NSW: Former deputy takes top job at Unions NSW
31 October 2008 Content provided to you by AAP.
SYDNEY, Oct 30 AAP - Unions NSW assistant secretary Mark Lennon has been appointed to the organisation's top job, taking over from John Robertson who has become a NSW Labor MP.
Mr Lennon was elected unopposed as secretary of Unions NSW, having worked for the organisation for the past two decades.He's worked on a number of campaigns including the James Hardie asbestos products dispute and anti-privatisation of the NSW electricity industry.
"One of my priorities as secretary will be in working to strengthen protections and entitlements for all workers," he said in a statement.
"We also need to continually look at how we can make unions more attractive and accessible to a new generation of workers."
Chris Christodoulou, who has worked for the peak council since 1998, was elected the assistant secretary.
© 2008 AAP Disclaimer
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
AFGHANS SENT HOME TO DIE
Red News Readers,
Lest we forget what evil bastards the Howard Government were. See quote from Phillip Ruddock below.
Jenny Haines
Afghans sent home to die
Cynthia Banham Diplomatic Editor, smh
October 27, 2008
Latest related coverage:
It's hell for Afghans we rejected
Record intake good for nation: Evans
THE Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, has demanded answers to allegations up to 20 Afghan asylum seekers rejected by Australia under the Howard government's so-called Pacific solution were killed after returning to Afghanistan, and others remain in hiding from the Taliban.
The claims are contained in a documentary to be aired on SBS on November 19. The film, A Well-Founded Fear, produced by Anne Delaney, is based on the efforts of Phil Glendenning, the director of social justice agency the Edmund Rice Centre, who has spent the past six years tracing many of these rejected asylum seekers.
About 400 Afghans detained on Nauru were returned to Afghanistan after having their asylum claims rejected. They were told by Immigration officials it was safe to go home, and that if they refused, they would remain in detention forever, according to accounts given to Mr Glendenning.
Another 400 who refused to go voluntarily were eventually found to be refugees and were resettled in Australia or other countries including New Zealand.
Mr Glendenning says he has documented the deaths of nine of the rejected Afghans at the hands of the Taliban, but he believes the figure is actually 20.
Of the other Afghans who returned home, many are hiding in Pakistan, or are forced to move between Pakistan and Afghanistan to evade the Taliban. They include a man whose two daughters were killed in a Taliban attack on his family's home near Kabul, after his asylum claim was rejected by Australia in 2002.
Senator Evans told the Herald he had asked his department to give him a "full briefing" on the matters raised by the Edmund Rice Centre.
He said the department's initial response, "and I am conscious this is the department's response - is that they don't agree with a lot of the claims made".
But he said he was "taking the claims very seriously" and had "asked for further information about the processes that occurred on Nauru and the robustness and integrity of those processes".
Much of the information Mr Glendenning used to locate the rejected asylum seekers was provided to him by sympathetic Immigration officials, concerned at what had occurred under the Howard government.
He believes the Afghans who left Nauru were "lied to" by Australian officials, and he wants the Government to reopen their cases.
"We now have the opportunity with the new Government to put the mistakes of the past to rest," Mr Glendenning said.
Senator Evans said he had an open mind about reopening some of the cases. It would be a big step, he said. "You would want to be convinced there was something very wrong that occurred.
"What some advocates are saying is you ought put them [the rejected Afghans] as a priority in the humanitarian intake over the claims of others. The reason for that priority is that they once came to Australia, were rejected as refugees, and returned to their country of origin," he said.
This would "fundamentally overturn" the basis on which such decisions were normally made, which was on priority of need.
Philip Ruddock was immigration minister until October 2003. Asked for his comments on the rejected Afghans, he said, "I would never say mistakes are impossible." But he added that Australia's asylum system was "robust and credible". He also said the Afghans left Nauru "voluntarily".
"It is the case that Afghanistan is a dangerous place but the [United Nations] Refugee Convention does not say you cannot be returned to a dangerous place," Mr Ruddock said. "The fact that somebody might tragically die [in Afghanistan] may well be as tragic as a road accident in Sydney."
Lest we forget what evil bastards the Howard Government were. See quote from Phillip Ruddock below.
Jenny Haines
Afghans sent home to die
Cynthia Banham Diplomatic Editor, smh
October 27, 2008
Latest related coverage:
It's hell for Afghans we rejected
Record intake good for nation: Evans
THE Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, has demanded answers to allegations up to 20 Afghan asylum seekers rejected by Australia under the Howard government's so-called Pacific solution were killed after returning to Afghanistan, and others remain in hiding from the Taliban.
The claims are contained in a documentary to be aired on SBS on November 19. The film, A Well-Founded Fear, produced by Anne Delaney, is based on the efforts of Phil Glendenning, the director of social justice agency the Edmund Rice Centre, who has spent the past six years tracing many of these rejected asylum seekers.
About 400 Afghans detained on Nauru were returned to Afghanistan after having their asylum claims rejected. They were told by Immigration officials it was safe to go home, and that if they refused, they would remain in detention forever, according to accounts given to Mr Glendenning.
Another 400 who refused to go voluntarily were eventually found to be refugees and were resettled in Australia or other countries including New Zealand.
Mr Glendenning says he has documented the deaths of nine of the rejected Afghans at the hands of the Taliban, but he believes the figure is actually 20.
Of the other Afghans who returned home, many are hiding in Pakistan, or are forced to move between Pakistan and Afghanistan to evade the Taliban. They include a man whose two daughters were killed in a Taliban attack on his family's home near Kabul, after his asylum claim was rejected by Australia in 2002.
Senator Evans told the Herald he had asked his department to give him a "full briefing" on the matters raised by the Edmund Rice Centre.
He said the department's initial response, "and I am conscious this is the department's response - is that they don't agree with a lot of the claims made".
But he said he was "taking the claims very seriously" and had "asked for further information about the processes that occurred on Nauru and the robustness and integrity of those processes".
Much of the information Mr Glendenning used to locate the rejected asylum seekers was provided to him by sympathetic Immigration officials, concerned at what had occurred under the Howard government.
He believes the Afghans who left Nauru were "lied to" by Australian officials, and he wants the Government to reopen their cases.
"We now have the opportunity with the new Government to put the mistakes of the past to rest," Mr Glendenning said.
Senator Evans said he had an open mind about reopening some of the cases. It would be a big step, he said. "You would want to be convinced there was something very wrong that occurred.
"What some advocates are saying is you ought put them [the rejected Afghans] as a priority in the humanitarian intake over the claims of others. The reason for that priority is that they once came to Australia, were rejected as refugees, and returned to their country of origin," he said.
This would "fundamentally overturn" the basis on which such decisions were normally made, which was on priority of need.
Philip Ruddock was immigration minister until October 2003. Asked for his comments on the rejected Afghans, he said, "I would never say mistakes are impossible." But he added that Australia's asylum system was "robust and credible". He also said the Afghans left Nauru "voluntarily".
"It is the case that Afghanistan is a dangerous place but the [United Nations] Refugee Convention does not say you cannot be returned to a dangerous place," Mr Ruddock said. "The fact that somebody might tragically die [in Afghanistan] may well be as tragic as a road accident in Sydney."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
8 YEARS IN DETENTION - MENTAL HEALTH GONE
Connie Levett Immigration Reporter, smh
October 22, 2008
BEFORE Villawood, Ms Bao said she had never seen barbed wire, or cockroaches and ants for that matter. Nearly eight years later, all of them spent in immigration detention, there is little evidence of the woman who was once a successful Hong Kong entrepreneur.
Detained in January 2001 and held for 6½ years in Villawood, Ms Bao (not her real name) is now in community detention, having served more time in Australian immigration detention than any person.
"Almost eight years now, even in community detention, you are still in detention. I have suicidal feelings," Ms Bao said, speaking publicly, through a translator, for the first time. "After eight years my mental health is gone. How much longer do I have to wait?
"Every day, every night I can't sleep. The fear is there. Anyone knocking on the door, my heart beats faster because of that. I am not willing to go back; I would rather die here. With my health the way it is, if they do send me back, I would die in prison."
During her time in Villawood, there were two early-morning attempts to deport her without warning. She got as far as the airport before lawyers intervened.
Her case is complex. She came to Australia to visit her sister in 2000 after her husband, a mid-ranking Chinese government transport official based in southern China, disappeared. "In China, people don't just disappear. They disappear because of the Government," Ms Bao said.
Her husband was convicted of corruption and sentenced to death. The sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment.
The Chinese Government issued an international alert for her in early 2001. She discovered this when she left Australia to visit her son in Canada.
En route, in Hawaii, she was prevented from entering the US, and returned to Australia, for which her visa was still valid.
In Sydney, immigration officers cancelled her visa because of the alert, and sent her to Villawood. Ms Bao, in her protection application, claimed the corruption charge was a cover for political persecution by the regime and that she will, by association, be persecuted if she is forced to return.
Her case has been rejected in the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court and most recently she was refused ministerial intervention. She has now appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, who has made clearing out long-term detainee cases a priority, this year personally reviewed - in conjunction with the Commonwealth Ombudsman - all long-term detention cases. In Ms Bao's case he found that it was "not in the public's interest to intervene".
The Ombudsman's report in March revealed the Department of Immigration had sought assurances from the Chinese Government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, that Ms Bao would "not be executed or subjected to torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment" on her return.
But Nick Poynder, a leading migration barrister, said diplomatic assurances were "not worth the paper they are written on". Countries frequently gave diplomatic assurances but once the person was within the assuring country's jurisdiction there was no way to enforce it, said Mr Poynder, who is assisting with Ms Bao's Human Rights Committee appeal.
Setting aside the protection concerns, Ms Bao is a broken, traumatised woman, whose composure quickly disintegrates when asked to retrace the steps that brought her to Australia.
Senator Evans acknowledged the severe impact on the physical and mental health of long-term detention in a July speech.
"Recent research undertaken by the centre for health service development at Wollongong University dramatically highlights the deleterious health impacts of long-term detention," he said.
Ms Bao is speaking out now only because she is so desperate. She says she will not return to China.
"When I came to Australia I saw it was a country where people have freedom," she said.
"Since these eight years of detention I regret such a country would do this to me. I regret being here for eight years … but I still need to stay here because there is no way I can go back to Hong Kong or China. I can't go anywhere. My only hope is here."
October 22, 2008
BEFORE Villawood, Ms Bao said she had never seen barbed wire, or cockroaches and ants for that matter. Nearly eight years later, all of them spent in immigration detention, there is little evidence of the woman who was once a successful Hong Kong entrepreneur.
Detained in January 2001 and held for 6½ years in Villawood, Ms Bao (not her real name) is now in community detention, having served more time in Australian immigration detention than any person.
"Almost eight years now, even in community detention, you are still in detention. I have suicidal feelings," Ms Bao said, speaking publicly, through a translator, for the first time. "After eight years my mental health is gone. How much longer do I have to wait?
"Every day, every night I can't sleep. The fear is there. Anyone knocking on the door, my heart beats faster because of that. I am not willing to go back; I would rather die here. With my health the way it is, if they do send me back, I would die in prison."
During her time in Villawood, there were two early-morning attempts to deport her without warning. She got as far as the airport before lawyers intervened.
Her case is complex. She came to Australia to visit her sister in 2000 after her husband, a mid-ranking Chinese government transport official based in southern China, disappeared. "In China, people don't just disappear. They disappear because of the Government," Ms Bao said.
Her husband was convicted of corruption and sentenced to death. The sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment.
The Chinese Government issued an international alert for her in early 2001. She discovered this when she left Australia to visit her son in Canada.
En route, in Hawaii, she was prevented from entering the US, and returned to Australia, for which her visa was still valid.
In Sydney, immigration officers cancelled her visa because of the alert, and sent her to Villawood. Ms Bao, in her protection application, claimed the corruption charge was a cover for political persecution by the regime and that she will, by association, be persecuted if she is forced to return.
Her case has been rejected in the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Federal Court and most recently she was refused ministerial intervention. She has now appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, who has made clearing out long-term detainee cases a priority, this year personally reviewed - in conjunction with the Commonwealth Ombudsman - all long-term detention cases. In Ms Bao's case he found that it was "not in the public's interest to intervene".
The Ombudsman's report in March revealed the Department of Immigration had sought assurances from the Chinese Government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, that Ms Bao would "not be executed or subjected to torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment" on her return.
But Nick Poynder, a leading migration barrister, said diplomatic assurances were "not worth the paper they are written on". Countries frequently gave diplomatic assurances but once the person was within the assuring country's jurisdiction there was no way to enforce it, said Mr Poynder, who is assisting with Ms Bao's Human Rights Committee appeal.
Setting aside the protection concerns, Ms Bao is a broken, traumatised woman, whose composure quickly disintegrates when asked to retrace the steps that brought her to Australia.
Senator Evans acknowledged the severe impact on the physical and mental health of long-term detention in a July speech.
"Recent research undertaken by the centre for health service development at Wollongong University dramatically highlights the deleterious health impacts of long-term detention," he said.
Ms Bao is speaking out now only because she is so desperate. She says she will not return to China.
"When I came to Australia I saw it was a country where people have freedom," she said.
"Since these eight years of detention I regret such a country would do this to me. I regret being here for eight years … but I still need to stay here because there is no way I can go back to Hong Kong or China. I can't go anywhere. My only hope is here."
Friday, October 17, 2008
RISE IN DEATHS OF CHILDREN AT RISK
Rise in deaths of children at risk
Brian RobinsOctober 16, 2008
THERE has been a surge in the number of deaths of children at risk in NSW in 2007, despite a $1.2 billion funding injection into the Department of Community Services over the previous five years.
The revelation came at an estimates hearing at State Parliament yesterday, as an inquiry is finalising its recommendations as to whether the Government is doing enough to protect children at risk.
The Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, said yesterday 156 children at risk had died in 2007, up from 114 in 2006. In all cases, the children were known to DOCS as being at risk.
For several years the number of deaths of children at risk has hovered at 100-110 a year.
Criticism over the continued high level of deaths led last September to the Wood inquiry, headed by retired Supreme Court judge James Wood, QC. It is to report its findings by year end.
The number of deaths of children at risk is usually disclosed by the Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, although Ms Burney said yesterday she had told him that if asked during the committee hearings, she would disclose the data.
Ms Burney pointed to the "significant increase" in the number of deaths, which would be of public concern.
"The most frequently-recorded risk factors in reports about children and young people who died in 2007 were domestic violence and parental substance abuse," Ms Burney told the parliamentary committee hearing. "These issues seriously erode our children's safety, accompanied by a third social problem, mental health issues for parents."
Of the 156 deaths, 72 were from natural causes, 18 were babies who died of sudden infant death syndrome, known as SIDS, eight were suicides, eight died in car accidents, five drowned, three died from fires, three from accidental choking or smothering, 11 died in uncommon circumstances such as from a snake bite, four died from fatal physical assaults, and the remaining 19 died due to causes unknown or undetermined.
In all, 55 per cent were involved either directly, or their sibling, in instances of domestic violence in the three years before their death, and there was also 55 per cent in cases where there was suspicion of parental substance abuse, and 24 per cent showing parental mental health concerns
"The Opposition has been calling for a royal commission into DOCS for quite some time," the Opposition spokeswoman on community services, Katrina Hodgkinson, said. She blamed the department for not working closely with other government agencies, a culture of bullying in the department, and a "revolving door of junior ministers" handling the portfolio for the chronic problems.
During the committee hearing, the director-general of the Department of Community Services, Jenny Mason, said that despite successes in hiring more case workers, staff turnover remains high, at 8.9 per cent in 2006-07.
The Opposition put on notice questions about whether a J. Mason who donated $480 to the election campaign of Bob Debus, the former state member for Blue Mountains, and now a federal politician, is Jennifer Mason, Mr Debus's former chief of staff, who is now director-general of the Department of Community Services.
Government members of the committee sought to have these questions ruled out of order.
Brian RobinsOctober 16, 2008
THERE has been a surge in the number of deaths of children at risk in NSW in 2007, despite a $1.2 billion funding injection into the Department of Community Services over the previous five years.
The revelation came at an estimates hearing at State Parliament yesterday, as an inquiry is finalising its recommendations as to whether the Government is doing enough to protect children at risk.
The Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, said yesterday 156 children at risk had died in 2007, up from 114 in 2006. In all cases, the children were known to DOCS as being at risk.
For several years the number of deaths of children at risk has hovered at 100-110 a year.
Criticism over the continued high level of deaths led last September to the Wood inquiry, headed by retired Supreme Court judge James Wood, QC. It is to report its findings by year end.
The number of deaths of children at risk is usually disclosed by the Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, although Ms Burney said yesterday she had told him that if asked during the committee hearings, she would disclose the data.
Ms Burney pointed to the "significant increase" in the number of deaths, which would be of public concern.
"The most frequently-recorded risk factors in reports about children and young people who died in 2007 were domestic violence and parental substance abuse," Ms Burney told the parliamentary committee hearing. "These issues seriously erode our children's safety, accompanied by a third social problem, mental health issues for parents."
Of the 156 deaths, 72 were from natural causes, 18 were babies who died of sudden infant death syndrome, known as SIDS, eight were suicides, eight died in car accidents, five drowned, three died from fires, three from accidental choking or smothering, 11 died in uncommon circumstances such as from a snake bite, four died from fatal physical assaults, and the remaining 19 died due to causes unknown or undetermined.
In all, 55 per cent were involved either directly, or their sibling, in instances of domestic violence in the three years before their death, and there was also 55 per cent in cases where there was suspicion of parental substance abuse, and 24 per cent showing parental mental health concerns
"The Opposition has been calling for a royal commission into DOCS for quite some time," the Opposition spokeswoman on community services, Katrina Hodgkinson, said. She blamed the department for not working closely with other government agencies, a culture of bullying in the department, and a "revolving door of junior ministers" handling the portfolio for the chronic problems.
During the committee hearing, the director-general of the Department of Community Services, Jenny Mason, said that despite successes in hiring more case workers, staff turnover remains high, at 8.9 per cent in 2006-07.
The Opposition put on notice questions about whether a J. Mason who donated $480 to the election campaign of Bob Debus, the former state member for Blue Mountains, and now a federal politician, is Jennifer Mason, Mr Debus's former chief of staff, who is now director-general of the Department of Community Services.
Government members of the committee sought to have these questions ruled out of order.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
NURSES BORROW BANDAGES FROM VETS
Why Dubbo's gone to dogs
Natasha Wallace, Health Reporter, smh
October 16, 2008
NURSES have been forced to borrow bandages and medical equipment from a vet to use on patients at Dubbo Base Hospital.
The lack of supplies at the hospital has reached crisis point because of the Health Department's failure to pay millions of dollars in bills.
--------------
Do you know more? Are you a nurse, doctor or patient who has been affected? Message 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764) or email us with information.
--------------
The chairman of the hospital's Medical Staff Council, Dean Fisher, said patient safety was at risk.
He said the situation was so desperate that three weeks ago a doctor paid $770 out of his pocket for a few days' supply of reagent - a substance needed for blood tests - because the supplier, Abbott, had refused any more credit to the Greater Western Area Health Service.
An email from the pathology department on September 25, seen by the Herald, said it had only five days' worth of reagent left "due to circumstances beyond our control".
A spokeswoman for Abbott said yesterday the company had suspended supply "for a short time" due to unpaid bills but said it was asked several times to release supply for "critical" tests and it did so.
Dr Fisher said doctors were told surgery was being rescheduled because the hospital had run out of sterilisation fluid for equipment. It routinely ran out of basic supplies such as garbage bags and surgical gloves.
"We've had nursing staff having to go down to the local veterinary clinic to borrow bandages and urinary dipsticks … because the system's broken - and this is on a day-to-day basis. Every day I go to work I have to fight to get my patients into a bed. We have to fight for everything. We've run out of gloves this week," he said.
"It's starting to compromise my work ethics and my colleagues' work ethics in providing a safe environment for patients."
Another company that had suspended supply would not go on the record, fearing its contract would be affected.
On Monday evening the Medical Staff Council passed a motion of no confidence in hospital management and demanded that the Health Minister, John Della Bosca, immediately visit the hospital.
The Australian Medical Association called for an injection of funding for rural hospitals but Mr Della Bosca has refused to rule out cuts to hospitals until next month's mini-budget.
A spokesman for Mr Della Bosca said the area health service had recently paid off $6 million to suppliers, including to 5285 suppliers on October 7. Mr Della Bosca would visit Dubbo but he could not say when. Health Department officials were investigating the late payments, he said.
The area also owed aged and community care provider Catholic Healthcare $2 million, but had promised a payment within a week, an area spokeswoman said.
The chief executive of the area, Claire Blizard, will meet doctors on Monday but would not discuss the financial position or specific claims about shortages. "I have seen reports that doctors and nurses have bought food and other supplies. I thank them for their support but do not wish them to be put in this position again.".. The area service had made payment of local creditors a priority and another payment would be made on Monday night.
Natasha Wallace, Health Reporter, smh
October 16, 2008
NURSES have been forced to borrow bandages and medical equipment from a vet to use on patients at Dubbo Base Hospital.
The lack of supplies at the hospital has reached crisis point because of the Health Department's failure to pay millions of dollars in bills.
--------------
Do you know more? Are you a nurse, doctor or patient who has been affected? Message 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764) or email us with information.
--------------
The chairman of the hospital's Medical Staff Council, Dean Fisher, said patient safety was at risk.
He said the situation was so desperate that three weeks ago a doctor paid $770 out of his pocket for a few days' supply of reagent - a substance needed for blood tests - because the supplier, Abbott, had refused any more credit to the Greater Western Area Health Service.
An email from the pathology department on September 25, seen by the Herald, said it had only five days' worth of reagent left "due to circumstances beyond our control".
A spokeswoman for Abbott said yesterday the company had suspended supply "for a short time" due to unpaid bills but said it was asked several times to release supply for "critical" tests and it did so.
Dr Fisher said doctors were told surgery was being rescheduled because the hospital had run out of sterilisation fluid for equipment. It routinely ran out of basic supplies such as garbage bags and surgical gloves.
"We've had nursing staff having to go down to the local veterinary clinic to borrow bandages and urinary dipsticks … because the system's broken - and this is on a day-to-day basis. Every day I go to work I have to fight to get my patients into a bed. We have to fight for everything. We've run out of gloves this week," he said.
"It's starting to compromise my work ethics and my colleagues' work ethics in providing a safe environment for patients."
Another company that had suspended supply would not go on the record, fearing its contract would be affected.
On Monday evening the Medical Staff Council passed a motion of no confidence in hospital management and demanded that the Health Minister, John Della Bosca, immediately visit the hospital.
The Australian Medical Association called for an injection of funding for rural hospitals but Mr Della Bosca has refused to rule out cuts to hospitals until next month's mini-budget.
A spokesman for Mr Della Bosca said the area health service had recently paid off $6 million to suppliers, including to 5285 suppliers on October 7. Mr Della Bosca would visit Dubbo but he could not say when. Health Department officials were investigating the late payments, he said.
The area also owed aged and community care provider Catholic Healthcare $2 million, but had promised a payment within a week, an area spokeswoman said.
The chief executive of the area, Claire Blizard, will meet doctors on Monday but would not discuss the financial position or specific claims about shortages. "I have seen reports that doctors and nurses have bought food and other supplies. I thank them for their support but do not wish them to be put in this position again.".. The area service had made payment of local creditors a priority and another payment would be made on Monday night.
Monday, October 06, 2008
ANOTHER DOCTOR INVESTIGATED
Red News Readers,
There used to be a better balance of power between doctors, nurses and administrators that used to keep doctors like this more under control but with the deregulation of the system and the cost cutting, more and more inexperienced staff are working in the system, in face to face care and in management. If these staff do not have the knowledge, skill and experience and the confidence and assertion to stand up to doctors who practice at this sub standard level, the doctor can get away with it for some time before the system catches up them. Mandatory reporting may help, we have yet to see, but nurses and administrators also need to be re-empowered and believed when they report such sub standard practice. Doctors who practice at a sub standard level should not be allowed to get away with it because of the shortage of doctors, especially in rural areas.
Jenny Haines
Doctor investigated over hospital complaints
October 6, 2008 - 11:31AM
Source: ABC
John Della Bosca says he is deeply concerned over the allegations.
A former New South Wales doctor is being investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission over complaints at a hospital in the state's north.
The complaints have been lodged by 10 former patients at Lismore Base Hospital, where obstetrician Dr Roman Hasil worked for four years from June 2001 to March 2005.
NSW Health Minister John Della Bosca says he is deeply concerned and it is important the allegations are dealt with properly.
"I'll be making sure [the complaints are] dealt with compassionately and with concern," he said.
Mr Della Bosca says there have since been significant improvements in the way complaints are managed in the health care system.
"We're currently discussing national principles for the registration and certification of medical professionals," he said.
"It's very important to understand, however, that quality is something that is daily worked on in our public hospitals and in a situation where the treatment is not up to standard like this one, there's a great deal of concern."
NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell says the complaints should be investigated by an independent body.
"The circumstances surrounding the appointment of this doctor, his practices while he was employed by the area health service, should be investigated so that the patients and the public can have some assurance about what went on," he said.
Mr O'Farrell says there are claims that complaints were made and nothing was done.
"Given that health authorities were involved in this situation... it's important that someone outside the Health Department, and not an associated entity, investigate this matter," he said.
The North Coast Area Health Service says patient complaints about the alleged misconduct were handled appropriately.
The health service says a written apology was given to one patient who complained about Dr Hasil's treatment while she was giving birth at the hospital in 2003.
The health service says this complaint and the others raised were referred to the New South Wales Medical Board and the Health Care Complaints Commission.
The overseas-trained doctor is no longer licenced to practice in New South Wales.
© 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ABC Disclaimer
There used to be a better balance of power between doctors, nurses and administrators that used to keep doctors like this more under control but with the deregulation of the system and the cost cutting, more and more inexperienced staff are working in the system, in face to face care and in management. If these staff do not have the knowledge, skill and experience and the confidence and assertion to stand up to doctors who practice at this sub standard level, the doctor can get away with it for some time before the system catches up them. Mandatory reporting may help, we have yet to see, but nurses and administrators also need to be re-empowered and believed when they report such sub standard practice. Doctors who practice at a sub standard level should not be allowed to get away with it because of the shortage of doctors, especially in rural areas.
Jenny Haines
Doctor investigated over hospital complaints
October 6, 2008 - 11:31AM
Source: ABC
John Della Bosca says he is deeply concerned over the allegations.
A former New South Wales doctor is being investigated by the Health Care Complaints Commission over complaints at a hospital in the state's north.
The complaints have been lodged by 10 former patients at Lismore Base Hospital, where obstetrician Dr Roman Hasil worked for four years from June 2001 to March 2005.
NSW Health Minister John Della Bosca says he is deeply concerned and it is important the allegations are dealt with properly.
"I'll be making sure [the complaints are] dealt with compassionately and with concern," he said.
Mr Della Bosca says there have since been significant improvements in the way complaints are managed in the health care system.
"We're currently discussing national principles for the registration and certification of medical professionals," he said.
"It's very important to understand, however, that quality is something that is daily worked on in our public hospitals and in a situation where the treatment is not up to standard like this one, there's a great deal of concern."
NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell says the complaints should be investigated by an independent body.
"The circumstances surrounding the appointment of this doctor, his practices while he was employed by the area health service, should be investigated so that the patients and the public can have some assurance about what went on," he said.
Mr O'Farrell says there are claims that complaints were made and nothing was done.
"Given that health authorities were involved in this situation... it's important that someone outside the Health Department, and not an associated entity, investigate this matter," he said.
The North Coast Area Health Service says patient complaints about the alleged misconduct were handled appropriately.
The health service says a written apology was given to one patient who complained about Dr Hasil's treatment while she was giving birth at the hospital in 2003.
The health service says this complaint and the others raised were referred to the New South Wales Medical Board and the Health Care Complaints Commission.
The overseas-trained doctor is no longer licenced to practice in New South Wales.
© 2008 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ABC Disclaimer
Saturday, October 04, 2008
US SHEDS 159,000 JOBS
US sheds 159,000 jobs
Article from: Agence France-Presse
By Rob Lever in Washington
October 03, 2008 11:14pm
A STRUGGLING US economy lost 159,000 jobs in September as the weight of the housing collapse and credit crunch hit a broad swath of industries, government data showed today.
"There is little doubt that the nation is in a recession, which will only deepen in coming months, as the financial crisis casts a pall on economic activity," said Sophia Koropeckyj at Economy.com.
"This was much worse than was expected, as the full weight of the banking crisis, the cost of imported oil and job losses to China bore down on manufacturing and the broader economy with unrelenting pressure," said Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland.
The unemployment rate held at 6.1 per cent, a five-year high, the Labour Department said. The report on nonfarm payrolls, seen as one of the best indicators of economic momentum, showed a sharp rise in the number of cuts after 73,000 job losses in August. It was the ninth consecutive month of declining payrolls, according to the report, which was weaker than the average analyst forecast of a loss of 105,000 jobs.
Payrolls have fallen by 760,000 so far this year as the world's biggest economy has been roiled by a massive collapse in housing that spread to the financial sector and led to global credit crunch.
The report came as US lawmakers were debating a massive $US700-billion rescue plan for the financial system, which has been drowning in losses from the housing meltdown and keeping a tight rein on credit needed for economic growth.
The latest data showed the economy expanded at a healthy 2.8-per cent pace in the second quarter, but most analysts say the figure was misleading because of a surge in exports and the impact of a one-time government stimulus.
Over the month of September, employment continued to decline in manufacturing, construction, and retail trade, while some gains were seen in health care and mining. The manufacturing sector lost 51,000 jobs over the month, bringing the decline in factory jobs to 442,000 over the past 12 months, the report said. About 18,000 jobs were lost last month in the auto sector, which has been reeling from weak consumer spending and confidence. Some 35,000 jobs were lost in construction along with 40,000 in retail trade. The troubled financial sector shed 17,000 jobs in September, with nearly half of the decline occurring in securities and investment firms.
Overall, the report showed the financial sector has lost 172,000 jobs since December 2006. The report showed average hourly earnings rose 0.2 per cent to $US18.17, slightly below the consensus estimate of a 0.3 per cent rise. The average workweek for fell by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours, seasonally adjusted.
"Together this means incomes are going to be crimped that will feed back to weaken spending," said Robert Brusca at FAO Economics. "And the will fed back into jobs. It is vicious circle time."
Article from: Agence France-Presse
By Rob Lever in Washington
October 03, 2008 11:14pm
A STRUGGLING US economy lost 159,000 jobs in September as the weight of the housing collapse and credit crunch hit a broad swath of industries, government data showed today.
"There is little doubt that the nation is in a recession, which will only deepen in coming months, as the financial crisis casts a pall on economic activity," said Sophia Koropeckyj at Economy.com.
"This was much worse than was expected, as the full weight of the banking crisis, the cost of imported oil and job losses to China bore down on manufacturing and the broader economy with unrelenting pressure," said Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland.
The unemployment rate held at 6.1 per cent, a five-year high, the Labour Department said. The report on nonfarm payrolls, seen as one of the best indicators of economic momentum, showed a sharp rise in the number of cuts after 73,000 job losses in August. It was the ninth consecutive month of declining payrolls, according to the report, which was weaker than the average analyst forecast of a loss of 105,000 jobs.
Payrolls have fallen by 760,000 so far this year as the world's biggest economy has been roiled by a massive collapse in housing that spread to the financial sector and led to global credit crunch.
The report came as US lawmakers were debating a massive $US700-billion rescue plan for the financial system, which has been drowning in losses from the housing meltdown and keeping a tight rein on credit needed for economic growth.
The latest data showed the economy expanded at a healthy 2.8-per cent pace in the second quarter, but most analysts say the figure was misleading because of a surge in exports and the impact of a one-time government stimulus.
Over the month of September, employment continued to decline in manufacturing, construction, and retail trade, while some gains were seen in health care and mining. The manufacturing sector lost 51,000 jobs over the month, bringing the decline in factory jobs to 442,000 over the past 12 months, the report said. About 18,000 jobs were lost last month in the auto sector, which has been reeling from weak consumer spending and confidence. Some 35,000 jobs were lost in construction along with 40,000 in retail trade. The troubled financial sector shed 17,000 jobs in September, with nearly half of the decline occurring in securities and investment firms.
Overall, the report showed the financial sector has lost 172,000 jobs since December 2006. The report showed average hourly earnings rose 0.2 per cent to $US18.17, slightly below the consensus estimate of a 0.3 per cent rise. The average workweek for fell by 0.1 hour to 33.6 hours, seasonally adjusted.
"Together this means incomes are going to be crimped that will feed back to weaken spending," said Robert Brusca at FAO Economics. "And the will fed back into jobs. It is vicious circle time."
CONGRESS PASSES BAILOUT PACKAGE
Red News Readers,
It would be nice to know exactly which working families Rudd thinks will benefit from the bailout given that working families are those who are most likely to lose their homes and jobs because of the credit crisis?
And Turnbull looks very upset personally by all of this. Has he lost money on his shares? Dear dear!!
Jenny Haines
Rudd, Turnbull welcome Wall Street bailout package
October 4, 2008 - 12:28PM, smh
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the US package to bail out Wall Street is a step forward in easing the global financial crisis.
The US House of Representatives passed the $US700 billion package overnight.
"This is a positive step forward in restoring stability to the global banking system," Mr Rudd told reporters in Sydney today.
"But there is still much much more work to be done.
"The stability of the banking system is important to all working families everywhere."
Mr Rudd praised the US administration, Republicans and Democrats, for putting aside their differences and passing the package.
He said he had spoken to both the Republican whip and the Democratic majority leader on the issue.
"Now the challenge is globally consistent financial regulations on transparency, on prudential standards and on corporate governance," Mr Rudd said.
Mr Rudd said the crisis was obviously affecting the global economy, which is why the Australian government decided to bring forward its national building program.
"We take seriously our responsibility to provide leadership in a time of great global financial and economic crisis," he said.
Turnbull welcomes bailout
Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has welcomed the $US700billion bailout package to US Banks, saying it will ease pressure on Australian banks and financial institutions.
"It is an important step to resolving confidence throughout global financial markets," Mr Turnbull told reporters in Sydney today.
"As for Australia, while we do have a much more secure financial system - better regulated, better capitalised, lower level of default - nonetheless we are part of the world and we have been affected by the global crisis.
"We are in the midst of a global economic storm. We will get wet but we will not sink ... (the move will) benefit Australians and ease pressure on banks and other institutions in Australia."
Mr Turnbull warned that the move was no "silver bullet" and there could still be "rocky" times ahead.
"We have to recognise that this crisis has worsened to the extent that no one could have predicted," he said.
"I would not be surprised if we had more bad days on Wall Street, but I would hope that the trend will be to improve.
"Certainly we would be in a much worse position had this bailout bill not been passed."
Mr Turnbull added that the greater level of stability would make the role of every central bank "a lot easier" and hinted that a cut in the reserve bank rate was likely next week.
AAP
It would be nice to know exactly which working families Rudd thinks will benefit from the bailout given that working families are those who are most likely to lose their homes and jobs because of the credit crisis?
And Turnbull looks very upset personally by all of this. Has he lost money on his shares? Dear dear!!
Jenny Haines
Rudd, Turnbull welcome Wall Street bailout package
October 4, 2008 - 12:28PM, smh
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the US package to bail out Wall Street is a step forward in easing the global financial crisis.
The US House of Representatives passed the $US700 billion package overnight.
"This is a positive step forward in restoring stability to the global banking system," Mr Rudd told reporters in Sydney today.
"But there is still much much more work to be done.
"The stability of the banking system is important to all working families everywhere."
Mr Rudd praised the US administration, Republicans and Democrats, for putting aside their differences and passing the package.
He said he had spoken to both the Republican whip and the Democratic majority leader on the issue.
"Now the challenge is globally consistent financial regulations on transparency, on prudential standards and on corporate governance," Mr Rudd said.
Mr Rudd said the crisis was obviously affecting the global economy, which is why the Australian government decided to bring forward its national building program.
"We take seriously our responsibility to provide leadership in a time of great global financial and economic crisis," he said.
Turnbull welcomes bailout
Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has welcomed the $US700billion bailout package to US Banks, saying it will ease pressure on Australian banks and financial institutions.
"It is an important step to resolving confidence throughout global financial markets," Mr Turnbull told reporters in Sydney today.
"As for Australia, while we do have a much more secure financial system - better regulated, better capitalised, lower level of default - nonetheless we are part of the world and we have been affected by the global crisis.
"We are in the midst of a global economic storm. We will get wet but we will not sink ... (the move will) benefit Australians and ease pressure on banks and other institutions in Australia."
Mr Turnbull warned that the move was no "silver bullet" and there could still be "rocky" times ahead.
"We have to recognise that this crisis has worsened to the extent that no one could have predicted," he said.
"I would not be surprised if we had more bad days on Wall Street, but I would hope that the trend will be to improve.
"Certainly we would be in a much worse position had this bailout bill not been passed."
Mr Turnbull added that the greater level of stability would make the role of every central bank "a lot easier" and hinted that a cut in the reserve bank rate was likely next week.
AAP
Friday, October 03, 2008
ISLAND WAIT FOR BOAT PEOPLE
Yuko Narushima and Mark Metherell, SMH
October 3, 2008
THE first boatload of people to be intercepted off Australia's coast by the Rudd Government arrived at Christmas Island yesterday, but the lack of detail on the detainees has drawn accusations of secrecy from the Opposition.
The navy detected a boat with 11 male passengers, one female passenger and two crewmen off Ashmore Reef on Monday. The group was transferred to Australia's detention facility in the Indian Ocean by Customs.
The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, used the swift action dealing with the group to demonstrate the Government's strong stance on border protection.
"They are unauthorised arrivals and are subject to mandatory detention," he said yesterday.
"The interception of this group of unauthorised arrivals clearly demonstrated the Rudd Government's border security arrangements are working."
The Government has not identified the group's country of origin but confirmed translators had been flown to the island to help with identification.
The Opposition spokeswoman for immigration, Sharman Stone, said the Government was being cagey with information on the arrivals, three of whom claim to be juveniles.
"The Government quite clearly would know from the navy what languages these people were speaking and they would have put appropriate interpreters on their plane," she said.
"It's a case of the minister being coy. It's important to be transparent. Australians are very sympathetic and welcoming and I am surprised that Minister Evans is keeping a little veil of secrecy around this," Dr Stone said.
She said the needs of the people were more important than their country of origin.
Australia has a $396 million detention compound built by the Howard government at Christmas Island, which, since completion, has not been used. The new arrivals were being kept at a smaller complex on the island, at Phosphate Hill, saving on the costs involved with running an 800-person compound unnecessarily.
The Government could not say yesterday what it cost taxpayers to process people offshore. So far these include passage for the unauthorised arrivals to Christmas Island and a plane to transport translators and staff to conduct interviews and testing.
Offshore processing continues policies introduced by the Howard government. Known as the Pacific Solution, the policies were designed to prevent people reaching Australia.
The removal of the boatpeople to Christmas Island, outside Australian domestic territory, depriving them of recourse to Australian law, has drawn a cool response from the Refugee Council of Australia.
The council's president, John Gibson, said that although the asylum seekers were being kept away from the mainland, the Labor Government had established "a more benign process" giving the boat people access to independent review and welfare support.
"Within the current framework it is the best outcome we have got …We would obviously prefer the excision ended," Mr Gibson said, referring to the previous government's excision of offshore islands for legal purposes.
October 3, 2008
THE first boatload of people to be intercepted off Australia's coast by the Rudd Government arrived at Christmas Island yesterday, but the lack of detail on the detainees has drawn accusations of secrecy from the Opposition.
The navy detected a boat with 11 male passengers, one female passenger and two crewmen off Ashmore Reef on Monday. The group was transferred to Australia's detention facility in the Indian Ocean by Customs.
The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, used the swift action dealing with the group to demonstrate the Government's strong stance on border protection.
"They are unauthorised arrivals and are subject to mandatory detention," he said yesterday.
"The interception of this group of unauthorised arrivals clearly demonstrated the Rudd Government's border security arrangements are working."
The Government has not identified the group's country of origin but confirmed translators had been flown to the island to help with identification.
The Opposition spokeswoman for immigration, Sharman Stone, said the Government was being cagey with information on the arrivals, three of whom claim to be juveniles.
"The Government quite clearly would know from the navy what languages these people were speaking and they would have put appropriate interpreters on their plane," she said.
"It's a case of the minister being coy. It's important to be transparent. Australians are very sympathetic and welcoming and I am surprised that Minister Evans is keeping a little veil of secrecy around this," Dr Stone said.
She said the needs of the people were more important than their country of origin.
Australia has a $396 million detention compound built by the Howard government at Christmas Island, which, since completion, has not been used. The new arrivals were being kept at a smaller complex on the island, at Phosphate Hill, saving on the costs involved with running an 800-person compound unnecessarily.
The Government could not say yesterday what it cost taxpayers to process people offshore. So far these include passage for the unauthorised arrivals to Christmas Island and a plane to transport translators and staff to conduct interviews and testing.
Offshore processing continues policies introduced by the Howard government. Known as the Pacific Solution, the policies were designed to prevent people reaching Australia.
The removal of the boatpeople to Christmas Island, outside Australian domestic territory, depriving them of recourse to Australian law, has drawn a cool response from the Refugee Council of Australia.
The council's president, John Gibson, said that although the asylum seekers were being kept away from the mainland, the Labor Government had established "a more benign process" giving the boat people access to independent review and welfare support.
"Within the current framework it is the best outcome we have got …We would obviously prefer the excision ended," Mr Gibson said, referring to the previous government's excision of offshore islands for legal purposes.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
FIRST BOAT ON LABOR WATCH, 2008
This is the first boat which has arrived during the life of the Rudd Government.
Please God that these asylum seekers are treated more decently and fairly than those poor souls who came in the time of Howard and Ruddock.Hopefully they will not have to endure the tags- illegals, SUNCS, queue jumpers etc from bigoted politicians and rancid media.Is it possible for Australia to remember that we are signatories to the Refugee Convention and act accordingly?Perhaps with decent political leadership we just might get it right this time.
Navy intercepts boat carrying people off WA coast
Posted 1 hour 7 minutes ago Updated 54 minutes ago, 30.9.08.
The Royal Australian Navy has intercepted a boat carrying 14 people near Ashmore Islands, 320 kilometres off Western Australia's north-west coast.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Chris Evans says the boat had 12 passengers and two crew.
The nationalities of the passengers, 11 men and one woman, and their reason for travelling to Australia are yet to be confirmed.
The group will be taken to Christmas Island for processing.
They are expected to arrive later this week.--
Pamela Curr Campaign coordinator
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
12 Batman St
Melbourne 3003
Ph 03 93266006 / Fax 03 93265199
www.asrc.org.au
Please God that these asylum seekers are treated more decently and fairly than those poor souls who came in the time of Howard and Ruddock.Hopefully they will not have to endure the tags- illegals, SUNCS, queue jumpers etc from bigoted politicians and rancid media.Is it possible for Australia to remember that we are signatories to the Refugee Convention and act accordingly?Perhaps with decent political leadership we just might get it right this time.
Navy intercepts boat carrying people off WA coast
Posted 1 hour 7 minutes ago Updated 54 minutes ago, 30.9.08.
The Royal Australian Navy has intercepted a boat carrying 14 people near Ashmore Islands, 320 kilometres off Western Australia's north-west coast.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Chris Evans says the boat had 12 passengers and two crew.
The nationalities of the passengers, 11 men and one woman, and their reason for travelling to Australia are yet to be confirmed.
The group will be taken to Christmas Island for processing.
They are expected to arrive later this week.--
Pamela Curr Campaign coordinator
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
12 Batman St
Melbourne 3003
Ph 03 93266006 / Fax 03 93265199
www.asrc.org.au
$700B BAILOUT VOTED DOWN
$US700b bailout deal voted down
Anne Davies, Washington, smh
September 30, 2008 - 7:11AM
Wall Street's benchmark Dow index has suffered its worst single-day points hit ever after a $860 billion ($US700 billion) financial bailout package failed to pass the US House of Representatives.
The Dow lost about 778 points, or 6.98%, posting its biggest daily percentage decline since the October 1987 stock market crash, while the benchmark S&P 500 also had its worst day in 21 years after the House sent the bailout plan to defeat by a vote of 228 to 205.The tech-heavy Nasdaq had its worst day since April 2000 when the Internet bubble collapsed.
Market fear was deep and widespread, as investors dumped stocks for the relative safety of US government bonds. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, Wall Street's main barometer of investor fear, jumped 39% to 48.40, a nearly six-year high, and was at 46.72 at the close.
''I am shocked. Credit markets were struggling even with the prospect this bill was going to get passed. Now the bill doesn't get passed and it just throws one more monkey wrench into the mix,'' said Bob Doll, global chief investment officer of equities at BlackRock Inc, one of the world's largest asset managers.
The failure of the bailout bill means the US Treasury now has very limited capacity to bailout firms in the future, and economists are predicting that credit markets will seize up, preventing businesses and people from getting loans for ordinary day-to-day business activities, for college fees, for cars, and for appliances as well as for housing. Consumer and business interest rates are likely to rise sharply.
House leaders from both parties warned members that without the bill, America was standing on a financial precipice, which could send the US economy into a deep recession.The defeat of the bill came despite impassioned pleas by the leadership of both Republican and Democrat parties to vote for it. But 132 Republicans and 94 Democrats voted against it. Most had expected that more Republicans would support it as it was an administration bill.
The House leaders were scrambling to find a procedural way to bring the bill back before Congress before the members go home later today to begin campaigning for re-election.The overriding question for congressional leaders was what to do next. Congress has been trying to adjourn so that its members can go out and campaign. And with the November 4 Election Day looming, there was no clear indication of whether the leadership would keep them in Washington. Leaders were huddling after the vote to figure out their next steps.
A White House spokesman said that US President George Bush was ''very disappointed" the bill had failed.''There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed,'' Tony Fratto told reporters. He said the president will be meeting with members of his team later in the day ''to determine next steps.''''Obviously we are very disappointed in this outcome,'' Fratto said. ''There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed. The president will be meeting with his team this afternoon to determine the next steps and will also be in touch with congressional leaders.''
The mind-numbing vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush had used a call list of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as just a short time before the vote.Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.They found only two.Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote today was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations in Congress over the weekend.
''We're all worried about losing our jobs,'' Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican, declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote.
''Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it - not me.''
With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.''We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us,'' he said.Asked whether majority Democrats would try to reverse the stunning defeat, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ''We're certainly not going to abandon our responsibility. We'll continue to focus on this and see what actions we can take.''Several Republican aides said the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.Without mentioning her by name, Representative Adam Putnam, the No. 3 Republican, said: ''The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side.''Putnam said lawmakers were working ''to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse''.But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing.
''We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,'' House minority leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Republican said, ''poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south.''
Representative Roy Blunt, the Republican No. 2, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat, scoffed at the explanation.''Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them,'' he said. ''If people's feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest (requires), then they really don't belong here. They're not tough enough.''More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.''The Republicans don't trust the administration,'' he said. ''It's a Republican revolt against George Bush and John McCain.''In her speech, Pelosi had assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic policies.''They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over,'' Pelosi said.''Democrats believe in a free market,'' she said. ''But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans - some in the Republican Party, not all - it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos.''
with Agencies.
Anne Davies, Washington, smh
September 30, 2008 - 7:11AM
Wall Street's benchmark Dow index has suffered its worst single-day points hit ever after a $860 billion ($US700 billion) financial bailout package failed to pass the US House of Representatives.
The Dow lost about 778 points, or 6.98%, posting its biggest daily percentage decline since the October 1987 stock market crash, while the benchmark S&P 500 also had its worst day in 21 years after the House sent the bailout plan to defeat by a vote of 228 to 205.The tech-heavy Nasdaq had its worst day since April 2000 when the Internet bubble collapsed.
Market fear was deep and widespread, as investors dumped stocks for the relative safety of US government bonds. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, Wall Street's main barometer of investor fear, jumped 39% to 48.40, a nearly six-year high, and was at 46.72 at the close.
''I am shocked. Credit markets were struggling even with the prospect this bill was going to get passed. Now the bill doesn't get passed and it just throws one more monkey wrench into the mix,'' said Bob Doll, global chief investment officer of equities at BlackRock Inc, one of the world's largest asset managers.
The failure of the bailout bill means the US Treasury now has very limited capacity to bailout firms in the future, and economists are predicting that credit markets will seize up, preventing businesses and people from getting loans for ordinary day-to-day business activities, for college fees, for cars, and for appliances as well as for housing. Consumer and business interest rates are likely to rise sharply.
House leaders from both parties warned members that without the bill, America was standing on a financial precipice, which could send the US economy into a deep recession.The defeat of the bill came despite impassioned pleas by the leadership of both Republican and Democrat parties to vote for it. But 132 Republicans and 94 Democrats voted against it. Most had expected that more Republicans would support it as it was an administration bill.
The House leaders were scrambling to find a procedural way to bring the bill back before Congress before the members go home later today to begin campaigning for re-election.The overriding question for congressional leaders was what to do next. Congress has been trying to adjourn so that its members can go out and campaign. And with the November 4 Election Day looming, there was no clear indication of whether the leadership would keep them in Washington. Leaders were huddling after the vote to figure out their next steps.
A White House spokesman said that US President George Bush was ''very disappointed" the bill had failed.''There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed,'' Tony Fratto told reporters. He said the president will be meeting with members of his team later in the day ''to determine next steps.''''Obviously we are very disappointed in this outcome,'' Fratto said. ''There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed. The president will be meeting with his team this afternoon to determine the next steps and will also be in touch with congressional leaders.''
The mind-numbing vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush had used a call list of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as just a short time before the vote.Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.They found only two.Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote today was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations in Congress over the weekend.
''We're all worried about losing our jobs,'' Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican, declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote.
''Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it - not me.''
With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.''We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us,'' he said.Asked whether majority Democrats would try to reverse the stunning defeat, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, ''We're certainly not going to abandon our responsibility. We'll continue to focus on this and see what actions we can take.''Several Republican aides said the leader of the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.Without mentioning her by name, Representative Adam Putnam, the No. 3 Republican, said: ''The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side.''Putnam said lawmakers were working ''to garner the necessary votes to avoid a financial collapse''.But the defeat was already causing a brutal round of finger-pointing.
''We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House,'' House minority leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Republican said, ''poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south.''
Representative Roy Blunt, the Republican No. 2, estimated that Pelosi's speech changed the minds of a dozen Republicans who might otherwise have supported the plan.Representative Barney Frank, a Democrat, scoffed at the explanation.''Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them,'' he said. ''If people's feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest (requires), then they really don't belong here. They're not tough enough.''More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president.''The Republicans don't trust the administration,'' he said. ''It's a Republican revolt against George Bush and John McCain.''In her speech, Pelosi had assailed Bush and his administration for reckless economic policies.''They claim to be free market advocates when it's really an anything-goes mentality: No regulation, no supervision, no discipline. And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute and the taxpayer will bail you out. Those days are over. The party is over,'' Pelosi said.''Democrats believe in a free market,'' she said. ''But in this case, in its unbridled form, as encouraged, supported, by the Republicans - some in the Republican Party, not all - it has created not jobs, not capital. It has created chaos.''
with Agencies.
HARDIE'S VICTIMS DUPED
Elisabeth Sexton, smh
September 30, 2008
AN OVERFLOWING public gallery greeted yesterday's opening of a Supreme Court trial, which sufferers of asbestos diseases hope will bring James Hardie to account and which the corporate regulator expects to define how much openness the law expects of company directors.
Beginning a civil case against 10 former executives and directors of James Hardie, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission said it would prove there was no basis for unqualified statements in 2001 that a new trust had enough money to compensate for all asbestos diseases caused by the company's products.
Three years later it had emerged that the $293 million James Hardie had left in the trust was about $1.5 billion short. After a public furore, including a special commission of inquiry, the company set up a new scheme.
The commission wants Justice Ian Gzell to ban the 10 former executives and directors from company directorship and to impose fines of up to $200,000.
About 30 supporters of asbestos disease sufferers attended the hearing, including a tearful Karen Banton, the widow of the prominent asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton.
Ms Banton said she was "very thankful" the company had set up a new compensation scheme last year "but now it's time for these people to be accountable for trying to mislead many people, including the shareholders and asbestos sufferers".
The commission's barrister, Tony Bannon, SC, said "misleading and deficient" public statements by James Hardie were intended to ensure the company could proceed unimpeded with a corporate restructure between 2001 and 2003.
"A key objective of the restructuring was to protect the vast majority of its assets from asbestos liability claims," Mr Bannon said.
When the restructure began in February 2001, a company press release said the "fully funded" trust provided "certainty" for claimants and shareholders.
Senior executives knew these unequivocal statements could not be supported, Mr Bannon said.
The non-executive directors had a duty to ensure there was a "clear and supportable basis" for the statements.
The case "brings into sharp focus" the role of non-executive directors in evaluating "significant public assurances", he said.
Wayne Attrill, a former in-house lawyer at Hardie now working in Ireland, gave evidence that when he saw a final draft of the February 2001 press release he went "immediately with misgivings" to Hardie's then head of corporate affairs, Greg Baxter.
Cross-examined by Bret Walker, SC, for Hardie's former general counsel Peter Shafron, Mr Attrill said that a week before the press release was issued he gave Hardie's external actuarial adviser, Karl Marshall from Trowbridge Consulting, data on asbestos claims up to December 2000.
Six months later Mr Attrill was at a meeting where Mr Marshall said Trowbridge's estimate of the amount needed for compensation was now higher because the firm had not received accurate claims data in February.
"If in your understanding of that meeting on 6 August 2001 that was a reference to the kind of information you had supplied back on 8 February 2001, that was simply wrong of Mr Marshall to say that, wasn't it?" Mr Walker asked.
"Yes," Mr Attrill replied.
September 30, 2008
AN OVERFLOWING public gallery greeted yesterday's opening of a Supreme Court trial, which sufferers of asbestos diseases hope will bring James Hardie to account and which the corporate regulator expects to define how much openness the law expects of company directors.
Beginning a civil case against 10 former executives and directors of James Hardie, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission said it would prove there was no basis for unqualified statements in 2001 that a new trust had enough money to compensate for all asbestos diseases caused by the company's products.
Three years later it had emerged that the $293 million James Hardie had left in the trust was about $1.5 billion short. After a public furore, including a special commission of inquiry, the company set up a new scheme.
The commission wants Justice Ian Gzell to ban the 10 former executives and directors from company directorship and to impose fines of up to $200,000.
About 30 supporters of asbestos disease sufferers attended the hearing, including a tearful Karen Banton, the widow of the prominent asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton.
Ms Banton said she was "very thankful" the company had set up a new compensation scheme last year "but now it's time for these people to be accountable for trying to mislead many people, including the shareholders and asbestos sufferers".
The commission's barrister, Tony Bannon, SC, said "misleading and deficient" public statements by James Hardie were intended to ensure the company could proceed unimpeded with a corporate restructure between 2001 and 2003.
"A key objective of the restructuring was to protect the vast majority of its assets from asbestos liability claims," Mr Bannon said.
When the restructure began in February 2001, a company press release said the "fully funded" trust provided "certainty" for claimants and shareholders.
Senior executives knew these unequivocal statements could not be supported, Mr Bannon said.
The non-executive directors had a duty to ensure there was a "clear and supportable basis" for the statements.
The case "brings into sharp focus" the role of non-executive directors in evaluating "significant public assurances", he said.
Wayne Attrill, a former in-house lawyer at Hardie now working in Ireland, gave evidence that when he saw a final draft of the February 2001 press release he went "immediately with misgivings" to Hardie's then head of corporate affairs, Greg Baxter.
Cross-examined by Bret Walker, SC, for Hardie's former general counsel Peter Shafron, Mr Attrill said that a week before the press release was issued he gave Hardie's external actuarial adviser, Karl Marshall from Trowbridge Consulting, data on asbestos claims up to December 2000.
Six months later Mr Attrill was at a meeting where Mr Marshall said Trowbridge's estimate of the amount needed for compensation was now higher because the firm had not received accurate claims data in February.
"If in your understanding of that meeting on 6 August 2001 that was a reference to the kind of information you had supplied back on 8 February 2001, that was simply wrong of Mr Marshall to say that, wasn't it?" Mr Walker asked.
"Yes," Mr Attrill replied.
Monday, September 29, 2008
GOVT TO FUND 1000 MORE NURSING PLACES AT UNI
Red News Readers,
At last!! Not all we wanted but better than the previous government,
Jenny Haines
Govt to fund extra 1,000 nursing places
September 29, 2008 - 11:13AM, smh
The federal government says it will help fund more than 1,000 new nursing university places.
The announcement will take the number of commonwealth-supported places to 1,094, from next year.
Three-hundred places have been allocated to campuses in regional areas. There are 55 more midwifery places and 130 openings for specialist mental health nurses.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made the announcement while visiting John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle ahead of a community cabinet meeting.
Mr Rudd said nursing was a "priority area" and the extra places would help to increase nursing staff in the hospital system.
"That will benefit patients in the health system significantly and, ultimately, the community," a statement from Mr Rudd and cabinet colleagues said.
© 2008 AAPBrought to you by
When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or
var hidename = "scoop";var hidedomain = "smh.com.au";document.write("email");
email us.
Email -->
Email
Print
Normal font
Large font
$100
At last!! Not all we wanted but better than the previous government,
Jenny Haines
Govt to fund extra 1,000 nursing places
September 29, 2008 - 11:13AM, smh
The federal government says it will help fund more than 1,000 new nursing university places.
The announcement will take the number of commonwealth-supported places to 1,094, from next year.
Three-hundred places have been allocated to campuses in regional areas. There are 55 more midwifery places and 130 openings for specialist mental health nurses.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made the announcement while visiting John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle ahead of a community cabinet meeting.
Mr Rudd said nursing was a "priority area" and the extra places would help to increase nursing staff in the hospital system.
"That will benefit patients in the health system significantly and, ultimately, the community," a statement from Mr Rudd and cabinet colleagues said.
© 2008 AAPBrought to you by
When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or
var hidename = "scoop";var hidedomain = "smh.com.au";document.write("email");
email us.
Email -->
Normal font
Large font
$100
NO SIEV X INQUIRY??
SIEV-X questions sink leadership credentials
Michael Mullins,
September 15, 2008
We have now had our first opportunity to read excerpts from the memoirs of former deputy Liberal leader Peter Costello, which were published in the Fairfax press at the weekend ahead of tomorrow's release of the book. For most of this year, the widely anticipated work has focused public attention on who would have better led the Coalition into the 2007 Federal Election.This discussion has assumed a narrow definition of leadership that does not go beyond the ability to win elections.
It makes sense, as far as it goes. John Howard won more elections than any other prime minister since Menzies, therefore he is Australia's best Prime Minister since Menzies. The supposition that Costello might have had more chance than Howard of defeating Labor in 2007, is enough to conclude that the Liberal leadership should have passed to Costello some time before the election.
The assumptions underlying these commonly accepted propositions have rarely been questioned. If the discussion of recent months had included scrutiny of the qualities required for leadership, we might have revised them to include moral fortitude.
If morality becomes a criterion for leadership, we then need to ask different questions. Such questions are asked by a study that was released last week, just ahead of Costello's memoirs.
It is The SIEV-X: Insidious Conspiracy or Fortuitous Tragedy?, a seven-page position paper published by the Melbourne-based Christian lobby Social Policy Connections.As is known, though not so widely, 146 children, 142 women and 65 men died when an old wooden fishing vessel being used by people smugglers, sank while en route from Indonesia to Australia on 19 October 2001.
The paper's author Emmy Silvius points out that a month before the SIEV-X sank, John Howard revealed that he had authorised 'saturation surveillance' of international waters between Australia and Indonesia.
Howard said: 'We don't, in this nation, sink boats . But we're certainly talking about acts which are designed to deter.'
But deterrence became disruption, which in turn could very well have become sabotage - the Australian Government's answer to the French Government's Rainbow Warrior deterrence bid.
Then Minister for Immigration Philip Ruddock claimed some time afterwards that physically disrupting the work of people smugglers was one of the main reasons for the decline in asylum seeker boats coming to Australia. Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty explained that the AFP provided equipment, training and travel costs to those Indonesian authorities involved in disruption activities.
So far none of the ministers involved in the people smuggling disruption program has categorically denied that the disruption program in Indonesia ever involved sabotage of a people smuggling vessel. The Howard Government ignored Senate Committee advice and Senate motions calling for a judicial inquiry into the sinking of the SievX.
As Silvius concludes: 'This has to be the lowest point of Australian politics. How is it possible that a government can get away with covering up the largest Australian-related civilian catastrophe in the history of this country?'
The voices of political leaders with moral backbone should have been heard above the silence that surrounded the handling of this issue. They were not, as leadership efforts were focussed on issues such as border protection and economic prosperity, in the interest of winning elections.
LINK:Social Policy Connections. SIEVX.com
Michael Mullins,
September 15, 2008
We have now had our first opportunity to read excerpts from the memoirs of former deputy Liberal leader Peter Costello, which were published in the Fairfax press at the weekend ahead of tomorrow's release of the book. For most of this year, the widely anticipated work has focused public attention on who would have better led the Coalition into the 2007 Federal Election.This discussion has assumed a narrow definition of leadership that does not go beyond the ability to win elections.
It makes sense, as far as it goes. John Howard won more elections than any other prime minister since Menzies, therefore he is Australia's best Prime Minister since Menzies. The supposition that Costello might have had more chance than Howard of defeating Labor in 2007, is enough to conclude that the Liberal leadership should have passed to Costello some time before the election.
The assumptions underlying these commonly accepted propositions have rarely been questioned. If the discussion of recent months had included scrutiny of the qualities required for leadership, we might have revised them to include moral fortitude.
If morality becomes a criterion for leadership, we then need to ask different questions. Such questions are asked by a study that was released last week, just ahead of Costello's memoirs.
It is The SIEV-X: Insidious Conspiracy or Fortuitous Tragedy?, a seven-page position paper published by the Melbourne-based Christian lobby Social Policy Connections.As is known, though not so widely, 146 children, 142 women and 65 men died when an old wooden fishing vessel being used by people smugglers, sank while en route from Indonesia to Australia on 19 October 2001.
The paper's author Emmy Silvius points out that a month before the SIEV-X sank, John Howard revealed that he had authorised 'saturation surveillance' of international waters between Australia and Indonesia.
Howard said: 'We don't, in this nation, sink boats . But we're certainly talking about acts which are designed to deter.'
But deterrence became disruption, which in turn could very well have become sabotage - the Australian Government's answer to the French Government's Rainbow Warrior deterrence bid.
Then Minister for Immigration Philip Ruddock claimed some time afterwards that physically disrupting the work of people smugglers was one of the main reasons for the decline in asylum seeker boats coming to Australia. Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty explained that the AFP provided equipment, training and travel costs to those Indonesian authorities involved in disruption activities.
So far none of the ministers involved in the people smuggling disruption program has categorically denied that the disruption program in Indonesia ever involved sabotage of a people smuggling vessel. The Howard Government ignored Senate Committee advice and Senate motions calling for a judicial inquiry into the sinking of the SievX.
As Silvius concludes: 'This has to be the lowest point of Australian politics. How is it possible that a government can get away with covering up the largest Australian-related civilian catastrophe in the history of this country?'
The voices of political leaders with moral backbone should have been heard above the silence that surrounded the handling of this issue. They were not, as leadership efforts were focussed on issues such as border protection and economic prosperity, in the interest of winning elections.
LINK:Social Policy Connections. SIEVX.com
RATINGS AGENCIES: DOCTOR OR DENTIST
CREDIT RATING AGENCIES: DOCTOR OR DENTIST
By Ross Smith
Rimfire Review
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.John Maynard Keynes
Political Economist 1883 – 1946
AS THE American authorities made the biggest bank seizure in US history, the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, a right-wing, pro-American leader, declared that "laissez-faire is over" and continued with "The idea that the market is always right is a crazy idea." He is in good company. The German Chancellor, the conservative Angela Merkel, said: "It was said for a long time, 'Let the markets take care of themselves'." But now "even America and Britain are saying, 'Yes, we need more transparency, we need better standards"'.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, added a liturgical flavour by saying that an excess of faith in the market had become a kind of "idolatry". And all of them were really just repeating something that the American financier and philanthropist George Soros has been saying for years. "Unfortunately, we have an idea of market fundamentalism, which is now the dominant ideology, holding that markets are self-correcting, and this is false."
The comments of these world leaders indicate that the worldwide call for regulation and transparency is not entirely a Socialist knee jerk reflex. The comments do raise the question of ‘Are we watching the demise of Capitalism, which arose from the decline of Socialism, and a return of the pendulum to a central position whereby the excesses of both models can be avoided?’
The situation in USA where banks and other financial institutions have collapsed due to following ‘market forces’ philosophy based operational practices is an extremely clear indication that the worldwide Privatisation and Deregulation credos are basically flawed.
This flaw has also been demonstrated in Australia, as has the flow on effect. A prime example is the meteoric rise in prices in the housing ownership/tenure sector, and the attendant decrease in affordability for the public. Another example is the all time high personal debt level in Australia. The theme of the pop song, ‘I owe my soul to the company store’ is very apt in today’s economic climate..
In an attempt to minimise the flow-on damage to the community the USA Government is now proposing buying back/propping up the financial infrastructure they ‘Privatised’ or ‘Deregulated’ for an income stream boost. In doing so they are reimbursing the speculators that made a personal commercial decision to buy-in, and providing a return on capital to those speculators. This is being done with money raised from the community through the taxation system. The community members who suffered from the decision to Privatise and endorse/apply Market Forces are not being bailed out. The inequity of the supply of assistance does raise questions of whose welfare is more important to the USA government – the speculator or the consumer? The spectre of Capitalism being supported at the expense of the community arises.
This concept, as proposed by the USA President, has caused a major political reaction from his own party – they do not see it being the role of the government to bail out the Finance Sector. They are calling it ‘Nationalisation’, which is directly opposed to their credo of Capitalism.
A similar finance sector support/bailout situation is emerging in Australia, with the recent announcement of the Australian government’s intention to purchase packets of mortgages from the Financial sector.
The proposed bailout for the Australian Financial Sector is based on the Government purchasing ‘AAA’ rated Mortgages from the financial institutions. The parcels of mortgages are known as ‘Collateralised Debt Obligations’, the sale of which was the underlying cause of the current world wide Credit Crunch. The CDOs were rated by the Credit Rating Agencies, for a commission based fee three times larger than the fee for rating a Corporate Bond issue. Unfortunately the ratings were not accurate when tested in the crucible of reality.
Are these self same Credit Rating Agencies, the authors of the current credit crunch, now to be allowed a second bite of the cherry? What proof is there that they have lifted their game? Why should they be paid more money to be part of the proposed solution to a problem they created? A medical practitioner is not allowed to have an interest in a funeral parlour, yet a dentist is allowed to make and sell dentures. The rationale for the restriction on the doctors’ commercial opportunities is that they should not be able to profit from the death of their patient [client]. Why should the Credit Rating Agency be treated as a dentist?
The concept of provision of government funds to the Financial Sector membership to enable them to have an income whilst they are not earning their daily bread [and also not paying taxes] is the same as the provision of a sustenance level income to the unemployed individual community member. The variance is the requirement of Mutual Obligation imposed on the individual. It is to be hoped that the government will impose the requirement to deliver benefit to the community on the proposed ‘CentreLink’ payments to the Financial Sector.
The Australian public recognise the long term expense to the community of generalised Infrastructure Privatisation. A current prime example of this recognition capacity was the community opposition to the Privatisation of Electricity in NSW. The NSW government’s failure to accept the public’s wisdom lead to its internal collapse with the ultimate price to yet be determined at the Ballot Box. A prime example of historic sale of government owned Financial Infrastructure was the sale of the Commonwealth Bank – now one of those being potentially offered the rescue line of being able to sell its mortgages to the government.
An inherent risk of the Australian government’s proposed rescue line is that it will preserve the high earnings level of the sector and thus perpetuate the high cost to the customer. It does not set out a mechanism to reduce the cost of money to the customer, nor does it set out a mechanism for the product purchase price to the customer to be lowered. The sector will attempt to pass on the compliance costs to the customer. The overall result will not increase the affordability of housing for example, nor will it increase the ability to access housing.
The issue of why should a predatory lender be guaranteed their profit arises. One option would be for the government to declare all predatory loans to be null and void with title for the property passing to the intended victim, the borrower. This option would cause the finance sector shareholders, not the current or future customer, nor the community, to carry the losses arising from predatory lending. After all, they were happy to accept the profits in the form of dividends. It would provide the shareholders with an incentive to be aware of the ethics of the business they own.
How the Australian government handles the financial situation arising from the world wide credit crunch will be a defining moment in Australia’s political history.
It will be interesting to see if they adopt a Doctor or Dentist approach to selection of the players for the bail-out, and the conditions applied to those receiving assistance on both sides of the finance agreements.
Ross Smith, Waterloo
References:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/faith-no-more-as-market-revealed-to-be-false-idol/2008/09/26/1222217517562.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/michael-duffy/from-the-folks-behind-the-subprime-crisis-a-sword-over-nsws-head/2008/09/12/1220857832440.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/26/1222217517666.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudds-rules-to-rein-in-a-wayward-world/2008/09/26/1222217517553.html
The RIMFIRE Review is the weekly opinion publication of the National Tenant Support Network. It offers readers an opportunity to say what should be said, as distinct from what can be said, with anonymity, in the public arena. You are welcome to submit considered and robust opinion pieces for publication in the RIMFIRE Review, however, final editorial privilege will be vested in the Coordinator of the National TSN. 2007©RIMFIRE REVIEW.
Dougal Siam, Editor in Chief
By Ross Smith
Rimfire Review
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.John Maynard Keynes
Political Economist 1883 – 1946
AS THE American authorities made the biggest bank seizure in US history, the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, a right-wing, pro-American leader, declared that "laissez-faire is over" and continued with "The idea that the market is always right is a crazy idea." He is in good company. The German Chancellor, the conservative Angela Merkel, said: "It was said for a long time, 'Let the markets take care of themselves'." But now "even America and Britain are saying, 'Yes, we need more transparency, we need better standards"'.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, added a liturgical flavour by saying that an excess of faith in the market had become a kind of "idolatry". And all of them were really just repeating something that the American financier and philanthropist George Soros has been saying for years. "Unfortunately, we have an idea of market fundamentalism, which is now the dominant ideology, holding that markets are self-correcting, and this is false."
The comments of these world leaders indicate that the worldwide call for regulation and transparency is not entirely a Socialist knee jerk reflex. The comments do raise the question of ‘Are we watching the demise of Capitalism, which arose from the decline of Socialism, and a return of the pendulum to a central position whereby the excesses of both models can be avoided?’
The situation in USA where banks and other financial institutions have collapsed due to following ‘market forces’ philosophy based operational practices is an extremely clear indication that the worldwide Privatisation and Deregulation credos are basically flawed.
This flaw has also been demonstrated in Australia, as has the flow on effect. A prime example is the meteoric rise in prices in the housing ownership/tenure sector, and the attendant decrease in affordability for the public. Another example is the all time high personal debt level in Australia. The theme of the pop song, ‘I owe my soul to the company store’ is very apt in today’s economic climate..
In an attempt to minimise the flow-on damage to the community the USA Government is now proposing buying back/propping up the financial infrastructure they ‘Privatised’ or ‘Deregulated’ for an income stream boost. In doing so they are reimbursing the speculators that made a personal commercial decision to buy-in, and providing a return on capital to those speculators. This is being done with money raised from the community through the taxation system. The community members who suffered from the decision to Privatise and endorse/apply Market Forces are not being bailed out. The inequity of the supply of assistance does raise questions of whose welfare is more important to the USA government – the speculator or the consumer? The spectre of Capitalism being supported at the expense of the community arises.
This concept, as proposed by the USA President, has caused a major political reaction from his own party – they do not see it being the role of the government to bail out the Finance Sector. They are calling it ‘Nationalisation’, which is directly opposed to their credo of Capitalism.
A similar finance sector support/bailout situation is emerging in Australia, with the recent announcement of the Australian government’s intention to purchase packets of mortgages from the Financial sector.
The proposed bailout for the Australian Financial Sector is based on the Government purchasing ‘AAA’ rated Mortgages from the financial institutions. The parcels of mortgages are known as ‘Collateralised Debt Obligations’, the sale of which was the underlying cause of the current world wide Credit Crunch. The CDOs were rated by the Credit Rating Agencies, for a commission based fee three times larger than the fee for rating a Corporate Bond issue. Unfortunately the ratings were not accurate when tested in the crucible of reality.
Are these self same Credit Rating Agencies, the authors of the current credit crunch, now to be allowed a second bite of the cherry? What proof is there that they have lifted their game? Why should they be paid more money to be part of the proposed solution to a problem they created? A medical practitioner is not allowed to have an interest in a funeral parlour, yet a dentist is allowed to make and sell dentures. The rationale for the restriction on the doctors’ commercial opportunities is that they should not be able to profit from the death of their patient [client]. Why should the Credit Rating Agency be treated as a dentist?
The concept of provision of government funds to the Financial Sector membership to enable them to have an income whilst they are not earning their daily bread [and also not paying taxes] is the same as the provision of a sustenance level income to the unemployed individual community member. The variance is the requirement of Mutual Obligation imposed on the individual. It is to be hoped that the government will impose the requirement to deliver benefit to the community on the proposed ‘CentreLink’ payments to the Financial Sector.
The Australian public recognise the long term expense to the community of generalised Infrastructure Privatisation. A current prime example of this recognition capacity was the community opposition to the Privatisation of Electricity in NSW. The NSW government’s failure to accept the public’s wisdom lead to its internal collapse with the ultimate price to yet be determined at the Ballot Box. A prime example of historic sale of government owned Financial Infrastructure was the sale of the Commonwealth Bank – now one of those being potentially offered the rescue line of being able to sell its mortgages to the government.
An inherent risk of the Australian government’s proposed rescue line is that it will preserve the high earnings level of the sector and thus perpetuate the high cost to the customer. It does not set out a mechanism to reduce the cost of money to the customer, nor does it set out a mechanism for the product purchase price to the customer to be lowered. The sector will attempt to pass on the compliance costs to the customer. The overall result will not increase the affordability of housing for example, nor will it increase the ability to access housing.
The issue of why should a predatory lender be guaranteed their profit arises. One option would be for the government to declare all predatory loans to be null and void with title for the property passing to the intended victim, the borrower. This option would cause the finance sector shareholders, not the current or future customer, nor the community, to carry the losses arising from predatory lending. After all, they were happy to accept the profits in the form of dividends. It would provide the shareholders with an incentive to be aware of the ethics of the business they own.
How the Australian government handles the financial situation arising from the world wide credit crunch will be a defining moment in Australia’s political history.
It will be interesting to see if they adopt a Doctor or Dentist approach to selection of the players for the bail-out, and the conditions applied to those receiving assistance on both sides of the finance agreements.
Ross Smith, Waterloo
References:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/faith-no-more-as-market-revealed-to-be-false-idol/2008/09/26/1222217517562.htmlhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/michael-duffy/from-the-folks-behind-the-subprime-crisis-a-sword-over-nsws-head/2008/09/12/1220857832440.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/09/26/1222217517666.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudds-rules-to-rein-in-a-wayward-world/2008/09/26/1222217517553.html
The RIMFIRE Review is the weekly opinion publication of the National Tenant Support Network. It offers readers an opportunity to say what should be said, as distinct from what can be said, with anonymity, in the public arena. You are welcome to submit considered and robust opinion pieces for publication in the RIMFIRE Review, however, final editorial privilege will be vested in the Coordinator of the National TSN. 2007©RIMFIRE REVIEW.
Dougal Siam, Editor in Chief
Sunday, September 28, 2008
SIMMERING TENSIONS SEEN AS DOWNSIDE OF DIVERSITY
Sarah Price, smh
September 28, 2008
NSW is the most racist state in Australia, a 10-year study has found.
Challenging Racism: The Anti-Racism Research Project also found that while Australians were largely welcoming of diversity, the view of national identity was still narrow.
The first results of the study will be unveiled at the 4Rs international conference - Rights, Reconciliation, Respect and Responsibility - at the University of Technology, Sydney, which starts on Tuesday. The full results will be released early next year, with the data to be used by human rights and anti-discrimination agencies across Australia to implement strategies specific to the needs of each region.
The study, led by human geography and urban studies professor Kevin Dunn, from the University of Western Sydney, found high rates of migration meant NSW, on average, was the least tolerant of all the states and territories.
It scored highest when people were asked if Australia was weakened by ethnic groups sticking to their old ways and if there were any cultural or ethnic groups that did not fit into Australian society.
"If you were to do a very crude comparison to other states, NSW doesn't do quite so well, but there are lots of reasons why," Professor Dunn said.
A high rate of migration concentrated in Sydney meant a higher rate of encounters with different cultures and a greater cause for friction.
"It means that much of the work of accommodating diversity is done within Sydney," he said.
"It's done well. This [finding] isn't something necessarily that we should be overly anxious about.
It just means that there is more opportunity for poor cross-cultural contacts to have occurred."
With regard to Camden, the scene of a public fight against a planned Islamic school, Professor Dunn said: "A flare-up about an Islamic school in Camden is somewhat exacerbated in that area as it is a place that hasn't really dealt with cultural difference historically. But if you look at the data on Camden, [its residents] are no different than the norm in terms of their attitudes towards Muslims."
Ashfield, however, came out positively in nearly every aspect of the study, thanks to long-term encounters with diverse cultures.
"It could be one of the most tolerant areas in Sydney," he said.
Women were found to be more tolerant than men, with one exception - attitudes towards Muslims.
Dr Anne Pedersen, a social psychologist from Murdoch University, said the study findings were vital.
"You hear that Australia is an accepting country but we're just so diverse," she said. "Some are [tolerant], some are not, but sweeping this under the carpet does no good whatsoever."
Asma Yusra, a 21-year-old Muslim from Lakemba who will speak at the conference, said "I love the Australian culture, the music and food," but she has suffered racial prejudices.
In one incident, she recalls being at Town Hall station and having a man throw a newspaper at her face, opened at a story about a terrorist attack.
"I was deeply hurt by that experience. I feel just as Australian as everyone else. I was born and raised here," she said.
She is optimistic about the future, saying the children of migrant parents were working in their communities for tolerance.
September 28, 2008
NSW is the most racist state in Australia, a 10-year study has found.
Challenging Racism: The Anti-Racism Research Project also found that while Australians were largely welcoming of diversity, the view of national identity was still narrow.
The first results of the study will be unveiled at the 4Rs international conference - Rights, Reconciliation, Respect and Responsibility - at the University of Technology, Sydney, which starts on Tuesday. The full results will be released early next year, with the data to be used by human rights and anti-discrimination agencies across Australia to implement strategies specific to the needs of each region.
The study, led by human geography and urban studies professor Kevin Dunn, from the University of Western Sydney, found high rates of migration meant NSW, on average, was the least tolerant of all the states and territories.
It scored highest when people were asked if Australia was weakened by ethnic groups sticking to their old ways and if there were any cultural or ethnic groups that did not fit into Australian society.
"If you were to do a very crude comparison to other states, NSW doesn't do quite so well, but there are lots of reasons why," Professor Dunn said.
A high rate of migration concentrated in Sydney meant a higher rate of encounters with different cultures and a greater cause for friction.
"It means that much of the work of accommodating diversity is done within Sydney," he said.
"It's done well. This [finding] isn't something necessarily that we should be overly anxious about.
It just means that there is more opportunity for poor cross-cultural contacts to have occurred."
With regard to Camden, the scene of a public fight against a planned Islamic school, Professor Dunn said: "A flare-up about an Islamic school in Camden is somewhat exacerbated in that area as it is a place that hasn't really dealt with cultural difference historically. But if you look at the data on Camden, [its residents] are no different than the norm in terms of their attitudes towards Muslims."
Ashfield, however, came out positively in nearly every aspect of the study, thanks to long-term encounters with diverse cultures.
"It could be one of the most tolerant areas in Sydney," he said.
Women were found to be more tolerant than men, with one exception - attitudes towards Muslims.
Dr Anne Pedersen, a social psychologist from Murdoch University, said the study findings were vital.
"You hear that Australia is an accepting country but we're just so diverse," she said. "Some are [tolerant], some are not, but sweeping this under the carpet does no good whatsoever."
Asma Yusra, a 21-year-old Muslim from Lakemba who will speak at the conference, said "I love the Australian culture, the music and food," but she has suffered racial prejudices.
In one incident, she recalls being at Town Hall station and having a man throw a newspaper at her face, opened at a story about a terrorist attack.
"I was deeply hurt by that experience. I feel just as Australian as everyone else. I was born and raised here," she said.
She is optimistic about the future, saying the children of migrant parents were working in their communities for tolerance.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
CUT OFF ELECTRICITY DEADLY
Red News Readers,
The "joys" of privatised electricity services!! I think the Coroner here was too nice to Mr A, and his company Vircom. Even if the deceased patient's family did not tell Mr A that the ventilator required electricity, he could have asked, or used his common sense and looked more closely, given the importance of the equipment to maintaining her life!!
Jenny Haines
Cut off: electricity debt deadly for oxygen machine woman
September 23, 2008 - 1:19PM, smh
A patient such as Mrs Muliaga would probably not read past the first paragraph in the letter. It is not an effective piece of communication from the patient's point of view
A decision by a power company to cut electricity to the home of a New Zealand woman on an oxygen machine who owed them money contributed to her death, a coroner has found.
Coroner Gordon Matenga today handed down his findings into the death of Folole Muliaga whose death made international headlines last year and prompted debate about corporate responsibility.
Ms Muliaga, 45, died on May 29 last year owing the government-owned Mercury Energy $138.
Her death occurred just hours after power to her Mangere, Auckland, home was cut off for non-payment.
"The cessation of oxygen therapy and the stress arising from the fact of the disconnection (as opposed to the way in which the power was disconnected) have contributed to her death," the coroner found.
He said Ms Muliaga was morbidly obese at the time of her death, and she died of arrhythmia following the disconnection.
Soon after her death, her family accused a contractor who carried out the disconnection of knowing she was reliant on an oxygen machine to breathe.
But the coroner found that while the contractor, only known to the court as Mr A, would have had to walk over a tube running from the oxygen machine, he did not notice it.
"Neither Folole Muliaga nor (her son) Ietitaia has said anything to Mr A which would a alert him to Mrs Muliaga's state of health, her use of the oxygen machine, or her need for the power to remain connected to that the machine remained operational," the coroner said.
"I am satisfied that had either Ietitaia Muliaga or Mrs Muliaga told Mr A that electricity was needed to run a machine which provided oxygen to Mrs Muliaga that Mr A would have exercised his discretion in favour of no disconnection," Matenga said.
The coroner said that government-owned business Mercury Energy, or its parent company Mighty River Power, were bound by laws that included the need to show social responsibility.
He said guidelines for New Zealand's electricity industry were in place at the time of Muliaga's death, and Mercury Energy had not fully complied with them.
While the guidelines said customers who thought they faced excessive hardship from a disconnection should let the retailer know, the guidelines also said information should be supplied on how to do this.
"Mercury Energy did not provide information about self-identification for such vulnerable customers," the coroner found.
"It is perhaps no surprise then that the Muliaga family did not advise Mercury Energy of Mrs Muliaga's medication condition," he said.
The coroner was also critical of the processes of the Counties Manukau Health Board, which ran the Middlemore hospital where Muliaga was treated just weeks prior to her death.
He said a letter that may have been given to Muliaga when she left hospital was written clearly for a medical audience.
"A patient such as Mrs Muliaga would probably not read past the first paragraph in the letter. It is not an effective piece of communication from the patient's point of view," he said.
He was critical of the hospital's Do Not Attempt Resuscitation policy, detailing how patients and their significant others should be told about the benefits and risks of resuscitation.
"There is no record that any informed discussion took place with Mrs Muliaga and there was no discussion with members of Mrs Muliaga's family.
"This is not good enough," he said.
Vircom EMS, the company contracted by Mercury Energy which cut the power to Muliaga's home, welcomed the coroner's findings.
"Vircom has reviewed the findings carefully and accepts the statements made by the coroner in relation to the company, its contractors and staff and their actions," the company said in a statement today.
"The sympathies of the company remain with the family," it said.
AAP
The "joys" of privatised electricity services!! I think the Coroner here was too nice to Mr A, and his company Vircom. Even if the deceased patient's family did not tell Mr A that the ventilator required electricity, he could have asked, or used his common sense and looked more closely, given the importance of the equipment to maintaining her life!!
Jenny Haines
Cut off: electricity debt deadly for oxygen machine woman
September 23, 2008 - 1:19PM, smh
A patient such as Mrs Muliaga would probably not read past the first paragraph in the letter. It is not an effective piece of communication from the patient's point of view
A decision by a power company to cut electricity to the home of a New Zealand woman on an oxygen machine who owed them money contributed to her death, a coroner has found.
Coroner Gordon Matenga today handed down his findings into the death of Folole Muliaga whose death made international headlines last year and prompted debate about corporate responsibility.
Ms Muliaga, 45, died on May 29 last year owing the government-owned Mercury Energy $138.
Her death occurred just hours after power to her Mangere, Auckland, home was cut off for non-payment.
"The cessation of oxygen therapy and the stress arising from the fact of the disconnection (as opposed to the way in which the power was disconnected) have contributed to her death," the coroner found.
He said Ms Muliaga was morbidly obese at the time of her death, and she died of arrhythmia following the disconnection.
Soon after her death, her family accused a contractor who carried out the disconnection of knowing she was reliant on an oxygen machine to breathe.
But the coroner found that while the contractor, only known to the court as Mr A, would have had to walk over a tube running from the oxygen machine, he did not notice it.
"Neither Folole Muliaga nor (her son) Ietitaia has said anything to Mr A which would a alert him to Mrs Muliaga's state of health, her use of the oxygen machine, or her need for the power to remain connected to that the machine remained operational," the coroner said.
"I am satisfied that had either Ietitaia Muliaga or Mrs Muliaga told Mr A that electricity was needed to run a machine which provided oxygen to Mrs Muliaga that Mr A would have exercised his discretion in favour of no disconnection," Matenga said.
The coroner said that government-owned business Mercury Energy, or its parent company Mighty River Power, were bound by laws that included the need to show social responsibility.
He said guidelines for New Zealand's electricity industry were in place at the time of Muliaga's death, and Mercury Energy had not fully complied with them.
While the guidelines said customers who thought they faced excessive hardship from a disconnection should let the retailer know, the guidelines also said information should be supplied on how to do this.
"Mercury Energy did not provide information about self-identification for such vulnerable customers," the coroner found.
"It is perhaps no surprise then that the Muliaga family did not advise Mercury Energy of Mrs Muliaga's medication condition," he said.
The coroner was also critical of the processes of the Counties Manukau Health Board, which ran the Middlemore hospital where Muliaga was treated just weeks prior to her death.
He said a letter that may have been given to Muliaga when she left hospital was written clearly for a medical audience.
"A patient such as Mrs Muliaga would probably not read past the first paragraph in the letter. It is not an effective piece of communication from the patient's point of view," he said.
He was critical of the hospital's Do Not Attempt Resuscitation policy, detailing how patients and their significant others should be told about the benefits and risks of resuscitation.
"There is no record that any informed discussion took place with Mrs Muliaga and there was no discussion with members of Mrs Muliaga's family.
"This is not good enough," he said.
Vircom EMS, the company contracted by Mercury Energy which cut the power to Muliaga's home, welcomed the coroner's findings.
"Vircom has reviewed the findings carefully and accepts the statements made by the coroner in relation to the company, its contractors and staff and their actions," the company said in a statement today.
"The sympathies of the company remain with the family," it said.
AAP
REFUGEES BEAT BUCKLEY'S CHANCE
Red News Readers,
Never forget Phillip Ruddock!!
Jenny Haines
September 27, 2008, smh
Connie Levett finds a family detained under the watch of Philip Ruddock has left the scars at the bars.
SHAYAN BADRAIE loves his soccer, has taken up karate, and most importantly, can look you in the face and shyly answer questions. Seven years ago, many feared Shayan would not survive Australia's mandatory detention system. He was mute, wasting away and traumatised as the immigration minister, Philip Ruddock, and his department resisted calls to free him from the source of his trauma: detention.
What was the chance Shayan, now 13, would overcome post-traumatic stress disorder - sparked by the horrors he witnessed inside Woomera and Villawood detention centres - to enjoy this new life in Australia? Buckley's, or "Bucklies", as a controversial ministerial minute signed by Mr Ruddock noted.
The Immigration Department relented in August 2001, letting Shayan out after damning media coverage of the traumatised six-year-old's plight. Shayan was then separated from his family, who remained in detention, and was placed in foster care, where he continued to struggle.
Mr Ruddock received advice, in a ministerial minute signed by him on October 4, 2001, that "the ideal situation would be for the family to be together outside the detention environment".
Next to the paragraph, someone had written "Bucklies".
The ministerial minute was cited in the Badraies' successful 2005 compensation case against the Commonwealth for its treatment of Shayan. "The word 'Buckley's' misspelt as 'Bucklies' appears to be in [Ruddock's] handwriting on the minute," Andrew Morrison, SC, for the Badraies told the court in his opening address. The Crown's legal team made no objection or denial to the claim.
Mr Ruddock yesterday refused to comment on whether he had written the "Bucklies" remark, saying it was not appropriate to do so in case further litigation was forthcoming.
Jacquie Everitt, a refugee advocate and author, said: "At the time, the people trying to get Shayan and his family released into the community did not know the level of intransigence by the department. They thought it was a glitch in the system that was preventing the release of the child into a safer environment."
In recent weeks Mr Ruddock has sought to soften public perception of his controversial ministry.
But The Bitter Shore, a new book by Everitt, will do nothing to help his cause. It retraces the hard-hearted treatment of Shayan, a six-year-old Iranian refugee (who came to Australia by boat with his father, Saeed Badraie, and stepmother, Zahra Saberi, in March 2000), as he slipped into psychological paralysis, and the government's efforts to turn public opinion against the family.
"The greatest shock for me, in researching the Badraie story, was that a minister of the Crown was kept appraised at all times by his own staff of what a six-year-old child was going through, yet could not be moved to compassion," said Everitt, who first brought attention to Shayan's plight after meeting the family in Villawood detention centre in mid-2001. "Whatever you might think of his parents' claims, the child was very ill. After reading hundreds of thousands of pages of documents I saw so little hint that they saw this as anything but a case to be managed."
The documents show Mr Ruddock and his department were well aware of the Badraie case. Immigration Department correspondence suggested Shayan, at the behest of his parents, may be exaggerating his trauma and refusing to eat while in detention. Between May and August 2001 the child was hospitalised seven times for rehydration. Doctors at the Children's Hospital at Westmead wrote to the minister in late May highlighting the need for Shayan's removal from detention, with his family.
Nothing was done until Everitt smuggled a video camera into Villawood so the public could hear and see, first hand, Shayan's plight.
Through all this controversy, Everitt said, the Immigration Department believed it had successfully managed the case.
"In January 2002, Bill Farmer, the department secretary, sent emails to officers involved in the case thanking them and saying, 'The result is one which bears witness to the strength of performance by the department.' "
Asked if, with hindsight, Mr Ruddock believed the government had failed Shayan Badraie, the former immigration minister refused to answer, citing possible future litigation.
"I was certainly of the view alternative detention arrangements were appropriate for children but that did not mean others, particularly the principal [on the asylum claim] should be released," he said.
Despite their bitter start to life in Australia, the Badraie family are determined to make it work. Saeed, 39, Zahra, 37, Shayan and eight-year-old Shabnam, who was born in Woomera, live in western Sydney and became Australian citizens last month. Saeed has a small painting business,
Zahra works in child care. Shayan says his favourite thing to do is play soccer, then strikes a karate pose as he tells of his new hobby.
"We learnt we have to be more patient and not expect the things we thought about Australia," Zahra said. "Shayan is happy. Together as a family we help each other. It was a very hard time, but like this, you can survive."
The Bitter Shore (Pan Macmillan) by Jacquie Everitt will be published in October.
Never forget Phillip Ruddock!!
Jenny Haines
September 27, 2008, smh
Connie Levett finds a family detained under the watch of Philip Ruddock has left the scars at the bars.
SHAYAN BADRAIE loves his soccer, has taken up karate, and most importantly, can look you in the face and shyly answer questions. Seven years ago, many feared Shayan would not survive Australia's mandatory detention system. He was mute, wasting away and traumatised as the immigration minister, Philip Ruddock, and his department resisted calls to free him from the source of his trauma: detention.
What was the chance Shayan, now 13, would overcome post-traumatic stress disorder - sparked by the horrors he witnessed inside Woomera and Villawood detention centres - to enjoy this new life in Australia? Buckley's, or "Bucklies", as a controversial ministerial minute signed by Mr Ruddock noted.
The Immigration Department relented in August 2001, letting Shayan out after damning media coverage of the traumatised six-year-old's plight. Shayan was then separated from his family, who remained in detention, and was placed in foster care, where he continued to struggle.
Mr Ruddock received advice, in a ministerial minute signed by him on October 4, 2001, that "the ideal situation would be for the family to be together outside the detention environment".
Next to the paragraph, someone had written "Bucklies".
The ministerial minute was cited in the Badraies' successful 2005 compensation case against the Commonwealth for its treatment of Shayan. "The word 'Buckley's' misspelt as 'Bucklies' appears to be in [Ruddock's] handwriting on the minute," Andrew Morrison, SC, for the Badraies told the court in his opening address. The Crown's legal team made no objection or denial to the claim.
Mr Ruddock yesterday refused to comment on whether he had written the "Bucklies" remark, saying it was not appropriate to do so in case further litigation was forthcoming.
Jacquie Everitt, a refugee advocate and author, said: "At the time, the people trying to get Shayan and his family released into the community did not know the level of intransigence by the department. They thought it was a glitch in the system that was preventing the release of the child into a safer environment."
In recent weeks Mr Ruddock has sought to soften public perception of his controversial ministry.
But The Bitter Shore, a new book by Everitt, will do nothing to help his cause. It retraces the hard-hearted treatment of Shayan, a six-year-old Iranian refugee (who came to Australia by boat with his father, Saeed Badraie, and stepmother, Zahra Saberi, in March 2000), as he slipped into psychological paralysis, and the government's efforts to turn public opinion against the family.
"The greatest shock for me, in researching the Badraie story, was that a minister of the Crown was kept appraised at all times by his own staff of what a six-year-old child was going through, yet could not be moved to compassion," said Everitt, who first brought attention to Shayan's plight after meeting the family in Villawood detention centre in mid-2001. "Whatever you might think of his parents' claims, the child was very ill. After reading hundreds of thousands of pages of documents I saw so little hint that they saw this as anything but a case to be managed."
The documents show Mr Ruddock and his department were well aware of the Badraie case. Immigration Department correspondence suggested Shayan, at the behest of his parents, may be exaggerating his trauma and refusing to eat while in detention. Between May and August 2001 the child was hospitalised seven times for rehydration. Doctors at the Children's Hospital at Westmead wrote to the minister in late May highlighting the need for Shayan's removal from detention, with his family.
Nothing was done until Everitt smuggled a video camera into Villawood so the public could hear and see, first hand, Shayan's plight.
Through all this controversy, Everitt said, the Immigration Department believed it had successfully managed the case.
"In January 2002, Bill Farmer, the department secretary, sent emails to officers involved in the case thanking them and saying, 'The result is one which bears witness to the strength of performance by the department.' "
Asked if, with hindsight, Mr Ruddock believed the government had failed Shayan Badraie, the former immigration minister refused to answer, citing possible future litigation.
"I was certainly of the view alternative detention arrangements were appropriate for children but that did not mean others, particularly the principal [on the asylum claim] should be released," he said.
Despite their bitter start to life in Australia, the Badraie family are determined to make it work. Saeed, 39, Zahra, 37, Shayan and eight-year-old Shabnam, who was born in Woomera, live in western Sydney and became Australian citizens last month. Saeed has a small painting business,
Zahra works in child care. Shayan says his favourite thing to do is play soccer, then strikes a karate pose as he tells of his new hobby.
"We learnt we have to be more patient and not expect the things we thought about Australia," Zahra said. "Shayan is happy. Together as a family we help each other. It was a very hard time, but like this, you can survive."
The Bitter Shore (Pan Macmillan) by Jacquie Everitt will be published in October.
Friday, September 26, 2008
WE CAN NO LONGER BANK ON THE FREE MARKET
Red News Readers,
Who needs the terrorists to bring America down when we have Wall Street?
Jenny Haines
We can no longer bank on the free market
Richard Ackland,smh
September 26, 2008
There were boys of my acquaintance who, having scraped four Bs in the leaving certificate, were presented by their fathers with a red MG and a seat on the Sydney Stock Exchange, as it then was.
That's going back a while now, but some of them are still there. Some even graduated from broking to a higher calling, "merchant banking".
I've been worried about markets ever since.
Yet we've had reassurance from Messrs Rudd and Swan that this country's system of regulation is second to none, certainly superior to that in the US. The message from the top is that Australia is immune from the uncertainties gripping our powerful friend.
Immediately, I'm concerned.
Consider what is subject to no regulation or regulation-lite: hedge funds, a large proportion of short selling, investment banks, great slabs of the finance business, along with numerous zany financial instruments.
The stock exchange as a regulator of the market is inherently conflicted. The competition regulator has had much of its reach progressively crimped by the High Court, and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission is hardly the best-resourced policeman on the block. It's quite good at shooting down the small-fry transgressors, but the big and the ugly are rarely roped in.
There's also the prudential regulator that keeps an eye on commercial trading banks and insurance companies. It must have dropped off while HIH was heading for the rocks.
Where we do differ from America is that Australia has a more centralised and better-organised regulatory regime. Apart from that, our regulatory aims and strengths are rather similar.
What can't be regulated in any market are things such as sentiment, confidence, fear, herd instincts and greed. They are outside the scope of the most artful draftsperson. So far, no one has come up with a law that forbids people forming a queue outside a bank.
Quite apart from which the regulators on occasions are uncertain about how to regulate. The move this week to restrict short selling is a case in point.
Originally all short sales were to be off, then ASIC relented and said that covered short sales of dual listed stocks would be OK. Since then the Australian Stock Exchange and ASIC have fallen out of step on the whole topic.
In the US the details of the Treasury's "plan" to avert a disaster in capital and credit markets is extraordinarily vague. The details of how the $US700 billion ($837 billion) is to be financed are far from clear. It looks like a case of new debt for old debt. How the trash assets that are to be traded for cash or government paper will be valued is also unknown, let along which institutions qualify for the handout.
Also, assuming all this ultimately comes to a happy end, will capital markets be permitted to return unhindered to the business of manufacturing dubious assets and fee-driven greed?
The biggest unknown of all is, will it work?
Certainly, the downside of all this, the prospect of a trillion-dollar US deficit and the printing of money, and how the interest bill is going to be paid is not in the discussion mix - let along whether taxpayers need to get something more out of this than a hypothetical unclogging of the financial arteries.
It's all a matter of just trusting the US Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, (ex Goldman Sachs) to get things going and restore confidence.
The appearance of George Bush on prime time television looking like a stunned mullet and pronouncing "our economy is in serious danger" would have sent a chill around the world. Of course, he was trying to bludgeon Democrats into supporting Paulson's blank cheque, without debate.
We have all been suckled on the dictum that markets will arrive at the correct outcomes.
Markets do the regulating. What we see is that raw-boned marketeering is really nothing more than an excuse to avoid social responsibility. Everything that can't be resolved by a free market outcome is by definition insoluble, and best forgotten.
To save the market, the taxpayer is now being asked to fund the nationalisation of the "commanding heights of the economy" - banks, mortgage lenders and insurance companies.
Old-fashioned socialists must be dusting off their manifestos.
If we had such a well-regulated system, we'd know the answers to a lot of the unknowns. Yet we don't know, for instance, whether the Reserve Bank and the Treasury here would step in and buy up junk debt from irresponsible financial institutions. And what would happen if they didn't?
Where sentiment turns now is the big unknown. Not even the US Treasury can regulate that. All that we can bank on is "hope".
justinian@lawpress.com.au
Who needs the terrorists to bring America down when we have Wall Street?
Jenny Haines
We can no longer bank on the free market
Richard Ackland,smh
September 26, 2008
There were boys of my acquaintance who, having scraped four Bs in the leaving certificate, were presented by their fathers with a red MG and a seat on the Sydney Stock Exchange, as it then was.
That's going back a while now, but some of them are still there. Some even graduated from broking to a higher calling, "merchant banking".
I've been worried about markets ever since.
Yet we've had reassurance from Messrs Rudd and Swan that this country's system of regulation is second to none, certainly superior to that in the US. The message from the top is that Australia is immune from the uncertainties gripping our powerful friend.
Immediately, I'm concerned.
Consider what is subject to no regulation or regulation-lite: hedge funds, a large proportion of short selling, investment banks, great slabs of the finance business, along with numerous zany financial instruments.
The stock exchange as a regulator of the market is inherently conflicted. The competition regulator has had much of its reach progressively crimped by the High Court, and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission is hardly the best-resourced policeman on the block. It's quite good at shooting down the small-fry transgressors, but the big and the ugly are rarely roped in.
There's also the prudential regulator that keeps an eye on commercial trading banks and insurance companies. It must have dropped off while HIH was heading for the rocks.
Where we do differ from America is that Australia has a more centralised and better-organised regulatory regime. Apart from that, our regulatory aims and strengths are rather similar.
What can't be regulated in any market are things such as sentiment, confidence, fear, herd instincts and greed. They are outside the scope of the most artful draftsperson. So far, no one has come up with a law that forbids people forming a queue outside a bank.
Quite apart from which the regulators on occasions are uncertain about how to regulate. The move this week to restrict short selling is a case in point.
Originally all short sales were to be off, then ASIC relented and said that covered short sales of dual listed stocks would be OK. Since then the Australian Stock Exchange and ASIC have fallen out of step on the whole topic.
In the US the details of the Treasury's "plan" to avert a disaster in capital and credit markets is extraordinarily vague. The details of how the $US700 billion ($837 billion) is to be financed are far from clear. It looks like a case of new debt for old debt. How the trash assets that are to be traded for cash or government paper will be valued is also unknown, let along which institutions qualify for the handout.
Also, assuming all this ultimately comes to a happy end, will capital markets be permitted to return unhindered to the business of manufacturing dubious assets and fee-driven greed?
The biggest unknown of all is, will it work?
Certainly, the downside of all this, the prospect of a trillion-dollar US deficit and the printing of money, and how the interest bill is going to be paid is not in the discussion mix - let along whether taxpayers need to get something more out of this than a hypothetical unclogging of the financial arteries.
It's all a matter of just trusting the US Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, (ex Goldman Sachs) to get things going and restore confidence.
The appearance of George Bush on prime time television looking like a stunned mullet and pronouncing "our economy is in serious danger" would have sent a chill around the world. Of course, he was trying to bludgeon Democrats into supporting Paulson's blank cheque, without debate.
We have all been suckled on the dictum that markets will arrive at the correct outcomes.
Markets do the regulating. What we see is that raw-boned marketeering is really nothing more than an excuse to avoid social responsibility. Everything that can't be resolved by a free market outcome is by definition insoluble, and best forgotten.
To save the market, the taxpayer is now being asked to fund the nationalisation of the "commanding heights of the economy" - banks, mortgage lenders and insurance companies.
Old-fashioned socialists must be dusting off their manifestos.
If we had such a well-regulated system, we'd know the answers to a lot of the unknowns. Yet we don't know, for instance, whether the Reserve Bank and the Treasury here would step in and buy up junk debt from irresponsible financial institutions. And what would happen if they didn't?
Where sentiment turns now is the big unknown. Not even the US Treasury can regulate that. All that we can bank on is "hope".
justinian@lawpress.com.au
Thursday, September 25, 2008
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WILL COST YOU MORE
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Sophie Black writes in Crikey:
"Australia is the only country in the world which charges innocent people the cost of locking them up," Julian Burnside QC has told Crikey.
As reported in Crikey yesterday, the Australian Government is currently chasing debts from 386 former detainees that add up to a total of almost 8 million dollars. The debts accrued include charges for accommodation in detention centres, food and the cost of transporting detainees to different locations.
Along with these standard costs, solitary confinement for former detainees is separately billed, Burnside told Crikey, with GST added to the final balance.
"A few years ago a detainee took a test case to the Federal Court challenging the constitutional validity of charging innocent detainees the cost of their own detention," says Burnside. "The challenge lost. He was represented by pro bono lawyers. The Government is now chasing him not only for the detention costs ($29k) but also for the government's legal costs ($31k)."
"Several detainees have received bills for up to $250k. A man recently deported received a bill for $512k. One bloke now living in Ballarat is paying off his detention debt at $100 per month. It will take him 170 years to clear it," says Burnside.
According to DIAC spokesperson Sandi Logan, the table below shows immigration related debt waivers and write-offs for the year ended 30 June 2007:
*detention debts might not have accrued in the same year.
The table below shows immigration related debt waivers and write-offs for the year ended 30 June 2008:
*Detention debts might not have accrued in the same year.
In April of this year Commonwealth Ombudsman Professor John McMillan released a report on DIAC's Administration of Detention Debt Waiver and Write-off. The report stated:
Complaints to the Ombudsman’s office indicate that the size of some debts cause stress, anxiety and financial hardship to many individuals who are now living lawfully in the Australian community, as well as for those who have left Australia.
The report made several recommendations, including Recommendation 3:
Where a person is in detention awaiting removal from Australia, DIAC should review the circumstances of the person’s detention to assess whether factors beyond their control led to a delay in resolving their detention, which should result in a reduction in their detention debt.
And Recommendation 4:
The "Notice of Detention Costs Incurred to this Date" should be provided to people in detention at regular intervals during their detention.
Crikey asked Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner's office this morning that given that the power to waive debts to the Commonwealth rests with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and his delegate, would the Minister consider waiving or suspending Kasian Wililo’s debt?
Nardia Dazkiw, spokesperson for Minister Tanner responded:
Any individual, company, or other organisation can submit a request for waiver of debt under section 34 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act). To date, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and his department have not received a request for waiver of debt from Mr Kasian Wililo.
Tanner's spokesperson told Crikey that there is no intention to review section 47 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. "It should be noted that under section 47 agencies have significant discretion to determine whether a debt is not economical to pursue."
"Responsibility for the detention debt recovery scheme rests with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans," Tanner's office told Crikey.
Crikey also asked that given (according to DIAC) an application for waiver of a debt will only be successful “where it is found that there is a moral obligation on the Commonwealth to waive the debt”, did the Minister believe that there is a moral obligation in Mr Wililo’s case?
"The Finance Minister or his delegate will make a decision under section 34 of the FMA Act based on the merits of the case as established by the claimant. Policy guidelines for the operation of waiver of debt are provided by Finance Circular No.2006/05 -- Discretionary Compensation Mechanisms," said Tanner's office.
Sophie Black writes in Crikey:
"Australia is the only country in the world which charges innocent people the cost of locking them up," Julian Burnside QC has told Crikey.
As reported in Crikey yesterday, the Australian Government is currently chasing debts from 386 former detainees that add up to a total of almost 8 million dollars. The debts accrued include charges for accommodation in detention centres, food and the cost of transporting detainees to different locations.
Along with these standard costs, solitary confinement for former detainees is separately billed, Burnside told Crikey, with GST added to the final balance.
"A few years ago a detainee took a test case to the Federal Court challenging the constitutional validity of charging innocent detainees the cost of their own detention," says Burnside. "The challenge lost. He was represented by pro bono lawyers. The Government is now chasing him not only for the detention costs ($29k) but also for the government's legal costs ($31k)."
"Several detainees have received bills for up to $250k. A man recently deported received a bill for $512k. One bloke now living in Ballarat is paying off his detention debt at $100 per month. It will take him 170 years to clear it," says Burnside.
According to DIAC spokesperson Sandi Logan, the table below shows immigration related debt waivers and write-offs for the year ended 30 June 2007:
*detention debts might not have accrued in the same year.
The table below shows immigration related debt waivers and write-offs for the year ended 30 June 2008:
*Detention debts might not have accrued in the same year.
In April of this year Commonwealth Ombudsman Professor John McMillan released a report on DIAC's Administration of Detention Debt Waiver and Write-off. The report stated:
Complaints to the Ombudsman’s office indicate that the size of some debts cause stress, anxiety and financial hardship to many individuals who are now living lawfully in the Australian community, as well as for those who have left Australia.
The report made several recommendations, including Recommendation 3:
Where a person is in detention awaiting removal from Australia, DIAC should review the circumstances of the person’s detention to assess whether factors beyond their control led to a delay in resolving their detention, which should result in a reduction in their detention debt.
And Recommendation 4:
The "Notice of Detention Costs Incurred to this Date" should be provided to people in detention at regular intervals during their detention.
Crikey asked Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner's office this morning that given that the power to waive debts to the Commonwealth rests with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and his delegate, would the Minister consider waiving or suspending Kasian Wililo’s debt?
Nardia Dazkiw, spokesperson for Minister Tanner responded:
Any individual, company, or other organisation can submit a request for waiver of debt under section 34 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act). To date, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and his department have not received a request for waiver of debt from Mr Kasian Wililo.
Tanner's spokesperson told Crikey that there is no intention to review section 47 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. "It should be noted that under section 47 agencies have significant discretion to determine whether a debt is not economical to pursue."
"Responsibility for the detention debt recovery scheme rests with the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans," Tanner's office told Crikey.
Crikey also asked that given (according to DIAC) an application for waiver of a debt will only be successful “where it is found that there is a moral obligation on the Commonwealth to waive the debt”, did the Minister believe that there is a moral obligation in Mr Wililo’s case?
"The Finance Minister or his delegate will make a decision under section 34 of the FMA Act based on the merits of the case as established by the claimant. Policy guidelines for the operation of waiver of debt are provided by Finance Circular No.2006/05 -- Discretionary Compensation Mechanisms," said Tanner's office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
