH Auden Twelve Songs, National Poetry Day, 7.9.99
Stop all the clocks
Cut off the telephone
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin let the mourners come
Let the aeroplane circle moaning overhead, scribbling on the sky
He is dead.
Put great bows around the white necks of the public doves
Let the traffic policeman wear black cotton gloves
He was my north, my south, my east, my west
My working week and my Sunday rest
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song
I thought that love would last forever
I was wrong.
The stars are not wanted now – put out every one
Pack up the moon, dismantle the sun
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood
For nothing now can ever come to any good
This is my Tribute to Bob Gould, read at his Funeral on Thursday 26th May 2011. For further Obituaries and Tributes, go to the Ozleft Website.
Jenny Haines
TRIBUTE TO BOB by Jenny Haines
BOB’S FUNERAL – 26.5.11
Thank you all for coming today. Bob would have been really pleased to see friends and foes, Labor, Green and Far Left supporters all in the same room and he would have been trying to figure in his head how it could all be turned in to a political force and not just a gathering at his funeral. One thing he wanted to see in his lifetime was a resurgence of the Left and he could only see it ever happening through supporters of all the parties and groups putting aside their differences and working on the commonalities.
You could go through the dictionary and the thesaurus pulling out adjectives to describe Bob. He was an Australian of Irish Catholic origin and very proud of his heritage, but he never drank beer, smoked cigarettes or went to the footy. Bob’s achievements were of the mind and the brain and the heart. One of his old school mates once told me that they tried to have him play footy at St Pat’s but he was so poorly co-ordinated they had to sit him on the sidelines where he read books, voraciously. Bob had a fierce intellect. He was reading the works of major Catholic intellectuals in his teens, then, as he moved past his faith into political beliefs, he moved into reading Marx and Lenin and Trotsky. Old compatriots of Bob who ended up in other factions of the ALP remember Bob coming to meetings of Young Labor in his school uniform and even then impressing many with his idealism and his commitment.
Bob had many friends and many alliances some of which lasted, some did not. He was an idealist in a post-idealistic world, particularly in his later life. We need more idealists. Bob worked in partnership with Jim and John Percy in setting up the Third World Bookshop in the City, an enterprise that had a stormy relationship with the law over censorship. I remember telling an art historian when I was travelling in Europe in 1987 that the police had raided a store in Sydney in the 1960s and taken away a picture of Michaelangelo’s David as being pornographic. She was stunned with disbelief.
The partnership with the Percys fell apart and Bob went on to take over the book business, building it into an empire. He opened 12 shops and closed 11. On paper at some stage he may have been a millionaire but he never had the cash flow of a millionaire, and in more recent times struggled against the perils of the Global Financial Crisis. Bob put his money where his mouth was, much to the chagrin of his family and friends. But there are thousands of workers and trade unionists across Australia who owe Bob a debt of gratitude for the wise counsel and political experience he gave to rank and file trade union campaigns and party members. A number of those trade union campaigns were successful in obtaining office in a union. One of the campaigns that he was most proud to be associated with was the campaign run by the rank and file in the wharfies union to save the building from being sold for a song to redevelopers, saving union members millions of dollars. He was also proud to be associated with the campaign run by the Nurses Association in the 1980s in opposition to the cuts to mental health funding proposed in the Richmond Report. This was a campaign that the union ran among its members and took to the floor of the NSW ALP State Conference, achieving significant changes to the original proposals with a significantly better funding base than first proposed.
But his greatest effort and greatest achievement was the Vietnam Action Campaign. Mairi Petersen his then wife can tell you stories of their house being turned into a mailing centre. There was no internet then. His role as Secretary of the Vietnam Action Committee, challenging the Communist Party and its friendly organisations, was central to the campaign against the Vietnam War in Sydney. Bob and Wayne Haylen and others, led some of the first sit downs in the streets against the war that gave inspiration to thousands of others later to march against the war. Bob always said that one of the proudest days of his life was the day the North Vietnamese took over Saigon. But Bob had a heart and when the South Vietnamese took to rickety boats to get out of South Vietnam, he welcomed them coming to Australia against the protestations of many in the Labor Party. Some may see that as contradictory, but that was Bob, full of contradictions! And he understood his contradictions and could explain them. He knew that life is full of contradictions that can tear us apart or make us better human beings if we understand them.
I first met Bob at a rank and file conference in 1980. He did not impress me much at first, but when he and his then compatriot Paul Ford talked about scientific socialism, it sparked my interest. I went to some of his Sunday afternoon meetings in the George Street Shop where he and George Petersen talked passionately about labor history. Bob and I became close friends and have stayed close friends to this day. Economic rationalism was becoming popular with governments and we set up the Defeat the Health Cuts Campaign, a Labor Party rank and file campaign . This led to nurses, disgusted with the lack of leadership by their union on the health cuts, and award changes, setting up the Nurses Reform Campaign. The Nurses Reform Campaign were successful in the 1982 elections. I was elected Secretary of the Union and Bronwyn Ridgway Assistant Secretary. We stayed in office for five turbulent years, and although we did not achieve all we set out to achieve, those years and the subsequent years I spent as a Delegate in the Nurses Association, candidate in elections, along with the commitment of many, many nurses who were polticised by the events, were important in building the Nurses Union into the leading force that it has become. We could not have done any of it without Bob’s inspiration, and Janet Bonser’s typesetting skills. What we learned from our experience is that unions, like parliaments, need a government and an opposition to thrive. Bland boring consensus kills unions. My old friend Terry Muldoon, now deceased, once told me that after I left office in the union, that my successor Pat Staunton once told NSW Health that they may have thought they had trouble with the Nurses Reform leadership, but she was going to give them hell if they did not concede what she wanted. And if they wanted the Nurses Reform leadership back she could arrange that! They conceded. Good cop, bad cop, and that is what unions need to negotiate effectively.
In his later years Bob wrote as well as read voraciously. He and Ed Lewis set up a website, Ozleft, which is an online record of Bob’s writings. He never did get to write his autobiography that we urged him to write but his online work on Ozleft is a wonderful collection of his writings on politics, society and religion. Ed Lewis his partner in setting up Ozleft, has , in the last couple of days opened some pages on Ozleft where anyone who wishes can place tributes or obituaries. Just Google Ozleft and it will readily come up if you wish to contribute.
I will miss him. We had an unusual life, spending time together mostly in the mornings and then he went to work in the shop and I went to work in nursing and now at the university. When we ate together I could look up and he would have discarded the Murdoch media with disgust, and could be reading anything from medieval history to engineering books to sci-fi novels. One of the signs of his declining health in recent weeks was he stopped reading and just sat with the newspaper. We travelled together, mostly to book fairs where we bought the books that stock the shop, but we tried to take diversions and have a bit of time just away from the city. The 60s and 70s were Bob’s time and he felt brushed aside and forgotten in more recent years, one of the curses of growing older.
I could go on and on but I just want to read a poem that I heard read a couple of years ago and it stopped me in my tracks as it reflected what I thought I would save to say at Bob’s Funeral, whenever it was to be. I had hoped there would be more years of his life before I had to read this , but that was not to be
WH Auden Twelve Songs, National Poetry Day, 7.9.99
Stop all the clocks
Cut off the telephone
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin let the mourners come
Let the aeroplane circle moaning overhead, scribbling on the sky
He is dead.
Put great bows around the white necks of the public doves
Let the traffic policeman wear black cotton gloves
He was my north, my south, my east, my west
My working week and my Sunday rest
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song
I thought that love would last forever
I was wrong.
The stars are not wanted now – put out every one
Pack up the moon, dismantle the sun
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood
For nothing now can ever come to any good
HISTORIC LOSS FOR UNIONS
Red News Readers,
I started this blog as a means to convey information against the Howard Government's Workchoices. This blog hasn't been as active as it should have been due to my busy life, but it now looks like there is another campaign building against O'Farrell's Workchoices, and this blog is going to need to be revived. This loss for the unions is only the first round, but now the struggle begins for public sector wage justice in NSW.
Jenny Haines
Historic loss for unions
Alicia Wood, smh.
June 5, 2011
.
BARRY O'FARRELL delivered a historic blow to the union movement yesterday, as the upper house all but passed controversial industrial relations changes that have been likened to Work Choices.
The legislation will come before the Legislative Council again next week, for a final read, before it moves to the lower house.
The Premier said the changes would save NSW about $2 billion.
The move came about after the Minister for Roads, Duncan Gay, invoked an obscure rule, last used in 1906, to torpedo debate on the legislation, which had already run for 29 hours.
Under the government's changes, public sector workers would have their wage rises capped at 2.5 per cent. Higher increases would have to be matched by savings.
The bill removes the Industrial Relations Commission's power to set public sector wages and hands it to the government.
Unions NSW and the opposition called it ''worse than Work Choices'' and said the government should have gone to the election with the policy.
Labor said the legislation would prove the government's undoing. ''The revival of NSW Labor will stem from this legislation passed today … We won't be the lazy, pea-hearted opposition you were for 16 years,'' Labor MP Luke Foley screamed.
The Opposition Leader, John Robertson, said he would speak to workers this week to explain the implications and encourage them to put pressure on their local MPs.
''Workers have fought for more than a century to secure the wages and conditions they have today in our schools and hospitals, our fire stations and other public sector workplaces,'' he said. ''What's taken 100 years to achieve has been overturned by the Premier in a single day.''
The government insisted it was merely implementing a policy devised by the Labor Party.
Unions were furious last night and had begun plotting a campaign of marches and stop-work meetings. ''Everything is on the table right now,'' a source said. ''The level of anger is intense.''
Mr Gay said he ended the three-day filibuster because Labor and Greens MPs were being ''juvenile''.
''I took a historic step, one that I thought long and hard about … they were playing university politics games,'' Mr Gay said.
''We're not shutting them down; we're giving them a chance to analyse the legislation, rather than having boys' and girls' games with who can speak the longest.''
He rejected claims that his move amounted to the last government's proroguing of Parliament to avoid scrutiny into the electricity sale.
Greens MPs David Shoebridge and John Kaye each spoke for almost six hours on the reforms. Five opposition MPs clocked a total of 13 hours.
Mr Gay said the bill was not complex enough to warrant the amount of debate, which began on Thursday. In a move that further provoked furore, the government locked MPs in until the bill was passed.
This led to a stream of formal questions by opposition MPs about when they would go to the toilet, how they would take medication, and what would happen if a fire alarm went off.
The marathon three-day sitting of the Legislative Council tested the patience and stamina of MPs, many of whom slept in their offices on Thursday and Friday nights. The strain was evident, with members on both sides of the chamber trading personal insults.
Labor's Mick Veitch made an emotional appeal to his colleagues, and cried when he said: ''I've been troubled by where we are.''
The Nationals' Melinda Pavey flew her daughter Emily, 8, down from Coffs Harbour on Friday evening when she realised she would not get home for the weekend. Emily slept in her office until after 11pm on Friday night, when debate was suspended.
I started this blog as a means to convey information against the Howard Government's Workchoices. This blog hasn't been as active as it should have been due to my busy life, but it now looks like there is another campaign building against O'Farrell's Workchoices, and this blog is going to need to be revived. This loss for the unions is only the first round, but now the struggle begins for public sector wage justice in NSW.
Jenny Haines
Historic loss for unions
Alicia Wood, smh.
June 5, 2011
.
BARRY O'FARRELL delivered a historic blow to the union movement yesterday, as the upper house all but passed controversial industrial relations changes that have been likened to Work Choices.
The legislation will come before the Legislative Council again next week, for a final read, before it moves to the lower house.
The Premier said the changes would save NSW about $2 billion.
The move came about after the Minister for Roads, Duncan Gay, invoked an obscure rule, last used in 1906, to torpedo debate on the legislation, which had already run for 29 hours.
Under the government's changes, public sector workers would have their wage rises capped at 2.5 per cent. Higher increases would have to be matched by savings.
The bill removes the Industrial Relations Commission's power to set public sector wages and hands it to the government.
Unions NSW and the opposition called it ''worse than Work Choices'' and said the government should have gone to the election with the policy.
Labor said the legislation would prove the government's undoing. ''The revival of NSW Labor will stem from this legislation passed today … We won't be the lazy, pea-hearted opposition you were for 16 years,'' Labor MP Luke Foley screamed.
The Opposition Leader, John Robertson, said he would speak to workers this week to explain the implications and encourage them to put pressure on their local MPs.
''Workers have fought for more than a century to secure the wages and conditions they have today in our schools and hospitals, our fire stations and other public sector workplaces,'' he said. ''What's taken 100 years to achieve has been overturned by the Premier in a single day.''
The government insisted it was merely implementing a policy devised by the Labor Party.
Unions were furious last night and had begun plotting a campaign of marches and stop-work meetings. ''Everything is on the table right now,'' a source said. ''The level of anger is intense.''
Mr Gay said he ended the three-day filibuster because Labor and Greens MPs were being ''juvenile''.
''I took a historic step, one that I thought long and hard about … they were playing university politics games,'' Mr Gay said.
''We're not shutting them down; we're giving them a chance to analyse the legislation, rather than having boys' and girls' games with who can speak the longest.''
He rejected claims that his move amounted to the last government's proroguing of Parliament to avoid scrutiny into the electricity sale.
Greens MPs David Shoebridge and John Kaye each spoke for almost six hours on the reforms. Five opposition MPs clocked a total of 13 hours.
Mr Gay said the bill was not complex enough to warrant the amount of debate, which began on Thursday. In a move that further provoked furore, the government locked MPs in until the bill was passed.
This led to a stream of formal questions by opposition MPs about when they would go to the toilet, how they would take medication, and what would happen if a fire alarm went off.
The marathon three-day sitting of the Legislative Council tested the patience and stamina of MPs, many of whom slept in their offices on Thursday and Friday nights. The strain was evident, with members on both sides of the chamber trading personal insults.
Labor's Mick Veitch made an emotional appeal to his colleagues, and cried when he said: ''I've been troubled by where we are.''
The Nationals' Melinda Pavey flew her daughter Emily, 8, down from Coffs Harbour on Friday evening when she realised she would not get home for the weekend. Emily slept in her office until after 11pm on Friday night, when debate was suspended.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
REVIEW OF CONFESSIONS OF A FACELESS MAN
REVIEW OF CONFESSIONS OF A FACELESS MAN BY PAUL HOWES, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2010.
Paul Howes has come a long way in trade union politics in a relatively short time, from his teen years in the Democratic Socialist Party to National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, succeeding Bill Shorten after he went into Federal Parliament. In that time Paul’s politics have moved from the Far Left to the NSW Right, or at least one part of the NSW Right, and now the Victorian/ National Right.
Paul has become a national figure through his outspokenness on issues like more tolerance of refugees, and the rights of workers in the workplace, but it was his role in helping roll Kevin Rudd from the Prime Ministership and his assistance in installing Julia Gillard in the job that is the subject of Confessions of a Faceless Man. This book which Paul was Adlerised into writing by Louise Adler of Melbourne University Press, is a racy account of the 2010 Federal Election and the events immediately preceding the election. At times it has elements of a political thriller, though thankfully no one dies, not literally, but perhaps there are some political “deaths”. You may not like Paul’s right wing politics, and I don’t, but it is a witty account of the machinations behind the scene in that election, although I doubt that he tells us everything. Along the way he educates the reader on the role of the National Secretary of the AWU in national ALP politics and his union. He unashamedly advocates the role of the union in national politics, not forgetting its important work in protecting its members. At a time when there is so much union bashing, Paul’s honest advocacy on behalf of unions is a breath of fresh air.
Paul makes no secret of his dislike for Kevin Rudd and his style of government. He offers the reader his unvarnished and unapologetic explanation for being part of the coup against Rudd. He is frank with the reader about Rudd’s apparent role in the Federal Election although even he comes to respect some of Rudd’s actions in supporting the election of the Labor team over and above his personal hurt. Paul spares no words in his assessment of Mark Latham and his role in the Federal Election and records an amusing but scary conversation with Chris Minns, ALP National Assistant Secretary, about Latham “Mate”, Chris Minns says, “it wouldn’t surprise me if that guy is out there murdering backpackers on the weekend –he is completely unhinged.”
But it is his assessment of Tony Abbott that is spot on, and Paul, unlike many journalists during the campaign, reports full and frankly on his view of Tony Abbott. Paul draws out Abbott’s inconsistencies, his hypocrisies, and his conservative weirdness, several times questioning Abbott’s ability to be leader of a party, much less leader of the country, and his excitement and relief when Abbott is not given the support that he needs to take government by the Independents is palpable. Paul writes “And the thought of Abbott representing Australia overseas, accompanied by his joke of a Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious....Social policy, the environment, a republic, reconciliation, equality – all would take a back seat as an Abbott led government slowly but surely reshaped the country in the man’s own 1950s, white, monarchist image.” That’s about as close as Paul gets to setting out what he thinks should be the agenda for the Gillard Government, but if it is the agenda now, then they are not selling it all that well.
Paul is a young man in a hurry at the senior levels of the trade union movement. He writes a good read. I look forward to future accounts of his political life as it proceeds. I think there is a lot in his book that could be used to educate the current younger generation who are interested in labor politics and political science in this country.
Jenny Haines
Paul Howes has come a long way in trade union politics in a relatively short time, from his teen years in the Democratic Socialist Party to National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, succeeding Bill Shorten after he went into Federal Parliament. In that time Paul’s politics have moved from the Far Left to the NSW Right, or at least one part of the NSW Right, and now the Victorian/ National Right.
Paul has become a national figure through his outspokenness on issues like more tolerance of refugees, and the rights of workers in the workplace, but it was his role in helping roll Kevin Rudd from the Prime Ministership and his assistance in installing Julia Gillard in the job that is the subject of Confessions of a Faceless Man. This book which Paul was Adlerised into writing by Louise Adler of Melbourne University Press, is a racy account of the 2010 Federal Election and the events immediately preceding the election. At times it has elements of a political thriller, though thankfully no one dies, not literally, but perhaps there are some political “deaths”. You may not like Paul’s right wing politics, and I don’t, but it is a witty account of the machinations behind the scene in that election, although I doubt that he tells us everything. Along the way he educates the reader on the role of the National Secretary of the AWU in national ALP politics and his union. He unashamedly advocates the role of the union in national politics, not forgetting its important work in protecting its members. At a time when there is so much union bashing, Paul’s honest advocacy on behalf of unions is a breath of fresh air.
Paul makes no secret of his dislike for Kevin Rudd and his style of government. He offers the reader his unvarnished and unapologetic explanation for being part of the coup against Rudd. He is frank with the reader about Rudd’s apparent role in the Federal Election although even he comes to respect some of Rudd’s actions in supporting the election of the Labor team over and above his personal hurt. Paul spares no words in his assessment of Mark Latham and his role in the Federal Election and records an amusing but scary conversation with Chris Minns, ALP National Assistant Secretary, about Latham “Mate”, Chris Minns says, “it wouldn’t surprise me if that guy is out there murdering backpackers on the weekend –he is completely unhinged.”
But it is his assessment of Tony Abbott that is spot on, and Paul, unlike many journalists during the campaign, reports full and frankly on his view of Tony Abbott. Paul draws out Abbott’s inconsistencies, his hypocrisies, and his conservative weirdness, several times questioning Abbott’s ability to be leader of a party, much less leader of the country, and his excitement and relief when Abbott is not given the support that he needs to take government by the Independents is palpable. Paul writes “And the thought of Abbott representing Australia overseas, accompanied by his joke of a Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious....Social policy, the environment, a republic, reconciliation, equality – all would take a back seat as an Abbott led government slowly but surely reshaped the country in the man’s own 1950s, white, monarchist image.” That’s about as close as Paul gets to setting out what he thinks should be the agenda for the Gillard Government, but if it is the agenda now, then they are not selling it all that well.
Paul is a young man in a hurry at the senior levels of the trade union movement. He writes a good read. I look forward to future accounts of his political life as it proceeds. I think there is a lot in his book that could be used to educate the current younger generation who are interested in labor politics and political science in this country.
Jenny Haines
Monday, January 17, 2011
THE PRIVATISATION OF ELECTRICITY
As placed on a Crikey Blog, 17.1.11, by Jenny Haines.
As someone who was at the last State Conference of the Labor Party where delegates overwhelmingly voted against the privatisation of the State’s electricity assets based on the proposals that were then before the government, I am interested that there has been so little comment from the party and the trade unions on the sale process that has proceeded. It may be that they think this is the better option, as a least the power stations stay in State hands, and their employees remain State employees, at least for the first few years. But the Liberal National Coalition are a bunch of opportunists. Despite their position in opposition, Blind Freddy and his dog know that in government they would privatise the lot and deregulate the conditions of electricity system workers. I am constantly amazed that journalists and commentators let the Liberal National Coalition get away without being questioned closely on what they would do if they were in government. I disagree with the sale process that has happened. I think it is a mistake and one that we will live to regret. But the elelphant in the room needs addressing. The Liberal National Coalition are ideologically and practically committed to privatisation of everything not nailed down in NSW and if that means that workers get hurt, that is collateral damage for them. Voters in the coming State Election beware!
As someone who was at the last State Conference of the Labor Party where delegates overwhelmingly voted against the privatisation of the State’s electricity assets based on the proposals that were then before the government, I am interested that there has been so little comment from the party and the trade unions on the sale process that has proceeded. It may be that they think this is the better option, as a least the power stations stay in State hands, and their employees remain State employees, at least for the first few years. But the Liberal National Coalition are a bunch of opportunists. Despite their position in opposition, Blind Freddy and his dog know that in government they would privatise the lot and deregulate the conditions of electricity system workers. I am constantly amazed that journalists and commentators let the Liberal National Coalition get away without being questioned closely on what they would do if they were in government. I disagree with the sale process that has happened. I think it is a mistake and one that we will live to regret. But the elelphant in the room needs addressing. The Liberal National Coalition are ideologically and practically committed to privatisation of everything not nailed down in NSW and if that means that workers get hurt, that is collateral damage for them. Voters in the coming State Election beware!
Thursday, January 06, 2011
EXCELLENT LETTER - SUPPORT RATIOS!!
SMH, 6.1.11.
So many acute needs, not enough time
I am a registered nurse working in a state hospital.
Carmel Tebbutt's comments that using a nurse-to-patient ratio as a staffing tool would lack ''the flexibility that is often needed to staff a modern hospital'' made my blood boil (''Nurses shut hospital beds in last-ditch attempt to reinstate talks on staffing ratios'', January 5).
I have worked in many hospitals, private and public, over the years and experienced many different staffing tools. Any tool that states ''flexibility'' is one that can be manipulated to suit the management and is a great excuse for not recruiting new staff or increasing casual numbers at busy times of the year.
Many of my colleagues are suffering depression and anyone who works in a hospital knows the stresses are increasing. There used to be a cycle in the year where it was relatively quiet over the warm months and holidays and busier during winter months, so at least there were some easier times in the working year. This cycle seems to have gone and the acuity remains high all year round.
Nursing has always been a challenging job. It is not easy trying to decide a priority for your time some days when there are so many acute needs and there are increasing problems with patient aggression as mental health, drug and alcohol issues grow.
In my experience over 34 years, the only staffing tool that addresses the variable environment of the ward areas is a set ratio and the ''one-to-four" is the only acceptable way to meet increasing patient needs.
I feel guilty because my daughter has followed me into nursing and I would encourage her to look at a different career. She is already experiencing the frustrations of being short staffed. Many of our young nurses are leaving as it is just too hard.
Nurses are largely driven by their caring nature. It is becoming a common cry that we wish someone would care for us.
Catherine Butler Macmasters Beach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many acute needs, not enough time
I am a registered nurse working in a state hospital.
Carmel Tebbutt's comments that using a nurse-to-patient ratio as a staffing tool would lack ''the flexibility that is often needed to staff a modern hospital'' made my blood boil (''Nurses shut hospital beds in last-ditch attempt to reinstate talks on staffing ratios'', January 5).
I have worked in many hospitals, private and public, over the years and experienced many different staffing tools. Any tool that states ''flexibility'' is one that can be manipulated to suit the management and is a great excuse for not recruiting new staff or increasing casual numbers at busy times of the year.
Many of my colleagues are suffering depression and anyone who works in a hospital knows the stresses are increasing. There used to be a cycle in the year where it was relatively quiet over the warm months and holidays and busier during winter months, so at least there were some easier times in the working year. This cycle seems to have gone and the acuity remains high all year round.
Nursing has always been a challenging job. It is not easy trying to decide a priority for your time some days when there are so many acute needs and there are increasing problems with patient aggression as mental health, drug and alcohol issues grow.
In my experience over 34 years, the only staffing tool that addresses the variable environment of the ward areas is a set ratio and the ''one-to-four" is the only acceptable way to meet increasing patient needs.
I feel guilty because my daughter has followed me into nursing and I would encourage her to look at a different career. She is already experiencing the frustrations of being short staffed. Many of our young nurses are leaving as it is just too hard.
Nurses are largely driven by their caring nature. It is becoming a common cry that we wish someone would care for us.
Catherine Butler Macmasters Beach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NURSE DIES AFTER STABBING
Experience at issue, Letter published SMH today, 8.1.11.
The outcome of the inquiries into the fatal stabbing of a nurse at Bloomfield Hospital will be interesting reading (''Three inquiries into fatal hospital stabbing,'' January 7).
Of note here is that the deceased was an experienced nurse coming to the rescue of a new graduate. I wonder how much the new graduate knew about searching new patients? I wonder how much orientation she was given to the unit and its OH&S policies? I wonder what the staffing levels were like in the unit? With three inquiries under way, hopefully we will get some answers to these questions, because I suspect that these factors contributed to the situation.
Mental health nursing requires specialist knowledge. It is not something anyone can do. Shortages of qualified mental health nurses in recent years have left units reliant on younger and more inexperienced staff. In these circumstances there is a greater duty of care on the employer to ensure that these staff members are safe. It is not just a matter of covering the numbers on management staffing sheets. It is about people, and standards of care, and quality and safety, for patients and staff.
Jenny Haines Newtown
Yahoo 7 News, 6.1.11.
A nurse has died after an alleged stabbing at a hospital in central west NSW.
Police were called to the unit in Orange yesterday afternoon, where they found a 62-year-old male nurse with wounds to his chest and arms.
He was rushed to Orange Base Hospital in a critical but stable condition. He died this morning.
A 20-year-old female nurse was treated at the scene for lacerations to her hands and taken to Orange Base Hospital in a stable condition.
Police arrested a 33-year-old man at the scene and he is assisting officers with their investigation.
It is understood the incident happened at Bloomfield Hospital in Orange.
The outcome of the inquiries into the fatal stabbing of a nurse at Bloomfield Hospital will be interesting reading (''Three inquiries into fatal hospital stabbing,'' January 7).
Of note here is that the deceased was an experienced nurse coming to the rescue of a new graduate. I wonder how much the new graduate knew about searching new patients? I wonder how much orientation she was given to the unit and its OH&S policies? I wonder what the staffing levels were like in the unit? With three inquiries under way, hopefully we will get some answers to these questions, because I suspect that these factors contributed to the situation.
Mental health nursing requires specialist knowledge. It is not something anyone can do. Shortages of qualified mental health nurses in recent years have left units reliant on younger and more inexperienced staff. In these circumstances there is a greater duty of care on the employer to ensure that these staff members are safe. It is not just a matter of covering the numbers on management staffing sheets. It is about people, and standards of care, and quality and safety, for patients and staff.
Jenny Haines Newtown
Yahoo 7 News, 6.1.11.
A nurse has died after an alleged stabbing at a hospital in central west NSW.
Police were called to the unit in Orange yesterday afternoon, where they found a 62-year-old male nurse with wounds to his chest and arms.
He was rushed to Orange Base Hospital in a critical but stable condition. He died this morning.
A 20-year-old female nurse was treated at the scene for lacerations to her hands and taken to Orange Base Hospital in a stable condition.
Police arrested a 33-year-old man at the scene and he is assisting officers with their investigation.
It is understood the incident happened at Bloomfield Hospital in Orange.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
HOWES: HOW I WOULD FIX NSW
How I'd fix up our state
02 January 2011
AWU National Secretary Paul Howes' opinion piece written for The Sunday Telegraph on 02 January 2011
I am a big fan of Kristina Keneally. Always have been.
I liked her long before she became NSW Premier. I've always thought she has the attributes required for good leadership.
However, I'll admit that lately it's become difficult to be much enthused about the NSW Labor government.
And while I'm a strong proponent of the notion that the worst Labor government will always be better than the best Liberal government, my partisanship has taken a beating in recent times.
For even its most loyal supporters (such as myself) it's hard to say exactly what NSW Labor has going for it right now.
The party has accomplished much in the past, which is probably why the people of NSW have put State Labor into power for 52 of the past 70 years.
However, for the past couple of years NSW Labor's stocks have been low and the handling of the Gentrader electricity privatisation hasn't helped one bit. But, if the Government is serious about at least trying to be re-elected, it's time the Premier began outlining and, more importantly, implementing plans to improve NSW. And there's a lot left to do.
So if I were to compile a wish list of things that I'd like to see a Labor government do in the event of it being re-elected, it might look something like this:
1 Build a rapid public transport system for Sydney.
The city's present heavy rail system dates back to around 1850, before which carrier pigeons were still the best way to send a message across town.
So although it has served the community well, it's time for it to join the 21st century or, if that's too ambitious, time it at least caught up with the 20th century.
Labor did have ill-conceived plans for a metro system which was rightly scrapped, but it can still begin planning a proper, well-designed, rapid mass-transit system.
After all, a metro doesn't mean abandoning our current CityRail network; it can complement and enhance existing links. It needn't take forever. The Shanghai Metro was opened in 1995and now has 273 stations and moves more than seven million people daily.
2 Build the M4 East to link the M4 with the City West link.
This must be the most obvious thing for a Labor government to do.
Sydney would have to be one of the only international cities where there is no motorway linking its two major business centres (the CBD and Parramatta in Sydney).
Not only would this make sense, but it would also be a great piece of infrastructure servicing the city's western suburbs.
3 Link the F3 Freeway with the Gore Hill Freeway.
Surely it's about time we were able to drive from Newcastle and the Central Coast to the Sydney CBD on a motorway.
Having to hop off the F3 at Hornsby and struggle along the Pacific Highway to the Gore Hill Freeway provides yet another reminder of the many black holes in Sydney's infrastructure.
4 Build more light rail.
I've never been able to understand the hostility to light rail. It's cheap, effective, popular and quick.
You can literally build a light rail line in a matter of months.
Thankfully, Labor has begun extending the existing light rail network to Dulwich Hill from Lilyfield, but it should go further.
A line from Central up Anzac Parade to UNSW or even Maroubra would alleviate huge pressures on the roads in the eastern suburbs.
It could also go from Central to Circular Quay and even right up the middle of Parramatta Rd from Central to the Parramatta CBD.
A similar system has been achieved in Adelaide, so why not in Sydney?
5 Amalgamate the councils.
It amazes me that we still have micro-governments making major planning decisions which, if the outcome is wrong, can take decades to rectify.
Most other states have managed to reform their local government structures to create sustainable, well-resourced, professional councils that are able to engage in long-term decision-making. NSW is crying out for this type of reform.
6 Create an independent infrastructure authority to achieve growth in regional NSW.
Living in Sydney, it's easy to forget that NSW is a big place and that NSW doesn't stand for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.
But if we're going to take full advantage of the potential of regional NSW, we need to do more to encourage growth in the State's regions, much like Victoria has.
An independent planning body, similar to Infrastructure Australia and working in tandem with properly amalgamated councils, could see regional NSW really prosper.
7 Allow an inquiry into the sale of the electricity assets.
Several weeks ago, I wrote that I was unhappy with the way in which the State's electricity assets were being privatised.
Since then, my concerns have only increased. But if the Government has nothing to hide, and I'm sure it doesn't, there is nothing to stop it allowing the Upper House to investigate the sale. Of course, all this may well be too little, too late.
But with three months of this term of government still left to run, it may be time to show people what Labor can really do. After all, what has NSW Labor got left to lose?
02 January 2011
AWU National Secretary Paul Howes' opinion piece written for The Sunday Telegraph on 02 January 2011
I am a big fan of Kristina Keneally. Always have been.
I liked her long before she became NSW Premier. I've always thought she has the attributes required for good leadership.
However, I'll admit that lately it's become difficult to be much enthused about the NSW Labor government.
And while I'm a strong proponent of the notion that the worst Labor government will always be better than the best Liberal government, my partisanship has taken a beating in recent times.
For even its most loyal supporters (such as myself) it's hard to say exactly what NSW Labor has going for it right now.
The party has accomplished much in the past, which is probably why the people of NSW have put State Labor into power for 52 of the past 70 years.
However, for the past couple of years NSW Labor's stocks have been low and the handling of the Gentrader electricity privatisation hasn't helped one bit. But, if the Government is serious about at least trying to be re-elected, it's time the Premier began outlining and, more importantly, implementing plans to improve NSW. And there's a lot left to do.
So if I were to compile a wish list of things that I'd like to see a Labor government do in the event of it being re-elected, it might look something like this:
1 Build a rapid public transport system for Sydney.
The city's present heavy rail system dates back to around 1850, before which carrier pigeons were still the best way to send a message across town.
So although it has served the community well, it's time for it to join the 21st century or, if that's too ambitious, time it at least caught up with the 20th century.
Labor did have ill-conceived plans for a metro system which was rightly scrapped, but it can still begin planning a proper, well-designed, rapid mass-transit system.
After all, a metro doesn't mean abandoning our current CityRail network; it can complement and enhance existing links. It needn't take forever. The Shanghai Metro was opened in 1995and now has 273 stations and moves more than seven million people daily.
2 Build the M4 East to link the M4 with the City West link.
This must be the most obvious thing for a Labor government to do.
Sydney would have to be one of the only international cities where there is no motorway linking its two major business centres (the CBD and Parramatta in Sydney).
Not only would this make sense, but it would also be a great piece of infrastructure servicing the city's western suburbs.
3 Link the F3 Freeway with the Gore Hill Freeway.
Surely it's about time we were able to drive from Newcastle and the Central Coast to the Sydney CBD on a motorway.
Having to hop off the F3 at Hornsby and struggle along the Pacific Highway to the Gore Hill Freeway provides yet another reminder of the many black holes in Sydney's infrastructure.
4 Build more light rail.
I've never been able to understand the hostility to light rail. It's cheap, effective, popular and quick.
You can literally build a light rail line in a matter of months.
Thankfully, Labor has begun extending the existing light rail network to Dulwich Hill from Lilyfield, but it should go further.
A line from Central up Anzac Parade to UNSW or even Maroubra would alleviate huge pressures on the roads in the eastern suburbs.
It could also go from Central to Circular Quay and even right up the middle of Parramatta Rd from Central to the Parramatta CBD.
A similar system has been achieved in Adelaide, so why not in Sydney?
5 Amalgamate the councils.
It amazes me that we still have micro-governments making major planning decisions which, if the outcome is wrong, can take decades to rectify.
Most other states have managed to reform their local government structures to create sustainable, well-resourced, professional councils that are able to engage in long-term decision-making. NSW is crying out for this type of reform.
6 Create an independent infrastructure authority to achieve growth in regional NSW.
Living in Sydney, it's easy to forget that NSW is a big place and that NSW doesn't stand for Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.
But if we're going to take full advantage of the potential of regional NSW, we need to do more to encourage growth in the State's regions, much like Victoria has.
An independent planning body, similar to Infrastructure Australia and working in tandem with properly amalgamated councils, could see regional NSW really prosper.
7 Allow an inquiry into the sale of the electricity assets.
Several weeks ago, I wrote that I was unhappy with the way in which the State's electricity assets were being privatised.
Since then, my concerns have only increased. But if the Government has nothing to hide, and I'm sure it doesn't, there is nothing to stop it allowing the Upper House to investigate the sale. Of course, all this may well be too little, too late.
But with three months of this term of government still left to run, it may be time to show people what Labor can really do. After all, what has NSW Labor got left to lose?
Sunday, December 26, 2010
LIBERALS ON DISMISSALS
Tony Abbott's famous phrase, that WorkChoices was dead, buried and cremated may need a new coda according to this piece in The Age ...
Fire at will: Liberals flirt with no-fault sacking
Date: December 26 2010
Josh Gordon, The Age
SENIOR Liberals are ramping up a push for an industrial relations overhaul - including a no-fault dismissal system to end arbitration that decides the fairness of sackings.
Despite Tony Abbott's declaration that WorkChoices is ''dead, buried and cremated'', the Coalition's post-election policy review is working on an industrial relations policy to take to the next election to replace Labor's Fair Work system.
One plan is to replace unfair dismissal laws - blamed for discouraging small business employment - with a radical system modelled on the concept of no-fault divorce that replaced the antiquated Matrimonial Causes Act in 1975.
The idea has been floated by industrial relations consultant Grace Collier in a paper to be published next month in the IPA Review, the journal of the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
''Our current unfair dismissal system encourages Australians to behave like greedy whingers,'' Ms Collier writes. ''A no-fault dismissal system would set our heads right on the issue and provide for dignity of exit, allowing people to focus not on legal conflict but on managing departure in the chosen way whilst being encouraged to embrace the future opportunities that are always just around the corner.''
Under the proposal, being cautiously supported by influential Liberals, employers could sack workers with impunity, provided they offer compensation including a reasonable paid notice period, an assistance package and job transition services.
Ms Collier, a former unionist who now advises the hardline-conservative H.R. Nicholls Society, said a no-fault dismissal system would remove the need for costly legal argument to determine the fairness of a case, or whether it represented a redundancy or a dismissal.
Labor's new Fair Work system, which broadened unfair dismissal laws, triggered a 63 per cent increase in unfair dismissal applications in its first year, the paper says. ''Every working day, regardless of fairness, truth or the merits of their case, Australia employers collectively pay somewhere between $80,598.50 and $127,804.77 in 'go away money' simply to avoid government arbitration,'' it says. ''Is this a new tax on business and is anyone - other than employment lawyers - winning?''
Mr Abbott has been reluctant to revisit the industrial relations debate amid concerns it would be linked to WorkChoices, the Coalition policy that contributed to former prime minister John Howard's 2007 election demise. During the election campaign, Mr Abbott promised not to touch Labor's industrial laws for at least one term if he won.
But opposition industrial relations spokesman Eric Abetz, a recent guest at the H.R. Nicholls Society's annual dinner, in Melbourne, told The Sunday Age that although he did not want to comment on the merits of the proposal, ''it is a concept I would be willing to look at''.
Backbencher Liberals Stephen Ciobo and Jamie Briggs and frontbenchers Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb have also made comments in recent weeks suggesting a need for the party to reconnect with its history of industrial relations deregulation.
Mr Briggs, a former industrial relations adviser to John Howard, believed Ms Collier's idea would be part of the Coalition's policy review headed by Mr Robb.
''The current laws are badly flawed and they prevent people from getting a chance of a job,'' Mr Briggs said.
''The idea that Grace [Collier] has put up is something that will be discussed.''
IPA executive director John Roskam believed the system was now even less flexible than when the former Howard government took office in 1996, blaming it for creating a ''grievance culture''.
''There are clear problems with the current system and for the Liberal Party to stand back while these problems exist and while people are losing their jobs … is wrong,'' Mr Roskam said. ''The system should not be set in stone.''
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited; its use here is for the purposes of fair dealing.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/fire-at-will-liberals-flirt-with-nofault-sacking-20101225-197jm.html
Fire at will: Liberals flirt with no-fault sacking
Date: December 26 2010
Josh Gordon, The Age
SENIOR Liberals are ramping up a push for an industrial relations overhaul - including a no-fault dismissal system to end arbitration that decides the fairness of sackings.
Despite Tony Abbott's declaration that WorkChoices is ''dead, buried and cremated'', the Coalition's post-election policy review is working on an industrial relations policy to take to the next election to replace Labor's Fair Work system.
One plan is to replace unfair dismissal laws - blamed for discouraging small business employment - with a radical system modelled on the concept of no-fault divorce that replaced the antiquated Matrimonial Causes Act in 1975.
The idea has been floated by industrial relations consultant Grace Collier in a paper to be published next month in the IPA Review, the journal of the free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
''Our current unfair dismissal system encourages Australians to behave like greedy whingers,'' Ms Collier writes. ''A no-fault dismissal system would set our heads right on the issue and provide for dignity of exit, allowing people to focus not on legal conflict but on managing departure in the chosen way whilst being encouraged to embrace the future opportunities that are always just around the corner.''
Under the proposal, being cautiously supported by influential Liberals, employers could sack workers with impunity, provided they offer compensation including a reasonable paid notice period, an assistance package and job transition services.
Ms Collier, a former unionist who now advises the hardline-conservative H.R. Nicholls Society, said a no-fault dismissal system would remove the need for costly legal argument to determine the fairness of a case, or whether it represented a redundancy or a dismissal.
Labor's new Fair Work system, which broadened unfair dismissal laws, triggered a 63 per cent increase in unfair dismissal applications in its first year, the paper says. ''Every working day, regardless of fairness, truth or the merits of their case, Australia employers collectively pay somewhere between $80,598.50 and $127,804.77 in 'go away money' simply to avoid government arbitration,'' it says. ''Is this a new tax on business and is anyone - other than employment lawyers - winning?''
Mr Abbott has been reluctant to revisit the industrial relations debate amid concerns it would be linked to WorkChoices, the Coalition policy that contributed to former prime minister John Howard's 2007 election demise. During the election campaign, Mr Abbott promised not to touch Labor's industrial laws for at least one term if he won.
But opposition industrial relations spokesman Eric Abetz, a recent guest at the H.R. Nicholls Society's annual dinner, in Melbourne, told The Sunday Age that although he did not want to comment on the merits of the proposal, ''it is a concept I would be willing to look at''.
Backbencher Liberals Stephen Ciobo and Jamie Briggs and frontbenchers Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb have also made comments in recent weeks suggesting a need for the party to reconnect with its history of industrial relations deregulation.
Mr Briggs, a former industrial relations adviser to John Howard, believed Ms Collier's idea would be part of the Coalition's policy review headed by Mr Robb.
''The current laws are badly flawed and they prevent people from getting a chance of a job,'' Mr Briggs said.
''The idea that Grace [Collier] has put up is something that will be discussed.''
IPA executive director John Roskam believed the system was now even less flexible than when the former Howard government took office in 1996, blaming it for creating a ''grievance culture''.
''There are clear problems with the current system and for the Liberal Party to stand back while these problems exist and while people are losing their jobs … is wrong,'' Mr Roskam said. ''The system should not be set in stone.''
This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited; its use here is for the purposes of fair dealing.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/fire-at-will-liberals-flirt-with-nofault-sacking-20101225-197jm.html
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
NEVER REVISIT HOWARD'S REFUGEE POLICIES
We must never revisit the horror of Howard's policies
Amalina Wallace's Letter to the Editor, SMH, 21.12.10
Tony Abbott has described the Christmas Island boat disaster as an ''unspeakable horror'', and called for the reintroduction of the Howard government's policies. I am a former refugee decision-maker who has interviewed asylum seekers at Woomera, Port Hedland, Derby, Villawood, Nauru and Manus Island, and it is his words that fill me with unspeakable horror. The scenes I saw at Woomera and Manus Island in particular have left shocking memories of people who suffered cruelly.
Under the Howard government, Australia introduced a process of "screening out" refugee applicants, so that hundreds of people were put into legal limbo, denied access to lawyers and separated from family members, with no information about what happened to them or why.
The first time I entered Woomera, people were crying and screaming. An interpreter told me they were calling out "where am I?" "what's happening to me?", "when can I ring my family?" and "please help me".
The heat and harsh conditions led to significant mental problems, ranging from chronic depression and self-mutilation to hysteria and attempted suicide. I still recall the shock of interviewing people a few months after hundreds of decisions had been frozen at the end of 2001.
I had previously seen refugees with scars from cigarette burns or mutilated faces from torture in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan; now I was seeing people who were going mad. I interviewed a man with large, curved, thickened scars on his arms and torso, not from torture in one of Saddam Hussein's prisons, but from throwing himself repeatedly from the roof of a building at Woomera onto the razor wire. Some people were so chronically depressed they were unable to make it to the interview room, their chance of telling their story to gain release.
The people from the "children overboard" boat were tricked into going to Manus Island, where they were held in concrete bunkers left over from World War II, with water for cooking and bathing that had worms in it.
It is a huge error that such abuses were not investigated properly, and those responsible dealt with according to the law. By sweeping things under the carpet, no responsibility has been taken, and as a result politicians seek to further their ambitions by calling for the return of such a regime.
We must never forget what happened, and never allow it to happen again.
Amalina Wallace's Letter to the Editor, SMH, 21.12.10
Tony Abbott has described the Christmas Island boat disaster as an ''unspeakable horror'', and called for the reintroduction of the Howard government's policies. I am a former refugee decision-maker who has interviewed asylum seekers at Woomera, Port Hedland, Derby, Villawood, Nauru and Manus Island, and it is his words that fill me with unspeakable horror. The scenes I saw at Woomera and Manus Island in particular have left shocking memories of people who suffered cruelly.
Under the Howard government, Australia introduced a process of "screening out" refugee applicants, so that hundreds of people were put into legal limbo, denied access to lawyers and separated from family members, with no information about what happened to them or why.
The first time I entered Woomera, people were crying and screaming. An interpreter told me they were calling out "where am I?" "what's happening to me?", "when can I ring my family?" and "please help me".
The heat and harsh conditions led to significant mental problems, ranging from chronic depression and self-mutilation to hysteria and attempted suicide. I still recall the shock of interviewing people a few months after hundreds of decisions had been frozen at the end of 2001.
I had previously seen refugees with scars from cigarette burns or mutilated faces from torture in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan; now I was seeing people who were going mad. I interviewed a man with large, curved, thickened scars on his arms and torso, not from torture in one of Saddam Hussein's prisons, but from throwing himself repeatedly from the roof of a building at Woomera onto the razor wire. Some people were so chronically depressed they were unable to make it to the interview room, their chance of telling their story to gain release.
The people from the "children overboard" boat were tricked into going to Manus Island, where they were held in concrete bunkers left over from World War II, with water for cooking and bathing that had worms in it.
It is a huge error that such abuses were not investigated properly, and those responsible dealt with according to the law. By sweeping things under the carpet, no responsibility has been taken, and as a result politicians seek to further their ambitions by calling for the return of such a regime.
We must never forget what happened, and never allow it to happen again.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
SIGN THE WIKILEAKS PETITION!!
Red News Readers,
To sign the Get Up Wikileaks petition, go to the link:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/WikiLeaksWidget
Jenny Haines
To sign the Get Up Wikileaks petition, go to the link:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/WikiLeaksWidget
Jenny Haines
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
NURSE RATIO IS DOUBLE SAFE LEVEL
Nurse ratio is double safe level: union
Louise Hall, SMH.
December 1, 2010
NURSES in public hospitals are caring for up to eight patients each, double the ratio the nurses' union says is needed for safe patient care.
A study of staffing in 332 hospital wards, commissioned by the NSW Nurses Association, found the ratio in general wards at most major hospitals averaged one nurse to 5.3 patients.
However the number of patients assigned to each nurse varied widely, with those on evening shifts often caring for seven patients each, and those on nights looking after more than eight.
Advertisement: Story continues below The study, by nursing workforce experts at two Sydney universities, comes as the state government agreed to consider mandated staffing ratios in return for a halt to industrial action planned for today.
The minimum ratio sought for general wards at most major hospitals is one nurse for four patients plus a registered nurse (RN) in charge of morning and evening shifts. At night, the ratio could rise to one to seven.
The general secretary of the association, Brett Holmes, said: ''Just one extra person on a shift can make the difference between a ward coping really well and a situation where there's lots of near-misses.''
The Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbutt, has said staffing ratios are a ''blunt'' and ''inflexible'' tool to manage workloads when patients' need for care in hospitals varied widely. The current nursing award had a workload calculation tool to determine staffing levels based on several factors, including patients needing acute care.
However, the report's co-author, Christine Duffield, said the tool had become largely redundant since its limited introduction to wards in 2004.
Professor Duffield, the director of the Centre for Health Services Management at the University of Technology, Sydney, said ratios were important but it was vital that hospitals had the right ''skill mix'', the proportion of hours worked by the different classifications of nurses.
She warned that mandated ratios, if filled with higher proportions of enrolled nurses or assistants-in-nursing, would create a less safe environment for patients. Studies show a ward in which at least 85 per cent of staff are registered nurses will have lower rates of medication errors, falls, complications and deaths.
However, the survey found a skill mix as low as 46 per cent in some community hospitals.
Professor Duffield said the average skill mix of 66 per cent - with enrolled nurses or assistants-in-nursing making up the balance - reported in medical and surgical wards in second-tier hospitals such as Bankstown was also a concern.
Louise Hall, SMH.
December 1, 2010
NURSES in public hospitals are caring for up to eight patients each, double the ratio the nurses' union says is needed for safe patient care.
A study of staffing in 332 hospital wards, commissioned by the NSW Nurses Association, found the ratio in general wards at most major hospitals averaged one nurse to 5.3 patients.
However the number of patients assigned to each nurse varied widely, with those on evening shifts often caring for seven patients each, and those on nights looking after more than eight.
Advertisement: Story continues below The study, by nursing workforce experts at two Sydney universities, comes as the state government agreed to consider mandated staffing ratios in return for a halt to industrial action planned for today.
The minimum ratio sought for general wards at most major hospitals is one nurse for four patients plus a registered nurse (RN) in charge of morning and evening shifts. At night, the ratio could rise to one to seven.
The general secretary of the association, Brett Holmes, said: ''Just one extra person on a shift can make the difference between a ward coping really well and a situation where there's lots of near-misses.''
The Minister for Health, Carmel Tebbutt, has said staffing ratios are a ''blunt'' and ''inflexible'' tool to manage workloads when patients' need for care in hospitals varied widely. The current nursing award had a workload calculation tool to determine staffing levels based on several factors, including patients needing acute care.
However, the report's co-author, Christine Duffield, said the tool had become largely redundant since its limited introduction to wards in 2004.
Professor Duffield, the director of the Centre for Health Services Management at the University of Technology, Sydney, said ratios were important but it was vital that hospitals had the right ''skill mix'', the proportion of hours worked by the different classifications of nurses.
She warned that mandated ratios, if filled with higher proportions of enrolled nurses or assistants-in-nursing, would create a less safe environment for patients. Studies show a ward in which at least 85 per cent of staff are registered nurses will have lower rates of medication errors, falls, complications and deaths.
However, the survey found a skill mix as low as 46 per cent in some community hospitals.
Professor Duffield said the average skill mix of 66 per cent - with enrolled nurses or assistants-in-nursing making up the balance - reported in medical and surgical wards in second-tier hospitals such as Bankstown was also a concern.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
PATIENTS BENEFIT FROM HIGHER STAFF LEVELS
Patients benefit from higher staff levels
Julie Robotham, SMH
November 25, 2010
ADEQUATE numbers of well-qualified nurses make a demonstrable difference to the speed of patients' recovery and their likelihood of complications, a growing body of international research clearly shows.
In the latest study, published last month, researchers from the Connecticut Children's Medical Centre found premature babies in neonatal intensive care units achieved higher blood oxygen levels - linked to lower brain-damage risk - when there was a higher number of nurses to infants on the ward.
Earlier this year US doctors found intensive care patients were at higher risk of their ventilator tubes becoming dislodged if they were cared for at a ratio of one nurse to three patients instead of the more widely recommended 1:2.
Advertisement: Story continues below The NSW Nurses' Association's call for a ratio of 1:4 for most ordinary surgical and medical wards is based on a large survey of US hospital patients, by Linda Aiken from the University of Pennsylvania school of nursing.
Professor Aiken examined how patients nursed in a 1:4 ratio fared compared with those who shared one nurse between eight patients. She found people in the latter group were 30 per cent more likely to die.
But Christine Duffield, associate dean of research in nursing faculty of the University of Technology, Sydney, said the 1:4 recommendation, ''should only ever be the floor, not the ceiling,'' and higher numbers of more highly qualified nurses would inevitably benefit patients.
Professor Duffield's 2007 study of the state's nursing workforce found nurse-to-patient ratios were inconsistent between hospitals and across the working day - with as many as 12 patients for each registered nurse during the night shift.
But the situation was likely to have deteriorated since then, she said, because of NSW Health's policy of using a greater number of less-qualified enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing.
Julie Robotham, SMH
November 25, 2010
ADEQUATE numbers of well-qualified nurses make a demonstrable difference to the speed of patients' recovery and their likelihood of complications, a growing body of international research clearly shows.
In the latest study, published last month, researchers from the Connecticut Children's Medical Centre found premature babies in neonatal intensive care units achieved higher blood oxygen levels - linked to lower brain-damage risk - when there was a higher number of nurses to infants on the ward.
Earlier this year US doctors found intensive care patients were at higher risk of their ventilator tubes becoming dislodged if they were cared for at a ratio of one nurse to three patients instead of the more widely recommended 1:2.
Advertisement: Story continues below The NSW Nurses' Association's call for a ratio of 1:4 for most ordinary surgical and medical wards is based on a large survey of US hospital patients, by Linda Aiken from the University of Pennsylvania school of nursing.
Professor Aiken examined how patients nursed in a 1:4 ratio fared compared with those who shared one nurse between eight patients. She found people in the latter group were 30 per cent more likely to die.
But Christine Duffield, associate dean of research in nursing faculty of the University of Technology, Sydney, said the 1:4 recommendation, ''should only ever be the floor, not the ceiling,'' and higher numbers of more highly qualified nurses would inevitably benefit patients.
Professor Duffield's 2007 study of the state's nursing workforce found nurse-to-patient ratios were inconsistent between hospitals and across the working day - with as many as 12 patients for each registered nurse during the night shift.
But the situation was likely to have deteriorated since then, she said, because of NSW Health's policy of using a greater number of less-qualified enrolled nurses and assistants in nursing.
HOSPITALS FACE MORE ACTION
Louise Hall, SMH, 25.11.10
NURSES have pledged to shut down hospital beds next week if the state government does not meet their demands for mandated nurse-to-patient ratios.
More than 4000 nurses walked off the job yesterday and voted unanimously to continue industrial action unless the government agrees to consider introducing nurse staffing ratios in medical, surgical, emergency and palliative care wards, rehabilitation and inpatient mental health units, operating theatres and community health.
The nurses' union says the mandated ratio of one nurse to every four patients introduced into Victorian hospitals 10 years ago resulted in a safer environment for patients, improved staff morale and reduced patient complaints.
Advertisement: Story continues below The assistant secretary of the NSW Nurses Association, Judith Kiejda, said while mandated staffing ratios were expensive to fund, Victorian hospitals ''have not gone broke''.
She accused the government of failing to meaningfully discuss the union's claim despite attempts to negotiate with NSW Health since June.
''If the government won't fund positions to appropriately staff the public health system, then we will reduce the public health system to cope with the staff they will pay for,'' Ms Kiejda.
Intensive care, critical care, paediatrics and oncology wards and emergency departments would be exempted from the industrial action, she said.
Yesterday's strike took place despite a ruling by the Industrial Relations Commission that it be called off and calls from the government for the nurses to return to the negotiating table.
The Health Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, said a wage rise of 3.9 per cent in the first year and 3 per cent in the second year was served on the association last month. The offer was based on continued use of a ''workload tool'' to determine staffing levels based on the number of patients on a ward and how sick they are.
''Ratios can be a very inflexible way of dealing with staffing and workload in a modern hospital,'' Ms Tebbutt said, but the government is ''willing to talk to nurses about all elements of their claim with regards to wages and conditions and workload''.
Yesterday's strike forced hospitals to defer about 500 patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery, NSW Health said. Of these, half have been given a new date before Christmas.
Ads by Google
NURSES have pledged to shut down hospital beds next week if the state government does not meet their demands for mandated nurse-to-patient ratios.
More than 4000 nurses walked off the job yesterday and voted unanimously to continue industrial action unless the government agrees to consider introducing nurse staffing ratios in medical, surgical, emergency and palliative care wards, rehabilitation and inpatient mental health units, operating theatres and community health.
The nurses' union says the mandated ratio of one nurse to every four patients introduced into Victorian hospitals 10 years ago resulted in a safer environment for patients, improved staff morale and reduced patient complaints.
Advertisement: Story continues below The assistant secretary of the NSW Nurses Association, Judith Kiejda, said while mandated staffing ratios were expensive to fund, Victorian hospitals ''have not gone broke''.
She accused the government of failing to meaningfully discuss the union's claim despite attempts to negotiate with NSW Health since June.
''If the government won't fund positions to appropriately staff the public health system, then we will reduce the public health system to cope with the staff they will pay for,'' Ms Kiejda.
Intensive care, critical care, paediatrics and oncology wards and emergency departments would be exempted from the industrial action, she said.
Yesterday's strike took place despite a ruling by the Industrial Relations Commission that it be called off and calls from the government for the nurses to return to the negotiating table.
The Health Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, said a wage rise of 3.9 per cent in the first year and 3 per cent in the second year was served on the association last month. The offer was based on continued use of a ''workload tool'' to determine staffing levels based on the number of patients on a ward and how sick they are.
''Ratios can be a very inflexible way of dealing with staffing and workload in a modern hospital,'' Ms Tebbutt said, but the government is ''willing to talk to nurses about all elements of their claim with regards to wages and conditions and workload''.
Yesterday's strike forced hospitals to defer about 500 patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery, NSW Health said. Of these, half have been given a new date before Christmas.
Ads by Google
NURSES AND PATIENTS NEED RATIOS
Jenny Haines, former General Secretary,NSW Nurses Association 1982 to 1987.
NSW nurses need ratios. Nurses Australia-wide need ratios. Victoria has had ratios for the assessment of their nursing numbers per shift now for 10 years, and they successfully attracted 2650 nurses back to the nursing workforce in the first year of the ratios 2000/1.
The Californian Nurses Association, after a long running, and sometimes vindictive dispute with the Governator of Calfornia, Arne Scwharznegger, has ratios, and they in conjunction with nursing organizations in the other American states are taking their campaign for ratios nationwide. The Governator or Gropinator as the California Nurses call him, for his predeliction for close contact with women, tried at one point to close down the nurses registering body. Mind you, the California Nurses did try to sell Arne on eBay, and when it was pointed out to them that they couldn’t sell the Governator, they responded that he had already been bought and sold!!
Ratios in NSW will mean that medical surgical wards will be staffed according to the following ratios:
Morning shift: One nurse per four patients + RN in charge
Afternoon shift: One nurse per four patients + RN in charge
Night shift: One nurse per seven patients
The skill mix for each ward or unit will include a minimum of 85 per cent Registered Nurses for each shift. In terms of clinical support, the ratio specified above does not include the following positions or classifications: Nursing Unit Manager, Clinical Nurse Educator, Clinical Nurse Consultant, Nurse Practitioner, administrative support staff and wardspersons.
The current Secretary of the NSW Nurses Association Brett Holmes put it this way when launching the campaign for ratios in March 2010
"The extension of ratios into NSW is also a major initiative in terms of national healthcare reform. No real discussion about reform can occur without acknowledging the need to provide sufficient staff and funding for those required staffing levels. The issue goes to the heart of how any so-called national ‘efficient price' for a hospital service or procedure is set."
"Therefore, any work currently being done on costing public hospital services must develop scenarios that take this nurse-to-patient ratio claim into account. “
And patients need ratios. Patients need the reassurance that there is some science to the method of staffing wards and units and that it is not just based on whatever meager budget is left over for nurse staffing.
Those bureaucrats and politicians who go white at the mention of the cost of ratios for nurses - $400 million a year for the next 4 years - should consider this:
“Victoria’s public hospitals have recorded a combined financial surplus for the sixth successive year, Health Minister Daniel Andrews said today. “The hospital
annual reports, tabled in Parliament, confirm the Brumby Labor Government has positioned Victoria’s hospitals to continue delivering high quality services
to the community,” Mr Andrews said. “The hospitals are operating in surplus in the face of record demand.” (Statement by Victorian Health Minister, Daniel Andrews, 16 September 2010.)
Health system bureaucrats and politicians should also take into account the following factors:
1. The amount that has been saved by the downskilling of the nursing workforce over the last 10 -20 years.
2. The amount that has been saved through not providing adequate educational support to that downskilled workforce.
3. The amount that has been saved through the flattening of nursing management structures.
4. The amount that has been saved through the closure of too many beds in NSW.
5. The amount that has been saved through increased productivity and efficiency due to those bed closures and the need to expedite patient care within recommended guidelines.
6. The amount that has been saved through nurses working excessive overtime and never getting a chance to take time in lieu, which is supposed to be available under the award.
7. The amount that has been saved through the contracting out of ancillary services and the need for nurses to supervise the unskilled workers employed by the contractors.
8. The introduction of user pays for all services on hospital campuses and the costs to nurses for those services
The ratios are part of a wages and conditions package currently being negotiated by the NSW Nurses Association with the NSW government. There are to be as yet unspecified offsets in that package. I doubt that any of the above listed factors will be taken into consideration by NSW Health or the NSW Government, but they should stop and take notice of the enormous sacrifices being made by NSW nurses to keep the NSW health system running. It is just as well nurses are the nice people that they are. Wharfies and miners of old would have walked off the job years ago.
NSW nurses need ratios. Nurses Australia-wide need ratios. Victoria has had ratios for the assessment of their nursing numbers per shift now for 10 years, and they successfully attracted 2650 nurses back to the nursing workforce in the first year of the ratios 2000/1.
The Californian Nurses Association, after a long running, and sometimes vindictive dispute with the Governator of Calfornia, Arne Scwharznegger, has ratios, and they in conjunction with nursing organizations in the other American states are taking their campaign for ratios nationwide. The Governator or Gropinator as the California Nurses call him, for his predeliction for close contact with women, tried at one point to close down the nurses registering body. Mind you, the California Nurses did try to sell Arne on eBay, and when it was pointed out to them that they couldn’t sell the Governator, they responded that he had already been bought and sold!!
Ratios in NSW will mean that medical surgical wards will be staffed according to the following ratios:
Morning shift: One nurse per four patients + RN in charge
Afternoon shift: One nurse per four patients + RN in charge
Night shift: One nurse per seven patients
The skill mix for each ward or unit will include a minimum of 85 per cent Registered Nurses for each shift. In terms of clinical support, the ratio specified above does not include the following positions or classifications: Nursing Unit Manager, Clinical Nurse Educator, Clinical Nurse Consultant, Nurse Practitioner, administrative support staff and wardspersons.
The current Secretary of the NSW Nurses Association Brett Holmes put it this way when launching the campaign for ratios in March 2010
"The extension of ratios into NSW is also a major initiative in terms of national healthcare reform. No real discussion about reform can occur without acknowledging the need to provide sufficient staff and funding for those required staffing levels. The issue goes to the heart of how any so-called national ‘efficient price' for a hospital service or procedure is set."
"Therefore, any work currently being done on costing public hospital services must develop scenarios that take this nurse-to-patient ratio claim into account. “
And patients need ratios. Patients need the reassurance that there is some science to the method of staffing wards and units and that it is not just based on whatever meager budget is left over for nurse staffing.
Those bureaucrats and politicians who go white at the mention of the cost of ratios for nurses - $400 million a year for the next 4 years - should consider this:
“Victoria’s public hospitals have recorded a combined financial surplus for the sixth successive year, Health Minister Daniel Andrews said today. “The hospital
annual reports, tabled in Parliament, confirm the Brumby Labor Government has positioned Victoria’s hospitals to continue delivering high quality services
to the community,” Mr Andrews said. “The hospitals are operating in surplus in the face of record demand.” (Statement by Victorian Health Minister, Daniel Andrews, 16 September 2010.)
Health system bureaucrats and politicians should also take into account the following factors:
1. The amount that has been saved by the downskilling of the nursing workforce over the last 10 -20 years.
2. The amount that has been saved through not providing adequate educational support to that downskilled workforce.
3. The amount that has been saved through the flattening of nursing management structures.
4. The amount that has been saved through the closure of too many beds in NSW.
5. The amount that has been saved through increased productivity and efficiency due to those bed closures and the need to expedite patient care within recommended guidelines.
6. The amount that has been saved through nurses working excessive overtime and never getting a chance to take time in lieu, which is supposed to be available under the award.
7. The amount that has been saved through the contracting out of ancillary services and the need for nurses to supervise the unskilled workers employed by the contractors.
8. The introduction of user pays for all services on hospital campuses and the costs to nurses for those services
The ratios are part of a wages and conditions package currently being negotiated by the NSW Nurses Association with the NSW government. There are to be as yet unspecified offsets in that package. I doubt that any of the above listed factors will be taken into consideration by NSW Health or the NSW Government, but they should stop and take notice of the enormous sacrifices being made by NSW nurses to keep the NSW health system running. It is just as well nurses are the nice people that they are. Wharfies and miners of old would have walked off the job years ago.
Friday, November 12, 2010
A GREAT DAY FOR FREEDOM
Richar Ackland, 12.11.10, SMH.
The High Court in Canberra yesterday delivered two decisions that struck at the heart of Australia's most divisive and politically-pedalled fears: refugees and criminal gangs.
It was a big day for justice, freedoms and rights. As a consequence, you can be sure the political mugging will be even more unrestrained and distorted.
In the organised crime case, the court by a six-to-one majority struck down the key component of the South Australian bikies legislation. The reasoning was clear - the legislation sought to dictate what magistrates were required to do in implementing decisions of the state government.
This is an exhilarating warning to governments from the highest court - don't trample on the judicial patch.
The vice in the legislation was that it sought to turn courts into rubber-stamps for decisions of the attorney-general and police commissioner. Magistrates were required to sprinkle holy water over the executive's attempts to restrict people's freedom of association if they were deemed to be engaging in ''serious criminal activity'' (even if they weren't).
It was not so much the attempt to control people's freedom of association that concerned the High Court. After all, numerous bits of law do that. It was the obligation that the legislation imposed on the courts to make control orders at the behest of government that was so upsetting.
It goes to the heart of chapter three of the constitution, the provisions that guarantee the independence of the judiciary and quarantine the government of the day from making ''judicial decisions''.
At the moment, chapter three is all we have by way of a national charter of rights. It is limited and its application is far from consistent but in the past couple of years it has been relied on by the High Court in a number of provocative ways.
In February, the court put a big hole in the NSW Industrial Relations Act by striking down the provisions that removed the right to appeal its occupational health and safety decisions to the Supreme Court. In August last year, it struck down the Australian Military Court because the legislation required it to exercise judicial powers without there being proper constitutional underpinning. A year ago today, the court scuttled elements of the NSW criminal assets recovery legislation because it used the word ''must'' in insisting the Supreme Court make orders to restrain bank accounts and other assets without the affected person being put on notice.
NSW has a bikie case that is awaiting a hearing in the High Court. The South Australian act was supposed to be the ''model'' gangs law, and NSW rushed to draw on its framework after the bikie brawl at Sydney Airport in March last year. Even though the police already had sufficient powers to deal with criminals and criminal organisations, the government of ''Red Hot'' Nathan Rees wheeled out its anti-gangs act and got it through Parliament pretty smartly. It drew heavily on the language of the Howard era's terrorism laws, with control orders and decisions made by judges who were deemed ''eligible''. There's plenty of room for the High Court, if it's in the mood, to find that this law, too, flies in the face of the chapter three protections, but you just never know.
Who was the hold-out in the South Australia case? No surprises there - Justice Dyson Heydon, who is more conservative than the Duke of Wellington. His is the lengthiest and most fascinating judgment, and a variety of authorities are cited, including Lenin.
In the refugee case, the court (unanimously) said that the offshore processing of asylum seekers had to be conducted with procedural fairness and according to law. The fact that the former immigration minister Philip Ruddock had tried to deny legal rights to possible refugees by containing them in black holes like Christmas Island did not excuse the ministerial obligation to observe binding decisions of the Australian courts or the Migration Act itself.
Ruddock's invention, we recently discovered, was the result of some creative discussion around his family dinner table.
Already the court's decision is being flagged by the ''stop the boats'' brigade as an open invitation to asylum seekers and people smugglers to overrun our borders.
Not quite. The broader challenges to the Migration Act and the minister's discretion on granting protection visas were not upheld.
The way in which chapter three and rules of procedural fairness are applied by the High Court are far from consistent. After all, the court has held that it is perfectly legal to lock up a person indefinitely without charge. It has also held that secret evidence can be used by courts to make decisions and that can be done without showing the evidence to the party adversely affected and having it properly tested.
Chief Justice James Spigelman of NSW, who would have been chief justice of the High Court had it not been for Kevin Rudd, said something last month that we all know, but least expect judges to say publicly: ''It is all too easy to dress up a conclusion, reached on other grounds, by selecting from the smorgasbord of maxims and principles of interpretation those which assist the achievement of the predetermined result.''
Yesterday was an emphatic statement by the High Court led by Robert French. Further, ministers ignore the law and the judges at their peril. That both major decisions were scheduled to come thudding down from on high on the same day rubs in the points even more forcefully.
justinian@lawpress.com.au
The High Court in Canberra yesterday delivered two decisions that struck at the heart of Australia's most divisive and politically-pedalled fears: refugees and criminal gangs.
It was a big day for justice, freedoms and rights. As a consequence, you can be sure the political mugging will be even more unrestrained and distorted.
In the organised crime case, the court by a six-to-one majority struck down the key component of the South Australian bikies legislation. The reasoning was clear - the legislation sought to dictate what magistrates were required to do in implementing decisions of the state government.
This is an exhilarating warning to governments from the highest court - don't trample on the judicial patch.
The vice in the legislation was that it sought to turn courts into rubber-stamps for decisions of the attorney-general and police commissioner. Magistrates were required to sprinkle holy water over the executive's attempts to restrict people's freedom of association if they were deemed to be engaging in ''serious criminal activity'' (even if they weren't).
It was not so much the attempt to control people's freedom of association that concerned the High Court. After all, numerous bits of law do that. It was the obligation that the legislation imposed on the courts to make control orders at the behest of government that was so upsetting.
It goes to the heart of chapter three of the constitution, the provisions that guarantee the independence of the judiciary and quarantine the government of the day from making ''judicial decisions''.
At the moment, chapter three is all we have by way of a national charter of rights. It is limited and its application is far from consistent but in the past couple of years it has been relied on by the High Court in a number of provocative ways.
In February, the court put a big hole in the NSW Industrial Relations Act by striking down the provisions that removed the right to appeal its occupational health and safety decisions to the Supreme Court. In August last year, it struck down the Australian Military Court because the legislation required it to exercise judicial powers without there being proper constitutional underpinning. A year ago today, the court scuttled elements of the NSW criminal assets recovery legislation because it used the word ''must'' in insisting the Supreme Court make orders to restrain bank accounts and other assets without the affected person being put on notice.
NSW has a bikie case that is awaiting a hearing in the High Court. The South Australian act was supposed to be the ''model'' gangs law, and NSW rushed to draw on its framework after the bikie brawl at Sydney Airport in March last year. Even though the police already had sufficient powers to deal with criminals and criminal organisations, the government of ''Red Hot'' Nathan Rees wheeled out its anti-gangs act and got it through Parliament pretty smartly. It drew heavily on the language of the Howard era's terrorism laws, with control orders and decisions made by judges who were deemed ''eligible''. There's plenty of room for the High Court, if it's in the mood, to find that this law, too, flies in the face of the chapter three protections, but you just never know.
Who was the hold-out in the South Australia case? No surprises there - Justice Dyson Heydon, who is more conservative than the Duke of Wellington. His is the lengthiest and most fascinating judgment, and a variety of authorities are cited, including Lenin.
In the refugee case, the court (unanimously) said that the offshore processing of asylum seekers had to be conducted with procedural fairness and according to law. The fact that the former immigration minister Philip Ruddock had tried to deny legal rights to possible refugees by containing them in black holes like Christmas Island did not excuse the ministerial obligation to observe binding decisions of the Australian courts or the Migration Act itself.
Ruddock's invention, we recently discovered, was the result of some creative discussion around his family dinner table.
Already the court's decision is being flagged by the ''stop the boats'' brigade as an open invitation to asylum seekers and people smugglers to overrun our borders.
Not quite. The broader challenges to the Migration Act and the minister's discretion on granting protection visas were not upheld.
The way in which chapter three and rules of procedural fairness are applied by the High Court are far from consistent. After all, the court has held that it is perfectly legal to lock up a person indefinitely without charge. It has also held that secret evidence can be used by courts to make decisions and that can be done without showing the evidence to the party adversely affected and having it properly tested.
Chief Justice James Spigelman of NSW, who would have been chief justice of the High Court had it not been for Kevin Rudd, said something last month that we all know, but least expect judges to say publicly: ''It is all too easy to dress up a conclusion, reached on other grounds, by selecting from the smorgasbord of maxims and principles of interpretation those which assist the achievement of the predetermined result.''
Yesterday was an emphatic statement by the High Court led by Robert French. Further, ministers ignore the law and the judges at their peril. That both major decisions were scheduled to come thudding down from on high on the same day rubs in the points even more forcefully.
justinian@lawpress.com.au
JUDGES SAFEGUARD LIBERTY
David Marr
SMH, 12.11.10,
UNANIMOUS decisions of the High Court are never an accident. Only every decade or so do all seven judges speak with a single voice on big issues of principle. It's their way of sending a blunt message to government. Their support for the Tamil asylum seekers M61 and M69 lays down the law about fair dealing for all refugees. But underneath it's about safeguarding liberty.
Everything in the case turned on the fact that they - like all boat people since mandatory detention was introduced by the Keating government in 1992 - were deprived of their liberty while their claims were assessed. One way of boiling down this dramatic decision to its essentials is this: the High Court will ensure the courts are always there to see that liberty is only lost according to law.
The judges appear to be making amends for what is widely regarded as one of the High Court's worst decisions. Five years ago a majority of the judges decided Ahmed Ali Al-Kateb, a Palestinian whose claim for refugee protection had been rejected, could be held in Australia in immigration detention for the rest of his life if no other country would take him off our hands. So shocking was that conclusion, that Al-Kateb was released from detention by the Howard government. They could not live with a rule they themselves had asked the court to make. Al-Kateb has since become an Australian citizen. But his name is in the law books marking an embarrassing low point in the High Court's valuation of liberty.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Asylum Seekers are transported to Christmas Island by barge. Photo: Allison Millcock
The tone and approach of the judges to the predicament of M61 and M69 could not have been more different. This was all about setting limits on governments acting alone to deprive people of their liberty.
A little history is required at this point. Back in 2001, Australia set up a deliberately second-class system for assessing refugee claims by boat people. About 14,000 have gone through that system which has never been fundamentally challenged until now. The architects of the scheme tried to exclude the courts by separating as far as legally possible the assessment of claims from the minister's role in granting visas. Assessments of visa claims were said to be "non statutory" investigations - hence outside the control of the courts - and only once they were complete did the minister enter the picture. Whether he granted a visa at that point was something said to be absolutely at his personal discretion. Once again, the courts were supposed to be excluded.
They might work, said the court, except that while each case was going on - and here the judges used italics to indicate the crucial importance of these few words - "the claimant was detained". And that changes everything. Loss of liberty, said the seven judges, can only be for lawful purposes. No one can be detained in ways beyond the supervision of the courts.
Technically, the High Court collapsed the distance between the assessors and the minister. The court found that despite claims to the contrary, the minister was there at the start directing the assessors to do their work. They are not independent of the law but caught up in the machinery of the Migration Act. The work of the assessors - but not the minister - can therefore be directed by the courts.
The ultimate upshot? Shock, horror: all asylum seekers have to be dealt with fairly and according to law. And governments of all persuasions are on notice that the court now takes far more seriously its traditional role as guardian of liberty.
MAINLAND DETAINEES
Darwin detention: 449
Alternative accommodation in Darwin: 448
Sydney detention: 164
Alternative accommodation: 29
Melbourne detention: 19
Alternative accommodation: 41
Brisbane detention 38
Alternative accommodation: 87
Weipa Qld detention: 291
Perth detention: 33
Alternative accommodation: 23
Leonora, WA, detention 199
Curtin, WA, detention 747
Port Augusta detention 59
Adelaide alternative accommodation: 2
* Alternative accommodation includes community detention and transit housing
SOURCE: IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AS AT NOVEMBER 5
Poll: Do you think asylum seekers who approach Australia by boat and are processed offshore should have access to Australian courts?
Poll form
Please select an answer.
Yes
No
View results
Yes69%
No31%
Total votes: 2243.
Would you like to vote? You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.
Poll closes in 3 days.
Disclaimer:
These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.
SMH, 12.11.10,
UNANIMOUS decisions of the High Court are never an accident. Only every decade or so do all seven judges speak with a single voice on big issues of principle. It's their way of sending a blunt message to government. Their support for the Tamil asylum seekers M61 and M69 lays down the law about fair dealing for all refugees. But underneath it's about safeguarding liberty.
Everything in the case turned on the fact that they - like all boat people since mandatory detention was introduced by the Keating government in 1992 - were deprived of their liberty while their claims were assessed. One way of boiling down this dramatic decision to its essentials is this: the High Court will ensure the courts are always there to see that liberty is only lost according to law.
The judges appear to be making amends for what is widely regarded as one of the High Court's worst decisions. Five years ago a majority of the judges decided Ahmed Ali Al-Kateb, a Palestinian whose claim for refugee protection had been rejected, could be held in Australia in immigration detention for the rest of his life if no other country would take him off our hands. So shocking was that conclusion, that Al-Kateb was released from detention by the Howard government. They could not live with a rule they themselves had asked the court to make. Al-Kateb has since become an Australian citizen. But his name is in the law books marking an embarrassing low point in the High Court's valuation of liberty.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Asylum Seekers are transported to Christmas Island by barge. Photo: Allison Millcock
The tone and approach of the judges to the predicament of M61 and M69 could not have been more different. This was all about setting limits on governments acting alone to deprive people of their liberty.
A little history is required at this point. Back in 2001, Australia set up a deliberately second-class system for assessing refugee claims by boat people. About 14,000 have gone through that system which has never been fundamentally challenged until now. The architects of the scheme tried to exclude the courts by separating as far as legally possible the assessment of claims from the minister's role in granting visas. Assessments of visa claims were said to be "non statutory" investigations - hence outside the control of the courts - and only once they were complete did the minister enter the picture. Whether he granted a visa at that point was something said to be absolutely at his personal discretion. Once again, the courts were supposed to be excluded.
They might work, said the court, except that while each case was going on - and here the judges used italics to indicate the crucial importance of these few words - "the claimant was detained". And that changes everything. Loss of liberty, said the seven judges, can only be for lawful purposes. No one can be detained in ways beyond the supervision of the courts.
Technically, the High Court collapsed the distance between the assessors and the minister. The court found that despite claims to the contrary, the minister was there at the start directing the assessors to do their work. They are not independent of the law but caught up in the machinery of the Migration Act. The work of the assessors - but not the minister - can therefore be directed by the courts.
The ultimate upshot? Shock, horror: all asylum seekers have to be dealt with fairly and according to law. And governments of all persuasions are on notice that the court now takes far more seriously its traditional role as guardian of liberty.
MAINLAND DETAINEES
Darwin detention: 449
Alternative accommodation in Darwin: 448
Sydney detention: 164
Alternative accommodation: 29
Melbourne detention: 19
Alternative accommodation: 41
Brisbane detention 38
Alternative accommodation: 87
Weipa Qld detention: 291
Perth detention: 33
Alternative accommodation: 23
Leonora, WA, detention 199
Curtin, WA, detention 747
Port Augusta detention 59
Adelaide alternative accommodation: 2
* Alternative accommodation includes community detention and transit housing
SOURCE: IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AS AT NOVEMBER 5
Poll: Do you think asylum seekers who approach Australia by boat and are processed offshore should have access to Australian courts?
Poll form
Please select an answer.
Yes
No
View results
Yes69%
No31%
Total votes: 2243.
Would you like to vote? You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.
Poll closes in 3 days.
Disclaimer:
These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
