Abbott rescues Pacific solution
May 28, 2010, Editorial
TONY ABBOTT sees himself as John Howard's political heir; in announcing that he will bring back Howard's ''Pacific solution'' as Australia's policy on asylum seekers, he has emphasised the connection. Yet it says a good deal about Tony Abbott's view of his own party in the post-Howard era that he chose to announce the policy without submitting it to a full party-room discussion first. It is hard not to conclude he wanted to sidestep the internal opposition he knew he would face. Far better to ambush his own MPs and then hope for the best, as he had done earlier with parental leave. Liberal MPs will be wondering why they went through the trouble and pain of ditching Malcolm Turnbull for his lack of consultation.
Abbott announced four parts to his policy - temporary protection visas, offshore processing (which he called ''rigorous'' several times), good relations with source and transit countries - and a fourth element, which can be paraphrased as: send 'em back. Turning boats around is not new: "It was done quietly in co-operation with other countries through the extraordinary professionalism of our armed forces,'' he said. ''Now, I don't see why it can't be done again.'' What is new, however, is the explicit promise to repeat it.
Abbott analyses the problem in simple terms - as a problem of markets. People smugglers under the Rudd government's more humane policy have ''a product to sell''. He is going to deprive them of their merchandise.
We believe action against people smugglers is certainly called for - but not at the expense of refugees, whom the policy ignores.
With its emphasis on rigour and toughness and its simplicity, Abbott's policy is pure populism. It may curry favour with some sections of the community; what it will not do is reduce the number of illegal immigrants and visa overstayers in the country. It is well-known that far more illegal immigrants enter Australia by air. According to the Immigration Department, there were 48,700 illegal non-citizens in Australia last June. Compare that with the 6000 seaborne arrivals Abbott cited. The four biggest source countries - China, the United States, Malaysia and Britain - contributed more than a third of the total. It is the boats, though, that must be stopped, because although they carry the most desperate individuals fleeing the worst circumstances, they evoke a visceral fear in some Australians. His policy amounts to looking tough by punishing the most vulnerable. They are to be a symbolic sacrifice on the altar of xenophobia.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
WHEN MOTHERS CRY OUT FOR CARE
Red News Readers,
This letter of mine was published in the SMH today 18.5.10:
Tanveer Ahmed has done the world a favour in cutting through the hype that now surrounds birthing, and addressing the issue of class in relation to the provision of public mental health services for women suffering post natal depression. What a disgrace that there are no public mental health beds that specialise in the care of these women!! Why is that? Is it because our society still does not understand the seriousness of post natal depression? Is it because those who suffer post natal depression are women? Is it because many think they should be happy at the birth of the child and they will "just get over it"?
The need for specialist public bedsand services for women suffering post natal depression has long been recognised as a dire need in our public health system. These women are often cared for at home by distressed husbands and families, with no appropriate health and welfare support. Some couples are ashamed and hide the mother. But you can't hide a severely depressed or psychotic woman who kills her baby. Even hospitals need to rethink how they support these women. I can well remember a mother who threw her baby over a hospital balcony, only a couple of years ago. That woman was placed in a mental health admission unit with persons suffering all sorts of mental illness and disorders. These women need specialist care. It is a great heartlessness in our health system that they don't get it.
Jenny Haines.
When mothers cry out for tender care
Author: Tanveer Ahmed - Tanveer Ahmed is a psychiatry registrar at St John of God Private Hospital, Burwood.
Date: 17/05/2010
Words: 713
Source: SMH
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Section: News and Features
Page: 11
I have treated mothers who have thought of killing their babies. The illness is rare and usually improves rapidly, but it has resulted in tragedies.
There are few more confronting conditions than this one, grounded in a misguided love where mothers feel their babies are better off dead than growing up without them.
I work in a hospital that has the state's only private, post-natal unit. Patients are often transferred from public hospitals, where they are inappropriately treated alongside sufferers of intractable drug addictions or schizophrenia. They usually arrive traumatised by their experience.
Only a minority can afford private health insurance.
NSW does not have a public psychiatric unit for mothers and their babies. It did have hospital beds funded for such purposes several years ago, but they were abolished due to safety concerns.
Phillip Boyce, professor of psychiatry at the University of Sydney and a peri-natal expert, says that was not based on evidence but to save costs. Mothers suffering post-natal mental illnesses require extra, highly trained nursing care to monitor both them and their babies.
He believes any savings are merely costs being transferred to other agencies such as the Department of Community Services, or to families and charities through the necessary out-of-home care.
The developments coincide with recent reports that the number of very young babies being taken into care has risen by almost 70 per cent in two years. Each day in NSW an infant under four weeks old will be removed from the mother, according to government data provided to Parliament last month.
Professor Boyce says a proportion of these mothers suffer mental illness, and believes they could have retained custody of their children if better quality peri-natal services existed. "Once babies are taken, magistrates are very reluctant to give them back to their mothers," he says.
This all coincides with a time when the nature of motherhood, pregnancy and delivery has undergone dramatic changes.
Boyce thinks expectations of pregnancy and motherhood have never been so unrealistically high. "Their grandmothers had a very real risk of dying while giving birth but women today feel pregnancy and delivery are virtually risk free."
Tanya Evans, a social historian of motherhood undertaking a PhD at Macquarie University, says the current generation of women are used to controlling every aspect of their lives.
"Becoming a mother is often the first time when some of that must be relinquished," she says. The decline in the extended family, she believes, combined with the disappearance of affordable domestic services and a commercialisation of motherhood through an explosion in mummylit, prestige prams and other baby products places enormous pressure on new mothers.
Instead of the threat of death, the backdrop to the modern delivery is a thorough birth plan, whale music, digital photos and delivery suite discussions about who is going to cut the cord. These bourgeois aspirations are unlikely to apply to the average patient who may require a public psychiatric bed. Nor is the same demographic likely to be pushing their babies in expensive prams.
But regardless of social class, the experience of modern motherhood can be lonely and isolating. When combined with a mini baby boom - state figures indicate a 9 per cent rise in births over the past five years - the demand for peri-natal services of all kinds has never been greater.
The most common cause of maternal death, defined as a mother dying within 42 days of giving birth, is psychiatric illness, according to a British study in 2004, Why Mothers Die.
Statistics in Australia suggest suicide remains the greatest cause of death among pregnant mothers, but reliable statistics after delivery are yet to come.
A spokesman for the state minister responsible for mental health, Barbara Perry, says the government is focusing on funding community services to screen for vulnerable mums and treat them in the community.
While this is an important plank in an overall strategy, there will be a proportion for whom hospitalisation is unavoidable.
NSW has fallen behind in many areas after a decade of a shabby government. The lack of a high-quality mother-and-baby unit is depriving a needy and poorly understood group. For some, this gap means they will lose custody of their children forever.
This letter of mine was published in the SMH today 18.5.10:
Tanveer Ahmed has done the world a favour in cutting through the hype that now surrounds birthing, and addressing the issue of class in relation to the provision of public mental health services for women suffering post natal depression. What a disgrace that there are no public mental health beds that specialise in the care of these women!! Why is that? Is it because our society still does not understand the seriousness of post natal depression? Is it because those who suffer post natal depression are women? Is it because many think they should be happy at the birth of the child and they will "just get over it"?
The need for specialist public bedsand services for women suffering post natal depression has long been recognised as a dire need in our public health system. These women are often cared for at home by distressed husbands and families, with no appropriate health and welfare support. Some couples are ashamed and hide the mother. But you can't hide a severely depressed or psychotic woman who kills her baby. Even hospitals need to rethink how they support these women. I can well remember a mother who threw her baby over a hospital balcony, only a couple of years ago. That woman was placed in a mental health admission unit with persons suffering all sorts of mental illness and disorders. These women need specialist care. It is a great heartlessness in our health system that they don't get it.
Jenny Haines.
When mothers cry out for tender care
Author: Tanveer Ahmed - Tanveer Ahmed is a psychiatry registrar at St John of God Private Hospital, Burwood.
Date: 17/05/2010
Words: 713
Source: SMH
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Section: News and Features
Page: 11
I have treated mothers who have thought of killing their babies. The illness is rare and usually improves rapidly, but it has resulted in tragedies.
There are few more confronting conditions than this one, grounded in a misguided love where mothers feel their babies are better off dead than growing up without them.
I work in a hospital that has the state's only private, post-natal unit. Patients are often transferred from public hospitals, where they are inappropriately treated alongside sufferers of intractable drug addictions or schizophrenia. They usually arrive traumatised by their experience.
Only a minority can afford private health insurance.
NSW does not have a public psychiatric unit for mothers and their babies. It did have hospital beds funded for such purposes several years ago, but they were abolished due to safety concerns.
Phillip Boyce, professor of psychiatry at the University of Sydney and a peri-natal expert, says that was not based on evidence but to save costs. Mothers suffering post-natal mental illnesses require extra, highly trained nursing care to monitor both them and their babies.
He believes any savings are merely costs being transferred to other agencies such as the Department of Community Services, or to families and charities through the necessary out-of-home care.
The developments coincide with recent reports that the number of very young babies being taken into care has risen by almost 70 per cent in two years. Each day in NSW an infant under four weeks old will be removed from the mother, according to government data provided to Parliament last month.
Professor Boyce says a proportion of these mothers suffer mental illness, and believes they could have retained custody of their children if better quality peri-natal services existed. "Once babies are taken, magistrates are very reluctant to give them back to their mothers," he says.
This all coincides with a time when the nature of motherhood, pregnancy and delivery has undergone dramatic changes.
Boyce thinks expectations of pregnancy and motherhood have never been so unrealistically high. "Their grandmothers had a very real risk of dying while giving birth but women today feel pregnancy and delivery are virtually risk free."
Tanya Evans, a social historian of motherhood undertaking a PhD at Macquarie University, says the current generation of women are used to controlling every aspect of their lives.
"Becoming a mother is often the first time when some of that must be relinquished," she says. The decline in the extended family, she believes, combined with the disappearance of affordable domestic services and a commercialisation of motherhood through an explosion in mummylit, prestige prams and other baby products places enormous pressure on new mothers.
Instead of the threat of death, the backdrop to the modern delivery is a thorough birth plan, whale music, digital photos and delivery suite discussions about who is going to cut the cord. These bourgeois aspirations are unlikely to apply to the average patient who may require a public psychiatric bed. Nor is the same demographic likely to be pushing their babies in expensive prams.
But regardless of social class, the experience of modern motherhood can be lonely and isolating. When combined with a mini baby boom - state figures indicate a 9 per cent rise in births over the past five years - the demand for peri-natal services of all kinds has never been greater.
The most common cause of maternal death, defined as a mother dying within 42 days of giving birth, is psychiatric illness, according to a British study in 2004, Why Mothers Die.
Statistics in Australia suggest suicide remains the greatest cause of death among pregnant mothers, but reliable statistics after delivery are yet to come.
A spokesman for the state minister responsible for mental health, Barbara Perry, says the government is focusing on funding community services to screen for vulnerable mums and treat them in the community.
While this is an important plank in an overall strategy, there will be a proportion for whom hospitalisation is unavoidable.
NSW has fallen behind in many areas after a decade of a shabby government. The lack of a high-quality mother-and-baby unit is depriving a needy and poorly understood group. For some, this gap means they will lose custody of their children forever.
Monday, May 03, 2010
REVIEW "BENEATH HILL 60"
A REVIEW BENEATH HILL 60. A FILM ABOUT THE TRUE STORY OF AUSTRALIAN ENGINEERS ON THE WESTERN FRONT. NOW SHOWING AT THE DENDY AND ADVERTISED THEATRES.
BY JENNY HAINES.
Those who have been to war know that it is a dirty, messy, horrible business, where life is cheap. There is no glory in mud, endless mud. There is no glory in the loss of friends, limbs, lives, body parts. There is no glory in making the unethical decisions that war demands. War is the serious business of killing the enemy by whatever means you can, while doing your best to stay alive. Fate and chance play a big part in whether you survive.
Beneath Hill 60 tells the story of Australian Army Engineers on the Western Front in 1916. They specialised in blowing up German positions from underground. They were a squad of men who were miners back home in Australia, formed especially for the tasks that they were given. They were grateful to be underground. Being on the surface only meant more horror.
But this is not just another war story. Jeremy Hartley Sims and the production team make clear their distaste for the slaughter that took place on the Western Front in WW One. The thundering sound of the Western Front guns booms in your ears as it must have done for the frontline soldiers, day and night. The horrors of war are there in all their bloody detail, but not overstated. But there is also impish Aussie military humour, and ranking officer and soldier distaste for the British, and army command. Chris Haywood plays a bumbling commander with his usual mastery of his role.
Brendan Cowell plays the lead role of the Captain of the squad. We follow his journey into the army through flashbacks to his life before the war and his courting of his young lady, the daughter of Queensland farmers. The gentility of the Queensland farmland life contrasts sharply with the grim portrait of European farmlands, which by 1916 were acres and acres of pitted mud.
Hill 60 is a strategic site for the British Empire forces. Optimists hope that by blasting Hill 60 away, the end of the war will be hastened. The blast when it comes is so huge, it is heard in London and Berlin. But sadly, even though 2000 Germans were killed that day, they retook Hill 60 several months later.
But the film also tells the story of the squad of men, some hardened and embittered by the war, some too young to be there and are terrified, some driven to madness by the insanity around them, some generous and caring even with the war all around them. “A landmark achievement, harrowing, moving and brilliantly suspenseful” Evan Williams , The Australian.
BY JENNY HAINES.
Those who have been to war know that it is a dirty, messy, horrible business, where life is cheap. There is no glory in mud, endless mud. There is no glory in the loss of friends, limbs, lives, body parts. There is no glory in making the unethical decisions that war demands. War is the serious business of killing the enemy by whatever means you can, while doing your best to stay alive. Fate and chance play a big part in whether you survive.
Beneath Hill 60 tells the story of Australian Army Engineers on the Western Front in 1916. They specialised in blowing up German positions from underground. They were a squad of men who were miners back home in Australia, formed especially for the tasks that they were given. They were grateful to be underground. Being on the surface only meant more horror.
But this is not just another war story. Jeremy Hartley Sims and the production team make clear their distaste for the slaughter that took place on the Western Front in WW One. The thundering sound of the Western Front guns booms in your ears as it must have done for the frontline soldiers, day and night. The horrors of war are there in all their bloody detail, but not overstated. But there is also impish Aussie military humour, and ranking officer and soldier distaste for the British, and army command. Chris Haywood plays a bumbling commander with his usual mastery of his role.
Brendan Cowell plays the lead role of the Captain of the squad. We follow his journey into the army through flashbacks to his life before the war and his courting of his young lady, the daughter of Queensland farmers. The gentility of the Queensland farmland life contrasts sharply with the grim portrait of European farmlands, which by 1916 were acres and acres of pitted mud.
Hill 60 is a strategic site for the British Empire forces. Optimists hope that by blasting Hill 60 away, the end of the war will be hastened. The blast when it comes is so huge, it is heard in London and Berlin. But sadly, even though 2000 Germans were killed that day, they retook Hill 60 several months later.
But the film also tells the story of the squad of men, some hardened and embittered by the war, some too young to be there and are terrified, some driven to madness by the insanity around them, some generous and caring even with the war all around them. “A landmark achievement, harrowing, moving and brilliantly suspenseful” Evan Williams , The Australian.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
MENTAL HEALTH MISSES OUT!
This is my Crikey Blog following this article
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/21/waiting-for-ruddo-mental-health-misses-out-at-coag/#comment-69114
“Now that the rugby scrum of COAG is over and the dust is settling, it is becoming more clear that areas like mental health and aged care may not have done as well as advocates for these services would have liked. This process has been huge, and has been struggling to meet big goals. Despite what some commentators have said, the $5.4 billion is welcome in a system that desperately needs the money. The focus on increasing hospital beds is welcome if we are ever to get the pressure off Emergency Departments. But where are the extra doctors and nurses and allied health staff coming from to staff these beds - a very critical issue if we are to get better outcomes? And will these staff have sufficient skills to ensure quality of care?
Mental health advocates have every right to cry foul over this deal. Once again, mental health services have been treated as the poor relation. Is that because too much effort was put into taking advice from a small range of medical organisations throughout the process? Probably, I think. Governments and politicians must realise that health services are a complex, multi layered beast, and that there are many more professionals and professional organisations that should be consulted when changes are mooted . Community mental health teams in NSW are very run down and struggling along on minimal resources, doing the best they can. EDs are coping every day with mental health patients who should not be there, or not be there for as long as they are. Memo to politicians - mental health is just as important as physical health, perhaps even more so. Pay some attention to Ian Hickie and Patrick McGorry and the author of this article. Mental health services need more resources, now !!!”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/21/waiting-for-ruddo-mental-health-misses-out-at-coag/#comment-69114
“Now that the rugby scrum of COAG is over and the dust is settling, it is becoming more clear that areas like mental health and aged care may not have done as well as advocates for these services would have liked. This process has been huge, and has been struggling to meet big goals. Despite what some commentators have said, the $5.4 billion is welcome in a system that desperately needs the money. The focus on increasing hospital beds is welcome if we are ever to get the pressure off Emergency Departments. But where are the extra doctors and nurses and allied health staff coming from to staff these beds - a very critical issue if we are to get better outcomes? And will these staff have sufficient skills to ensure quality of care?
Mental health advocates have every right to cry foul over this deal. Once again, mental health services have been treated as the poor relation. Is that because too much effort was put into taking advice from a small range of medical organisations throughout the process? Probably, I think. Governments and politicians must realise that health services are a complex, multi layered beast, and that there are many more professionals and professional organisations that should be consulted when changes are mooted . Community mental health teams in NSW are very run down and struggling along on minimal resources, doing the best they can. EDs are coping every day with mental health patients who should not be there, or not be there for as long as they are. Memo to politicians - mental health is just as important as physical health, perhaps even more so. Pay some attention to Ian Hickie and Patrick McGorry and the author of this article. Mental health services need more resources, now !!!”
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
NSW SAYS YES TO HEALTH REFORM
Keneally says 'I do' to Rudd's health deal
Emma Rodgers, ABC
April 20, 2010, 10:20 am
New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally is willing sign up to the Commonwealth's plan to overhaul the nation's health system, after extracting a range of concessions from the Federal Government.
After a meeting with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd this morning, Ms Keneally announced that NSW is willing to hand over a third of its GST to the Commonwealth so it can fund a 60 per cent takeover of public hospitals.
NSW Government sources say Ms Keneally approved the plan after Mr Rudd agreed to hand over $686 million to pay for implementation costs of the proposal.
It is also understood Mr Rudd has guaranteed that the GST funds are only spent on hospitals and that New South Wales gets a say in how the money is spent.
It is believed the funds will be put into some kind of state pool for distribution.
Sources say Mr Rudd will also allow for block grant funding for small rural and regional hospitals.
Ms Keneally's decision moves Mr Rudd closer to clinching a deal as Council of Australian Governments (COAG) talks begin for a second time today.
But he still faces major resistance from Victoria and Western Australia who are ignoring pressure to capitulate and allow the deal through.
Speaking before she went into the COAG meeting, Ms Keneally said the states and Commonwealth are likely to get an agreement today.
"We are in a position to be able to have the Commonwealth retain a third of our GST for direct funding of hospitals for NSW," she said.
"We have also been able to progress discussions with the Prime Minister and with the Commonwealth of the governance arrangements of a fund, as well as appropriate safeguards around the GST.
"It is in my view these things enable us to be in a position to support that the Commonwealth will retain the GST, but with these important safeguards in place and with the right governance arrangements around the operation of a fund."
The states have been arguing for a pooled fund to distribute Commonwealth and state funds to hospitals and today Ms Keneally urged resistant states to reconsider their position.
"I would just encourage all of us as first ministers to consider what's in the best interest of our states... but also what's in the best interest of national health reform," she said.
But Victorian Premier John Brumby and Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett are holding out on surrendering their slice of GST.
And Mr Brumby also wants more money on the table for hospital beds.
Fronting the media together before the COAG meeting started, the two said they were willing to put a third of their GST revenue into a funding pool.
Mr Brumby says he has shifted in his negotiating position by dropping his demand that hospitals funding be spilt evenly between the states and Commonwealth.
"We've given a bit. I hope the Prime Minister can give a bit," he said.
"I always said today would be harder. I think it's hard to tell actually how today will turn out."
Mr Barnett says they are offering the Prime Minister exactly what he wants.
"It is within the Prime Minister's grasp to achieve his reform very quickly," he said.
Emma Rodgers, ABC
April 20, 2010, 10:20 am
New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally is willing sign up to the Commonwealth's plan to overhaul the nation's health system, after extracting a range of concessions from the Federal Government.
After a meeting with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd this morning, Ms Keneally announced that NSW is willing to hand over a third of its GST to the Commonwealth so it can fund a 60 per cent takeover of public hospitals.
NSW Government sources say Ms Keneally approved the plan after Mr Rudd agreed to hand over $686 million to pay for implementation costs of the proposal.
It is also understood Mr Rudd has guaranteed that the GST funds are only spent on hospitals and that New South Wales gets a say in how the money is spent.
It is believed the funds will be put into some kind of state pool for distribution.
Sources say Mr Rudd will also allow for block grant funding for small rural and regional hospitals.
Ms Keneally's decision moves Mr Rudd closer to clinching a deal as Council of Australian Governments (COAG) talks begin for a second time today.
But he still faces major resistance from Victoria and Western Australia who are ignoring pressure to capitulate and allow the deal through.
Speaking before she went into the COAG meeting, Ms Keneally said the states and Commonwealth are likely to get an agreement today.
"We are in a position to be able to have the Commonwealth retain a third of our GST for direct funding of hospitals for NSW," she said.
"We have also been able to progress discussions with the Prime Minister and with the Commonwealth of the governance arrangements of a fund, as well as appropriate safeguards around the GST.
"It is in my view these things enable us to be in a position to support that the Commonwealth will retain the GST, but with these important safeguards in place and with the right governance arrangements around the operation of a fund."
The states have been arguing for a pooled fund to distribute Commonwealth and state funds to hospitals and today Ms Keneally urged resistant states to reconsider their position.
"I would just encourage all of us as first ministers to consider what's in the best interest of our states... but also what's in the best interest of national health reform," she said.
But Victorian Premier John Brumby and Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett are holding out on surrendering their slice of GST.
And Mr Brumby also wants more money on the table for hospital beds.
Fronting the media together before the COAG meeting started, the two said they were willing to put a third of their GST revenue into a funding pool.
Mr Brumby says he has shifted in his negotiating position by dropping his demand that hospitals funding be spilt evenly between the states and Commonwealth.
"We've given a bit. I hope the Prime Minister can give a bit," he said.
"I always said today would be harder. I think it's hard to tell actually how today will turn out."
Mr Barnett says they are offering the Prime Minister exactly what he wants.
"It is within the Prime Minister's grasp to achieve his reform very quickly," he said.
Friday, April 09, 2010
GOVT CHANGES RULES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS
Red News Readers,
I wish that commentators would stop saying that all opposition to Rudd’s moves on refugees and asylum seekers comes from the Left of the ALP. The ALP has modified its policy on refugees and asylum seekers several times at State and National level since 2001, at State and National conferences of the ALP. Those improvements to policy were not achieved by the Left alone. They were supported across the party by all factions and non factional delegates. They were vigorously promoted internally in the ALP by members from all factions. And that is the problem that Kevin Rudd now has – selling what he doing inside the party, where a broad cross section of the party does not agree with these measures, and have voted for policy that contradicts what the leadership of the party in power is now doing.
Jenny Haines
Government changes rules for asylum seekers
Updated 9 minutes ago 9th April 2010
The Federal Government has announced an immediate suspension of all new asylum seeker claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, as news emerged that an asylum boat with 70 people on board sank off Christmas Island early this morning.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans says the Government has decided to implement the suspension due to changing circumstances in both countries.
The news came as the Government released details of the rescue of asylum seekers from a boat which was intercepted last night 73 nautical miles east south-east of Christmas Island.
The Government says some of the asylum seekers ended up in the water but were rescued by crew from HMAS Wollongong.
"Just after 2am (AEST) the engine failed on the vessel which began to flounder," a statement from Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said.
"The transfer of passengers to HMAS Wollongong commenced immediately. Approximately 16 passengers were transferred immediately however some passengers abandoned the vessel.
"Passengers were rescued from the water by the crew of HMAS Wollongong.
"HMAS Wollongong is now proceeding to Christmas Island with the passengers for security, identity and health checks. Defence will provide an operational brief on the matter this afternoon, at a time to be advised."
The Federal Government has been under pressure from the Coalition after a spike in boat arrivals last year and this year.
The Coalition blames softened Government policy for the rise but the Government says it is due to international "push" factors.
More to come.
7517075
I wish that commentators would stop saying that all opposition to Rudd’s moves on refugees and asylum seekers comes from the Left of the ALP. The ALP has modified its policy on refugees and asylum seekers several times at State and National level since 2001, at State and National conferences of the ALP. Those improvements to policy were not achieved by the Left alone. They were supported across the party by all factions and non factional delegates. They were vigorously promoted internally in the ALP by members from all factions. And that is the problem that Kevin Rudd now has – selling what he doing inside the party, where a broad cross section of the party does not agree with these measures, and have voted for policy that contradicts what the leadership of the party in power is now doing.
Jenny Haines
Government changes rules for asylum seekers
Updated 9 minutes ago 9th April 2010
The Federal Government has announced an immediate suspension of all new asylum seeker claims from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, as news emerged that an asylum boat with 70 people on board sank off Christmas Island early this morning.
Immigration Minister Chris Evans says the Government has decided to implement the suspension due to changing circumstances in both countries.
The news came as the Government released details of the rescue of asylum seekers from a boat which was intercepted last night 73 nautical miles east south-east of Christmas Island.
The Government says some of the asylum seekers ended up in the water but were rescued by crew from HMAS Wollongong.
"Just after 2am (AEST) the engine failed on the vessel which began to flounder," a statement from Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said.
"The transfer of passengers to HMAS Wollongong commenced immediately. Approximately 16 passengers were transferred immediately however some passengers abandoned the vessel.
"Passengers were rescued from the water by the crew of HMAS Wollongong.
"HMAS Wollongong is now proceeding to Christmas Island with the passengers for security, identity and health checks. Defence will provide an operational brief on the matter this afternoon, at a time to be advised."
The Federal Government has been under pressure from the Coalition after a spike in boat arrivals last year and this year.
The Coalition blames softened Government policy for the rise but the Government says it is due to international "push" factors.
More to come.
7517075
Saturday, April 03, 2010
REVIEW OF "KILLER COMPANY"
REVIEW OF “KILLER COMPANY, JAMES HARDIE EXPOSED” AUTHORED BY MATT PEACOCK, ABC BOOKS 2009.
James Hardie lied. The company executives knew for decades the dangers of asbestos. They knew from the 1930s onwards that asbestos caused cancer. But there was money to be made, big, huge, overwhelming profits. When there are such profits to be made, what’s a few dead workers to these executives? Very few of the executives of James Hardie were prepared to set aside a greater return to shareholders by implementing effective safety measures in the workplace. Trouble is, there is no way to safely handle asbestos. It should never have been developed commercially in the way it was. Workers at the asbestos factories at Camellia were often covered in the stuff. They lived in it, breathed it, ate it for lunch. While they worked there they developed asbestosis. Years later they died of mesothelioma, a vicious lung cancer that only gives sufferers a short time between diagnosis and death. There is no cure.
In amongst all the emerging suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma, the company executives plans were to keep marketing asbestos for profit, and adopt a so called harm minimisation strategy and Matt Peacock does the corporate world, and unions, and law firms a great service in setting out in intricate detail how the executives of Hardies lived in a world of denial or at least part denial, while they rolled out ineffective measure after ineffective measure, to try to protect their workers from injury and death.
Bernie Banton, one of the most famous people who worked at the factory at Camellia is now dead. He died of mesothelioma in 2007 after living for years with asbestosis. Bernie became the public face of the campaign for justice from the manufacturers and processors of asbestos at the urging of Matt Peacock, when Matt first met him for a radio interview. When Bernie worked at the factory at Camellia, he became a Delegate for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union. Bernie was critical of the autocratic leadership of Ray Gietzelt, and sympathetic to Frank Shanahan, who was planning a challenge to Gietzelt’s leadership. What Bernie didn’t know was that Shanahan was backed by the National Civic Council. Shanahan lost the election against Gietzelt, and went on to develop mesothelioma. He died a painful death.
The Missos had a number of union officials who were appalled by safety standards at the Camellia factory. One official, Doug Howitt related to Matt Peacock an account of his visit to the Camellia factory:-
“We went into the teasing room, where they used to empty big bags of asbestos into an oblong funnel. There was a bloke tipping it in. He had his head in it! He was covered in asbestos! I virtually accused Hardie’s of being murderers, I was so upset. Fancy letting a bloke work like that! I said get him an air line respirator, but they were adamant he would not wear it. I said get this man a respirator or sack him if he refuses. Perhaps I should not have said that, but I did my block. I was party to this murder. What could I do?”
When Howitt went back to the Missos Office to report these events to Gietzelt, Gietzelt told him to mind his own business, and from that day Howitt was frozen out of any union dealings with the company.
Ray Gietzelt and Ray Palfreyman of Hardies were frequently in touch. They were jokingly referred to as the “two Rays”. Palreyman would report back to Gietzelt after frequent overseas trips to attend asebestos industry conferences. On one occasion, Hardies sought Gietzelt’s help in silencing Frank Roberts, the Editor of the Australian Worker’s Union newspaper. When Gietzelt met Matt Peacock, he described the dangers from asbestos as “minimal, absolutely minimal risk” Gietzelt denied that many union members had died of asbestos exposure, “if it had been a lot, I would have heard about it.” Gietzelt had the opportunity at the Opera to raise any concerns he may have had about asbestos with the Chairman of James Hardie for 23 years John Reid. Asked by Matt Peaock whether Gietzelt ever discussed the issue with Reid, he said :-
“I wouldn’t have raised that with him no. It wouldn’t have been protocol for me because if I had raised that with him, as a member of the board (of the Opera House Trust), it would rather indicate that I’m sort of holding him responsible.”
Despite Gietzelt, there were a succession of union officials who were very disturbed about asbestos and its dangers, Doug Howitt (FMWU), Frank Shanahan (FMWU), Frank Roberts (AWU), Ray Hogan (FMWU, Victoria), Theo Meletis (FMWU, Victoria), Vic Fitzgerald (FEDFA), Stan Fleming (FEDFA), Tom Cook (AMWU), Alf Hinton (AMWU), Barry Robson (MUA), and more latterly, Paul Bastian (AMWU), Andrew Ferguson (CFMEU), Greg Combet (ACTU) and many, many other conscientious officials and members of unions whose members handled or were exposed often unwittingly to asbestos and its deadly dangers.
Matt tells the whole awful story about Hardies, and the other companies that manufactured asbestos, Wunderlich, CSR, and others. But Hardies went on to do the what should have been an unthinkable corporate crime, they moved to the Netherlands, and left behind a company that had insufficient funds to meet the compensation claims that were inevitably going to come if over the next 20 to 50 years. And the leading members of the Hardie’s Company knew that the Australian based company was underfunded. They were trying to cut and run from their legal responsibilities to fund compensation for the victims of asbestos. This was where all hell broke loose, and the campaign went public with Bernie Banton as the public face of the victims, and Greg Combet, then ACTU Secretary, as the negotiator on behalf of the unions. Even Bob Carr, who was sceptical of the campaign at the beginning, seemed over time to not only be politically involved but personally affected by the plight of the victims and their terrible stories of suffering. As a result of the public campaign, and the Banton/Combet negotiating team, a number of deals have been struck with Hardies, and there have been a number of court decisions that have made Hardie’s commit to meeting their liabilities, but even today, stories still appear in the media that alarm victims and their support groups, about the future viability of compensation funds.
This is a wonderful book. It tells the story of Hardie’s and asbestos as it is, warts and all. Those who did what they did and said what they said are reported faithfully. No relevant party’s role is covered up. Matt obviously did an enormous amount of research and he has written the book in an easily readable style. Asbestos victims and their families have been given a voice through this book. Those who admirably fought to have asbestos victims recognised and compensated are rewarded. Matt deserves the thanks of all .
Jenny Haines
James Hardie lied. The company executives knew for decades the dangers of asbestos. They knew from the 1930s onwards that asbestos caused cancer. But there was money to be made, big, huge, overwhelming profits. When there are such profits to be made, what’s a few dead workers to these executives? Very few of the executives of James Hardie were prepared to set aside a greater return to shareholders by implementing effective safety measures in the workplace. Trouble is, there is no way to safely handle asbestos. It should never have been developed commercially in the way it was. Workers at the asbestos factories at Camellia were often covered in the stuff. They lived in it, breathed it, ate it for lunch. While they worked there they developed asbestosis. Years later they died of mesothelioma, a vicious lung cancer that only gives sufferers a short time between diagnosis and death. There is no cure.
In amongst all the emerging suffering from asbestosis and mesothelioma, the company executives plans were to keep marketing asbestos for profit, and adopt a so called harm minimisation strategy and Matt Peacock does the corporate world, and unions, and law firms a great service in setting out in intricate detail how the executives of Hardies lived in a world of denial or at least part denial, while they rolled out ineffective measure after ineffective measure, to try to protect their workers from injury and death.
Bernie Banton, one of the most famous people who worked at the factory at Camellia is now dead. He died of mesothelioma in 2007 after living for years with asbestosis. Bernie became the public face of the campaign for justice from the manufacturers and processors of asbestos at the urging of Matt Peacock, when Matt first met him for a radio interview. When Bernie worked at the factory at Camellia, he became a Delegate for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union. Bernie was critical of the autocratic leadership of Ray Gietzelt, and sympathetic to Frank Shanahan, who was planning a challenge to Gietzelt’s leadership. What Bernie didn’t know was that Shanahan was backed by the National Civic Council. Shanahan lost the election against Gietzelt, and went on to develop mesothelioma. He died a painful death.
The Missos had a number of union officials who were appalled by safety standards at the Camellia factory. One official, Doug Howitt related to Matt Peacock an account of his visit to the Camellia factory:-
“We went into the teasing room, where they used to empty big bags of asbestos into an oblong funnel. There was a bloke tipping it in. He had his head in it! He was covered in asbestos! I virtually accused Hardie’s of being murderers, I was so upset. Fancy letting a bloke work like that! I said get him an air line respirator, but they were adamant he would not wear it. I said get this man a respirator or sack him if he refuses. Perhaps I should not have said that, but I did my block. I was party to this murder. What could I do?”
When Howitt went back to the Missos Office to report these events to Gietzelt, Gietzelt told him to mind his own business, and from that day Howitt was frozen out of any union dealings with the company.
Ray Gietzelt and Ray Palfreyman of Hardies were frequently in touch. They were jokingly referred to as the “two Rays”. Palreyman would report back to Gietzelt after frequent overseas trips to attend asebestos industry conferences. On one occasion, Hardies sought Gietzelt’s help in silencing Frank Roberts, the Editor of the Australian Worker’s Union newspaper. When Gietzelt met Matt Peacock, he described the dangers from asbestos as “minimal, absolutely minimal risk” Gietzelt denied that many union members had died of asbestos exposure, “if it had been a lot, I would have heard about it.” Gietzelt had the opportunity at the Opera to raise any concerns he may have had about asbestos with the Chairman of James Hardie for 23 years John Reid. Asked by Matt Peaock whether Gietzelt ever discussed the issue with Reid, he said :-
“I wouldn’t have raised that with him no. It wouldn’t have been protocol for me because if I had raised that with him, as a member of the board (of the Opera House Trust), it would rather indicate that I’m sort of holding him responsible.”
Despite Gietzelt, there were a succession of union officials who were very disturbed about asbestos and its dangers, Doug Howitt (FMWU), Frank Shanahan (FMWU), Frank Roberts (AWU), Ray Hogan (FMWU, Victoria), Theo Meletis (FMWU, Victoria), Vic Fitzgerald (FEDFA), Stan Fleming (FEDFA), Tom Cook (AMWU), Alf Hinton (AMWU), Barry Robson (MUA), and more latterly, Paul Bastian (AMWU), Andrew Ferguson (CFMEU), Greg Combet (ACTU) and many, many other conscientious officials and members of unions whose members handled or were exposed often unwittingly to asbestos and its deadly dangers.
Matt tells the whole awful story about Hardies, and the other companies that manufactured asbestos, Wunderlich, CSR, and others. But Hardies went on to do the what should have been an unthinkable corporate crime, they moved to the Netherlands, and left behind a company that had insufficient funds to meet the compensation claims that were inevitably going to come if over the next 20 to 50 years. And the leading members of the Hardie’s Company knew that the Australian based company was underfunded. They were trying to cut and run from their legal responsibilities to fund compensation for the victims of asbestos. This was where all hell broke loose, and the campaign went public with Bernie Banton as the public face of the victims, and Greg Combet, then ACTU Secretary, as the negotiator on behalf of the unions. Even Bob Carr, who was sceptical of the campaign at the beginning, seemed over time to not only be politically involved but personally affected by the plight of the victims and their terrible stories of suffering. As a result of the public campaign, and the Banton/Combet negotiating team, a number of deals have been struck with Hardies, and there have been a number of court decisions that have made Hardie’s commit to meeting their liabilities, but even today, stories still appear in the media that alarm victims and their support groups, about the future viability of compensation funds.
This is a wonderful book. It tells the story of Hardie’s and asbestos as it is, warts and all. Those who did what they did and said what they said are reported faithfully. No relevant party’s role is covered up. Matt obviously did an enormous amount of research and he has written the book in an easily readable style. Asbestos victims and their families have been given a voice through this book. Those who admirably fought to have asbestos victims recognised and compensated are rewarded. Matt deserves the thanks of all .
Jenny Haines
Monday, March 22, 2010
MENTAL HEALTH FAMILIES NO LONGER IN DARK
Mental health act ensures families no longer in dark
RUTH POLLARD
March 22, 2010
MATTHEW MURPHY'S mind snapped 11 months too early.
Had the 41-year-old been able to endure the crippling depression that enveloped him for a while longer, the state's new Mental Health Act would have required hospital staff to tell his family what was happening with his care. It may have saved his life.
But when he was taken by police to the Mater Hospital in Newcastle early on December 3, 2006, after telling his father he planned to shoot himself, his family were kept in the dark.
Less than two hours after he left the hospital - against medical advice and with doctors failing to pass on any information to his deeply worried parents and wife - he killed himself.
On Friday the deputy state coroner Paul MacMahon, handed down his findings into Mr Murphy's death.
He reiterated the need for communication - between police, doctors and family members - and noted the eternal struggle between protecting a patient's right to privacy and keeping them alive.
Police training should emphasise that family members can provide important background information and police handover forms should include family or carer contact details, the coroner recommended.
''The existence of a plan by Mr Murphy to kill himself was important for diagnostic purposes and that information was not provided to the hospital by police,'' he noted. He was critical of the police for dissuading Pat Murphy, Matthew Murphy's father, from going to the hospital, saying: ''Had he been there he would have been a source of information for the doctors and a support to [his son].''
Mr MacMahon also recommended the Mater Hospital amend its suicide policy to suggest that information can be obtained from family or carers without the consent of the patient if ''there is a risk to the patient''.
At a broader level, he said, doctors working in emergency departments must be made aware of the provisions of the NSW Mental Health Act, which gives them the power to contact family members without the consent of the patient.
It is a change that has been a long time coming, said the head of Lifeline, Dawn O'Neil.
''Family members have been saying for a very long time that when somebody has a mental illness their capacity to make decisions about their own care can be impaired, and the family members, in order to look after them, need information,'' Ms O'Neil said.
''When someone is at risk of suicide we have to take that very, very seriously - that person needs to be in intensive care … for some period of time.''
Pat Murphy campaigned tirelessly for an inquest into his son's death and is pleased with the coroner's recommendations, but has vowed to continue his campaign until the changes are adopted.
''There is no requirement on the local police and the area health service to enact these changes, but we have spent all this time and effort to try to get change - I will be following this all the way through,'' he told the Herald yesterday.
A spokeswoman said Hunter New England Health Service welcomed the coroner's findings and is giving the recommendations careful consideration.
Lifeline: 131114
RUTH POLLARD
March 22, 2010
MATTHEW MURPHY'S mind snapped 11 months too early.
Had the 41-year-old been able to endure the crippling depression that enveloped him for a while longer, the state's new Mental Health Act would have required hospital staff to tell his family what was happening with his care. It may have saved his life.
But when he was taken by police to the Mater Hospital in Newcastle early on December 3, 2006, after telling his father he planned to shoot himself, his family were kept in the dark.
Less than two hours after he left the hospital - against medical advice and with doctors failing to pass on any information to his deeply worried parents and wife - he killed himself.
On Friday the deputy state coroner Paul MacMahon, handed down his findings into Mr Murphy's death.
He reiterated the need for communication - between police, doctors and family members - and noted the eternal struggle between protecting a patient's right to privacy and keeping them alive.
Police training should emphasise that family members can provide important background information and police handover forms should include family or carer contact details, the coroner recommended.
''The existence of a plan by Mr Murphy to kill himself was important for diagnostic purposes and that information was not provided to the hospital by police,'' he noted. He was critical of the police for dissuading Pat Murphy, Matthew Murphy's father, from going to the hospital, saying: ''Had he been there he would have been a source of information for the doctors and a support to [his son].''
Mr MacMahon also recommended the Mater Hospital amend its suicide policy to suggest that information can be obtained from family or carers without the consent of the patient if ''there is a risk to the patient''.
At a broader level, he said, doctors working in emergency departments must be made aware of the provisions of the NSW Mental Health Act, which gives them the power to contact family members without the consent of the patient.
It is a change that has been a long time coming, said the head of Lifeline, Dawn O'Neil.
''Family members have been saying for a very long time that when somebody has a mental illness their capacity to make decisions about their own care can be impaired, and the family members, in order to look after them, need information,'' Ms O'Neil said.
''When someone is at risk of suicide we have to take that very, very seriously - that person needs to be in intensive care … for some period of time.''
Pat Murphy campaigned tirelessly for an inquest into his son's death and is pleased with the coroner's recommendations, but has vowed to continue his campaign until the changes are adopted.
''There is no requirement on the local police and the area health service to enact these changes, but we have spent all this time and effort to try to get change - I will be following this all the way through,'' he told the Herald yesterday.
A spokeswoman said Hunter New England Health Service welcomed the coroner's findings and is giving the recommendations careful consideration.
Lifeline: 131114
NSW NURSES TO VOTE ON WAGES PROPOSAL
NSW nurses to vote on wages proposal
AAP
March 21, 2010, 3:21 pm
NSW nurses and midwives will start voting this week on a proposed wages and conditions claim, which includes a five per cent annual pay rise over four years.
The NSW Nurses Association (NSWNA) says nurses and midwives are also asking for mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios to be set to improve patient safety.
NSWNA general secretary Brett Holmes said a lot of work had been done over the last ten years rebuilding nursing as an attractive career option in financial terms and this was at risk of being lost.
"In the last couple of years nurses have again started to fall behind equivalent professions, such as the allied health professions, and if that continues we risk undoing what success we have had dealing with the nurse shortage," Mr Holmes said.
He said the majority of nurses and midwives were about $2500 per year or $50 per week behind physiotherapists.
"Our wage claim is, as well as properly rewarding the effort and dedication of nurses, aimed at keeping nursing and midwifery `up there' financially in terms of career options."
The NSWNA wants NSW Health to agree to a new four-year wages and conditions agreement, which includes a five per cent per year pay rise for all public hospital and community health nurses and midwives.
A five per cent pay rise on July 1, would provide the majority of clinical nurses and midwives with a pay rise of nearly $70 per week, Mr Holmes said.
AAP
March 21, 2010, 3:21 pm
NSW nurses and midwives will start voting this week on a proposed wages and conditions claim, which includes a five per cent annual pay rise over four years.
The NSW Nurses Association (NSWNA) says nurses and midwives are also asking for mandated minimum nurse-to-patient ratios to be set to improve patient safety.
NSWNA general secretary Brett Holmes said a lot of work had been done over the last ten years rebuilding nursing as an attractive career option in financial terms and this was at risk of being lost.
"In the last couple of years nurses have again started to fall behind equivalent professions, such as the allied health professions, and if that continues we risk undoing what success we have had dealing with the nurse shortage," Mr Holmes said.
He said the majority of nurses and midwives were about $2500 per year or $50 per week behind physiotherapists.
"Our wage claim is, as well as properly rewarding the effort and dedication of nurses, aimed at keeping nursing and midwifery `up there' financially in terms of career options."
The NSWNA wants NSW Health to agree to a new four-year wages and conditions agreement, which includes a five per cent per year pay rise for all public hospital and community health nurses and midwives.
A five per cent pay rise on July 1, would provide the majority of clinical nurses and midwives with a pay rise of nearly $70 per week, Mr Holmes said.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
PUTTING WEALTH INTO HEALTH IS WISEST
Putting wealth into health is wisest
By Paul Howes
From: The Sunday Telegraph March 21, 2010 12:02PM
ANY parent with young children can tell you there's nothing more anxiety-inducing than a trip to hospital when one of the little ones is ill.
Since the age of two, my son Sam has suffered from severe bouts of chronic asthma.
He developed it when we lived in Melbourne and at one point my wife and I felt the Royal Children's Hospital was like a second home.
Now returned to Sydney, Sam still frequently requires hospitalisation.
Recently he developed a bit of a cough, my wife took him to hospital and it turned out he had double walking pneumonia and a collapsed lung, on top of his asthma.
I'm always amazed by the dedication and long working hours of the nurses, doctors and support staff at the Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick when we are there.
The level of care is second to none and despite the clear lack of resources I'm in awe of how hard the health professionals work, and thankful for the life-saving treatment provided to Sam by those professionals on a regular basis.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageHospital reform died on the table The Australian, 1 day ago
PM warms to health fight The Australian, 1 day ago
States revolt on health plan The Australian, 7 Mar 2010
Reform vital for sick system Courier Mail, 3 Mar 2010
Better Health, Better Hospitals speech The Australian, 3 Mar 2010
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
But despite the dedication of the nurses, doctors and staff in the hospitals, it's not hard to notice the clear lack of available resources in our public hospitals.
Many times when the doctors have admitted my son, there has been a long wait in emergency until a bed becomes available in an intensive care unit or on the wards.
On the corridors of the hospitals you can see the strain and stress in the eyes of the nurses and doctors who work so hard, and the difficulty they face in trying to find beds for critically ill children.
That's why I'm so pleased health is shaping up this year as a key federal election issue.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's proposed national health and hospitals network represents the most significant shake-up of our health system since the introduction of Medicare.
The proposed reforms have significant implications for the structure of our health and hospitals system.
Local hospitals will be empowered to make decisions about local health management, and hospitals will be paid directly for what they actually do.
Most significantly, it means the federal government will now take direct responsibility for the funding of our health system.
This guarantees certainty for our health system and also means the state budgets can be freed up in the future to focus on other areas that have been neglected for far too long.
Once some certainty is achieved in the NSW Budget, the state government can focus on areas such as public transport and infrastructure.
It means that we should be able to build the missing links in our road system -- like finally getting the M4 to connect western Sydney directly to the CBD and extending the light-rail network to places such as the University of NSW and Dulwich Hill.
The implications of the reforms for the people that deliver health-care services are significant.
Brett Holmes, secretary of the NSW Nurses' Association, has said that although the union is still working through the detail of the proposed reforms, it is important that the federal government becomes the central funding body for health services.
"The real issues in hospital and healthcare are funding, staffing and skill mix," he said. "The plan initially commits the federal government to 60 per cent of hospital funding and 100 per cent of primary or community health funding.
The ongoing challenge is 60 and 100 per cent of what amount?
In the end, it's real dollars, not percentages, that buy hospital and primary health care.
This is an important point. As Brett Holmes knows, at the end of the day it's the dollars that matter, which is why it's important that we examine carefully what Tony Abbott did to health funding when he was the health minister under John Howard.
Tony Abbott is running a million miles a hour away from his record of funding cuts, but the fact of the matter is that $1 billion was cut from public health funding during his time as health minister. He began by cutting $108 million in the 2003 Budget, then $172 million in 2004, $264 million in 2005 and $372 million in 2006.
Mr Abbott, the great oppositionist, is opposing the reforms. Not for long though, I imagine, because it's not a popular stance.
This week an Auspoll survey of 1000 respondents found that 76 per cent of those questioned supported Mr Rudd's plan to put the decision-making power regarding our hospitals into the hands of locals.
It also found 72 per cent wanted to see less "user-pays" health care and an increase in the proportion of government funding.
There will always be debates about the structure and delivery methods of our health system.
But we all know that we need more investment, more accountability, fewer bureaucrats and more doctors and nurses taking charge.
We need to end the state and federal blame game and this is what Labor's plan seeks to achieve.
Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union
By Paul Howes
From: The Sunday Telegraph March 21, 2010 12:02PM
ANY parent with young children can tell you there's nothing more anxiety-inducing than a trip to hospital when one of the little ones is ill.
Since the age of two, my son Sam has suffered from severe bouts of chronic asthma.
He developed it when we lived in Melbourne and at one point my wife and I felt the Royal Children's Hospital was like a second home.
Now returned to Sydney, Sam still frequently requires hospitalisation.
Recently he developed a bit of a cough, my wife took him to hospital and it turned out he had double walking pneumonia and a collapsed lung, on top of his asthma.
I'm always amazed by the dedication and long working hours of the nurses, doctors and support staff at the Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick when we are there.
The level of care is second to none and despite the clear lack of resources I'm in awe of how hard the health professionals work, and thankful for the life-saving treatment provided to Sam by those professionals on a regular basis.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageHospital reform died on the table The Australian, 1 day ago
PM warms to health fight The Australian, 1 day ago
States revolt on health plan The Australian, 7 Mar 2010
Reform vital for sick system Courier Mail, 3 Mar 2010
Better Health, Better Hospitals speech The Australian, 3 Mar 2010
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
But despite the dedication of the nurses, doctors and staff in the hospitals, it's not hard to notice the clear lack of available resources in our public hospitals.
Many times when the doctors have admitted my son, there has been a long wait in emergency until a bed becomes available in an intensive care unit or on the wards.
On the corridors of the hospitals you can see the strain and stress in the eyes of the nurses and doctors who work so hard, and the difficulty they face in trying to find beds for critically ill children.
That's why I'm so pleased health is shaping up this year as a key federal election issue.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's proposed national health and hospitals network represents the most significant shake-up of our health system since the introduction of Medicare.
The proposed reforms have significant implications for the structure of our health and hospitals system.
Local hospitals will be empowered to make decisions about local health management, and hospitals will be paid directly for what they actually do.
Most significantly, it means the federal government will now take direct responsibility for the funding of our health system.
This guarantees certainty for our health system and also means the state budgets can be freed up in the future to focus on other areas that have been neglected for far too long.
Once some certainty is achieved in the NSW Budget, the state government can focus on areas such as public transport and infrastructure.
It means that we should be able to build the missing links in our road system -- like finally getting the M4 to connect western Sydney directly to the CBD and extending the light-rail network to places such as the University of NSW and Dulwich Hill.
The implications of the reforms for the people that deliver health-care services are significant.
Brett Holmes, secretary of the NSW Nurses' Association, has said that although the union is still working through the detail of the proposed reforms, it is important that the federal government becomes the central funding body for health services.
"The real issues in hospital and healthcare are funding, staffing and skill mix," he said. "The plan initially commits the federal government to 60 per cent of hospital funding and 100 per cent of primary or community health funding.
The ongoing challenge is 60 and 100 per cent of what amount?
In the end, it's real dollars, not percentages, that buy hospital and primary health care.
This is an important point. As Brett Holmes knows, at the end of the day it's the dollars that matter, which is why it's important that we examine carefully what Tony Abbott did to health funding when he was the health minister under John Howard.
Tony Abbott is running a million miles a hour away from his record of funding cuts, but the fact of the matter is that $1 billion was cut from public health funding during his time as health minister. He began by cutting $108 million in the 2003 Budget, then $172 million in 2004, $264 million in 2005 and $372 million in 2006.
Mr Abbott, the great oppositionist, is opposing the reforms. Not for long though, I imagine, because it's not a popular stance.
This week an Auspoll survey of 1000 respondents found that 76 per cent of those questioned supported Mr Rudd's plan to put the decision-making power regarding our hospitals into the hands of locals.
It also found 72 per cent wanted to see less "user-pays" health care and an increase in the proportion of government funding.
There will always be debates about the structure and delivery methods of our health system.
But we all know that we need more investment, more accountability, fewer bureaucrats and more doctors and nurses taking charge.
We need to end the state and federal blame game and this is what Labor's plan seeks to achieve.
Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union
Saturday, March 20, 2010
SWAHS STAFF SHORTAGES COMPROMISE CARE
Red News Readers,
As I understand it this area health service is almost broke!! Its good that the Nurses Association had this Rally although the numbers supporting it were disappointing, but that may reflect a number of factors – as the wards are short it is hard for nurses to get away, they may have faced intimidation from management (usual when these rallies are held), the largely overseas born staff are not used to participating in union rallies and tend to shy away from them. But what now? If the Area HealthService is broke and needs money from the State and Federal Government, it is going to take a lot more than one Rally to get that happening.
Jenny Haines
Staff shortages compromise care: nurses
LISA MARTIN, SMH
March 18, 2010
AAP
Nurses at six western Sydney hospitals claim patient care is being compromised because a lack of state funding has forced the area health service to freeze hiring.
About 700 Sydney West Area Health Service (SWAHS) nurses protested about staff shortages at Westmead, Auburn, Blacktown, Mt Druitt, Nepean, Katoomba and Lithgow hospitals during their lunch breaks on Thursday.
NSW Nurses Association general secretary Brett Holmes addressed a protest rally at Nepean Hospital in Penrith.
The health service had not advertised positions externally since February 2009 as it struggled to cut expenditure, he told AAP.
"We have got lots of vacancies in positions that aren't being filled on a permanent basis," he said.
He said at Nepean Hospital there were 20 full-time positions unfilled in the maternity section and 14.5 vacancies in the emergency department.
At Mount Druitt and Blacktown the emergency departments were short 13 nurses, and 10 mental health beds had been closed across the health service.
There was also a shortage of cleaners.
Mr Holmes said staff were worried patient care was suffering and called for a cash injection to fill the vacancies.
"The staff are feeling they're not really in a position to be providing the level of care that is required," he said.
"People get moved out of the emergency department at the start of the shift to fill vacancies in wards.
"Then when the emergency departments get busy ... it's very hard to shift them back."
Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner said the situation was unacceptable, and the nurse shortage was increasing waiting times in emergency departments and elective surgery waiting lists.
"Nurses are fed up to the back teeth," she said.
"The rally at Nepean Hospital was told there was something like 30 vacancies. It's interesting that when you go to the government's website ... they admit to only three."
"They're freezing vacancies ... so when nurses either resign, go on maternity leave ... those who remain are working even harder, and they are becoming disillusioned and they leave."
But SWAHS denied the hiring freeze.
"There is no staff freeze in Sydney West Area Health Service," it said in a statement said.
"SWAHS continues to recruit to frontline positions.
"All SWAHS hospitals have strategies in place to ensure that wards and services are appropriately staffed to maintain safety for patients and staff.
"Casual and agency staff are used as required."
The health service said its chief executive is willing to meet with the NSW Nurses Association to discuss staffing concerns.
© 2010 AAP
As I understand it this area health service is almost broke!! Its good that the Nurses Association had this Rally although the numbers supporting it were disappointing, but that may reflect a number of factors – as the wards are short it is hard for nurses to get away, they may have faced intimidation from management (usual when these rallies are held), the largely overseas born staff are not used to participating in union rallies and tend to shy away from them. But what now? If the Area HealthService is broke and needs money from the State and Federal Government, it is going to take a lot more than one Rally to get that happening.
Jenny Haines
Staff shortages compromise care: nurses
LISA MARTIN, SMH
March 18, 2010
AAP
Nurses at six western Sydney hospitals claim patient care is being compromised because a lack of state funding has forced the area health service to freeze hiring.
About 700 Sydney West Area Health Service (SWAHS) nurses protested about staff shortages at Westmead, Auburn, Blacktown, Mt Druitt, Nepean, Katoomba and Lithgow hospitals during their lunch breaks on Thursday.
NSW Nurses Association general secretary Brett Holmes addressed a protest rally at Nepean Hospital in Penrith.
The health service had not advertised positions externally since February 2009 as it struggled to cut expenditure, he told AAP.
"We have got lots of vacancies in positions that aren't being filled on a permanent basis," he said.
He said at Nepean Hospital there were 20 full-time positions unfilled in the maternity section and 14.5 vacancies in the emergency department.
At Mount Druitt and Blacktown the emergency departments were short 13 nurses, and 10 mental health beds had been closed across the health service.
There was also a shortage of cleaners.
Mr Holmes said staff were worried patient care was suffering and called for a cash injection to fill the vacancies.
"The staff are feeling they're not really in a position to be providing the level of care that is required," he said.
"People get moved out of the emergency department at the start of the shift to fill vacancies in wards.
"Then when the emergency departments get busy ... it's very hard to shift them back."
Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner said the situation was unacceptable, and the nurse shortage was increasing waiting times in emergency departments and elective surgery waiting lists.
"Nurses are fed up to the back teeth," she said.
"The rally at Nepean Hospital was told there was something like 30 vacancies. It's interesting that when you go to the government's website ... they admit to only three."
"They're freezing vacancies ... so when nurses either resign, go on maternity leave ... those who remain are working even harder, and they are becoming disillusioned and they leave."
But SWAHS denied the hiring freeze.
"There is no staff freeze in Sydney West Area Health Service," it said in a statement said.
"SWAHS continues to recruit to frontline positions.
"All SWAHS hospitals have strategies in place to ensure that wards and services are appropriately staffed to maintain safety for patients and staff.
"Casual and agency staff are used as required."
The health service said its chief executive is willing to meet with the NSW Nurses Association to discuss staffing concerns.
© 2010 AAP
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
FEDERAL FUNDING OF HEALTH
Federal takeover of health. Mr Rudd makes a bold announcement - which raises more questions than it answers. The only certainty is continuing federal under funding of hospitals for the next 4 years - or much, much longer if the states do not accept.
By Con Costa, as updated after Mr Rudd's Announcement of the Federal funding of hospitals.
On a weekend when 3 major Sydney hospitals announced downgrading of their ED services and ambulances to divert to other already overcrowded centre, Medibank Private announced its latest gimmick to attract membership – private ED service where for $195 patients could “jump the ED queue”. This comes at a time when federal share of hospital funding now down from the traditional 50/50 split with the states to an official 35%!
The public system is under increasing strain because it is becoming the default of an increasingly dysfunctional health system (including being the default for the private system). There is chronic under funding of hospitals at the federal level and the impact of federal privatisation policies on the community, health and aged care services.
Example 1. They rang me from the nursing home because the elderly woman had returned from the hospital with the intra venous line still in her arm. They had rung me several days earlier because her blood pressure was a bit high and she was complaining of headache, but despite my careful instructions over the phone they could not wait for me to arrive. The staff member on the other end of the phone had no nursing experience, and no other nursing staff available on the shift. So it was much easier to call the ambulance and send the elderly woman to hospital. Clearly both ends of the service equation were not working – and at great cost to the system.
Example 2. Across Australia millions of Australians are too often “treated” by their GP with simply a prescription, blood test or radiological investigation – again at very high cost to the system and sometimes questionable benefit to the patient. Seems its much quicker to order a simple blood test than to spend time with the patient taking a full history, perform an examination and then sit down and talk to the patient.
Thousands of men are now having a simple blood test as the sole means of assessing their prostate – called Prostatic Specific Antigen (PSA). The test is not reliable. Public authorities advise GPs against relying on this blood test as a screening test and that “its more trouble than its worth”. Nevertheless, it is now almost exclusively used by time poor Australian GPs for diagnosing prostate disease.
Patients who end up with a blood test, or some other investigation - in place of quality time spent with their GP, usually leave the doctor unhappy or are put at risk of further and more invasive investigations and treatments including referral to specialist - or they simply take themselves off to the Emergency Room at their local hospital because their problem has not been not properly dealt with or because they just get sicker.
Privatisation and economic rationales policies have strongly impacted on people’s health - to the point where GP consultations are well up. Privatisation of aged care facilities means trained nursing staff are often passed over for cheaper untrained staff. Economic rationalist policies has led to the biggest doctor shortage in Australia’s history - dating since the Productivity Commission advised the incoming Howard government in the early 1990’s along the lines that “if you cannot stop bulk billing, then less GPs would save costs through less bulk billing”.
The acute doctor shortage means that family GPs have an abundance of patients and never have to leave their medical clinic. Many sick or dying people in the community have learned to simply call an ambulance as the best way to receive care. Having a doctor visit at home, or dying peacefully at home is now rarely an option. Perfunctory medical care in the nursing homes means most end up in the hospital ED even for minor complaints. Thus the inevitable call from aged care facilities for the ambulance….
Following PM Rudds recent major statement on health it has been widely admitted that the federal share of hospital funding is now down to 35%. (Traditionally funding of our public hospitals a 50/ 50 split between the federal gvt and the states.) Mal administration of hospitals at the state level is a factor (area health boards in NSW could be somewhat reduced in size and hospital medical staff should have a greater role in regards to the planning and organization of the work they perform) - but even the best administered health board is doomed to fail while federal under funding of hospitals continues at this level – and despite Mr Rudds bold new plan, hospital federal share of hospital funding not set to increase for 3 or 4 years, and only if the states accept his new deal.
The federal government’s shirking of their fair share of public hospital funding is even more puzzling given the massive amounts of taxpayer money that the Rudd gvt has flushed through the system as a response to the GFC – including the notorious insulation program whose failure the PM partly excused based on the urgent need for the government to spend money at the time.
The Rudd government has shown little inclination to redress the real funding problems which beset the public hospital system, and this raises the worry that he is looking to more privatisation, more economc rationalist solutions for our ailing health system. Why else Christine Bennett from the private health insurance sector to lead the NHHRC? Why his quarantining of the failed 30% PHI rebate and the private walk in walk out system under which we pay our private doctors?
Yes, the recent major announcements by the PM on health financing sound bold and statesman- like. But where is the rest of the policy. You get the feeling they may be making up as they go. Or worse still that they may be holding something back which may prove the end game for the public system and introduction of a US style managed care.
The real worry may be that, under Rudd’s new new presidential style power within the Labor Party – the leader now able to hand pick his own cabinet and where Cabinet Ministers watch their own portfolios and are careful “not to tread on someone else’s turf”, there has been a tightening of the PM’s control over policy within his own Party - including greater power to his advisers and the treasury mandarins, together with his Health Minister, and the rest of the parliamentary wing no longer on watch.
The PM could do a lot worse than to immediately restore the 50/50 funding of hospitals with the states. He could set guidelines for privatised Aged Care that make it obligatory to have at least one trained nursing staff on each shift. And as an initial move away from rapid turnstile medicine in primary care, he could put all GP trainees on salaried payments – to encourage them to spend time with their patients and to provide some desperately needed house calls and nursing home care in the community. This would certainly build support for his “health reforms” with the community and the States.
Otherwise, next time you need to wait many hours to see a doctor in the public ED or you have to be transferred through busy city traffic while having your heart attack because your hospital ED has been downgraded, or your GP offers you a simple blood test instead of a quality time, or your elderly relative is yet again admitted to hospital from the nursing home for the third time in as many weeks - remember that you are not alone and it is mainly the federal under funding and economic rationalist policies which are to blame. And without something being done about that, Mr Rudd’s plans to “take over the hospital system” may be doomed from the start.
By Con Costa, as updated after Mr Rudd's Announcement of the Federal funding of hospitals.
On a weekend when 3 major Sydney hospitals announced downgrading of their ED services and ambulances to divert to other already overcrowded centre, Medibank Private announced its latest gimmick to attract membership – private ED service where for $195 patients could “jump the ED queue”. This comes at a time when federal share of hospital funding now down from the traditional 50/50 split with the states to an official 35%!
The public system is under increasing strain because it is becoming the default of an increasingly dysfunctional health system (including being the default for the private system). There is chronic under funding of hospitals at the federal level and the impact of federal privatisation policies on the community, health and aged care services.
Example 1. They rang me from the nursing home because the elderly woman had returned from the hospital with the intra venous line still in her arm. They had rung me several days earlier because her blood pressure was a bit high and she was complaining of headache, but despite my careful instructions over the phone they could not wait for me to arrive. The staff member on the other end of the phone had no nursing experience, and no other nursing staff available on the shift. So it was much easier to call the ambulance and send the elderly woman to hospital. Clearly both ends of the service equation were not working – and at great cost to the system.
Example 2. Across Australia millions of Australians are too often “treated” by their GP with simply a prescription, blood test or radiological investigation – again at very high cost to the system and sometimes questionable benefit to the patient. Seems its much quicker to order a simple blood test than to spend time with the patient taking a full history, perform an examination and then sit down and talk to the patient.
Thousands of men are now having a simple blood test as the sole means of assessing their prostate – called Prostatic Specific Antigen (PSA). The test is not reliable. Public authorities advise GPs against relying on this blood test as a screening test and that “its more trouble than its worth”. Nevertheless, it is now almost exclusively used by time poor Australian GPs for diagnosing prostate disease.
Patients who end up with a blood test, or some other investigation - in place of quality time spent with their GP, usually leave the doctor unhappy or are put at risk of further and more invasive investigations and treatments including referral to specialist - or they simply take themselves off to the Emergency Room at their local hospital because their problem has not been not properly dealt with or because they just get sicker.
Privatisation and economic rationales policies have strongly impacted on people’s health - to the point where GP consultations are well up. Privatisation of aged care facilities means trained nursing staff are often passed over for cheaper untrained staff. Economic rationalist policies has led to the biggest doctor shortage in Australia’s history - dating since the Productivity Commission advised the incoming Howard government in the early 1990’s along the lines that “if you cannot stop bulk billing, then less GPs would save costs through less bulk billing”.
The acute doctor shortage means that family GPs have an abundance of patients and never have to leave their medical clinic. Many sick or dying people in the community have learned to simply call an ambulance as the best way to receive care. Having a doctor visit at home, or dying peacefully at home is now rarely an option. Perfunctory medical care in the nursing homes means most end up in the hospital ED even for minor complaints. Thus the inevitable call from aged care facilities for the ambulance….
Following PM Rudds recent major statement on health it has been widely admitted that the federal share of hospital funding is now down to 35%. (Traditionally funding of our public hospitals a 50/ 50 split between the federal gvt and the states.) Mal administration of hospitals at the state level is a factor (area health boards in NSW could be somewhat reduced in size and hospital medical staff should have a greater role in regards to the planning and organization of the work they perform) - but even the best administered health board is doomed to fail while federal under funding of hospitals continues at this level – and despite Mr Rudds bold new plan, hospital federal share of hospital funding not set to increase for 3 or 4 years, and only if the states accept his new deal.
The federal government’s shirking of their fair share of public hospital funding is even more puzzling given the massive amounts of taxpayer money that the Rudd gvt has flushed through the system as a response to the GFC – including the notorious insulation program whose failure the PM partly excused based on the urgent need for the government to spend money at the time.
The Rudd government has shown little inclination to redress the real funding problems which beset the public hospital system, and this raises the worry that he is looking to more privatisation, more economc rationalist solutions for our ailing health system. Why else Christine Bennett from the private health insurance sector to lead the NHHRC? Why his quarantining of the failed 30% PHI rebate and the private walk in walk out system under which we pay our private doctors?
Yes, the recent major announcements by the PM on health financing sound bold and statesman- like. But where is the rest of the policy. You get the feeling they may be making up as they go. Or worse still that they may be holding something back which may prove the end game for the public system and introduction of a US style managed care.
The real worry may be that, under Rudd’s new new presidential style power within the Labor Party – the leader now able to hand pick his own cabinet and where Cabinet Ministers watch their own portfolios and are careful “not to tread on someone else’s turf”, there has been a tightening of the PM’s control over policy within his own Party - including greater power to his advisers and the treasury mandarins, together with his Health Minister, and the rest of the parliamentary wing no longer on watch.
The PM could do a lot worse than to immediately restore the 50/50 funding of hospitals with the states. He could set guidelines for privatised Aged Care that make it obligatory to have at least one trained nursing staff on each shift. And as an initial move away from rapid turnstile medicine in primary care, he could put all GP trainees on salaried payments – to encourage them to spend time with their patients and to provide some desperately needed house calls and nursing home care in the community. This would certainly build support for his “health reforms” with the community and the States.
Otherwise, next time you need to wait many hours to see a doctor in the public ED or you have to be transferred through busy city traffic while having your heart attack because your hospital ED has been downgraded, or your GP offers you a simple blood test instead of a quality time, or your elderly relative is yet again admitted to hospital from the nursing home for the third time in as many weeks - remember that you are not alone and it is mainly the federal under funding and economic rationalist policies which are to blame. And without something being done about that, Mr Rudd’s plans to “take over the hospital system” may be doomed from the start.
Friday, February 19, 2010
ASYLUM SEEKERS KNEW OF PLAN.
Red News Readers,
So if a Tony Abbott led government is going to turn the boats around and send them back out to sea, there will be more desperate actions like this.
Jenny Haines
Asylum seekers knew of plan
LINDSAY MURDOCH DARWIN CORRESPONDENT, SMH.
February 19, 2010
MANY of the asylum seekers aboard a boat that exploded near Ashmore Reef killing five people were aware of a plan to set it alight, the Northern Territory coroner says.
Greg Cavanagh said he held the reasonable view that a crime was committed on the boat known as SIEV36 before the explosion and would refer allegations against three Afghan men to authorities for possible criminal charges.
But Mr Cavanagh said it may well be that no charges are laid because any one of 49 people on the boat could have ignited the fuel, causing the explosion.
Summing up evidence at a three-week inquest into the deaths, Stephen Walsh, QC, counsel assisting the coroner, said it was likely that Sabzali Salman, Arman Ali Brahimi and Mohammad Anwar Mohammadi acted in concert to implement a plan that involved a series of deliberate acts to ensure they could not be sent back to Indonesia.
"The petrol was spilled by an Afghan passenger and it was ignited by an Afghan passenger at a point somewhere near the hatch of the bow or possibly a little towards the larger hatch at the front of the cabin," Mr Walsh said.
"The purpose was to disable the boat and prevent what was perceived to be their return to Indonesian waters."
But Mr Walsh said it was likely those involved did not expect there to be an explosion.
Peter Hanks, QC, counsel for the Commonwealth, said the lighting of the fuel "was a deliberate and malicious act and those involved must have known it would put lives at risk".
"It is clear that many of the passengers have knowledge of the events but have not come forward with that information," he said.
Mr Walsh said the asylum seekers became agitated and started screaming after they had been read an "inappropriate" warning notice which they mistakenly thought meant they were going to be forced to return to Indonesia.
He said the explosion could have been prevented if Australian Defence Force personnel had followed procedures.
"Clearly the most direct reason why the explosion was not avoided was because the unleaded petrol was not secured," Mr Walsh said.
Mr Walsh said the explosion may have been avoided if Australian Defence personnel who boarded the boat had confiscated lighters and matches.
He said the asylum seekers should have been simply and clearly told they were not going to be forced to return to Indonesia and would be taken to Australia.
Mr Walsh said changes in the way the ADF handles unauthorised arrivals meant Mr Cavanagh need not consider making any recommendations to the ADF.
"The lessons of SIEV36 have been appropriately learnt and actioned," he said.
Mr Walsh said if asylum seekers had been wearing lifejackets "it is possible some of the persons who died may have survived."
Lifejackets are now more readily available.
Other changes since the explosion include that warning notices are no longer issued to unauthorised boats and language cards have been issued to naval boarding parties.
Mr Walsh said no adverse finding can be made about ADF personnel rescuing their colleagues before the asylum seekers because more people may have died "if the navy officers had not acted as they did."
He said the evidence shows that an ADF medic, Sharon Jager, may have died if navy seaman Adrian Medbury had not kicked, forcing an asylum seeker hanging on to her to let go. He said the man who fell back into the water from a rescue vessel was rescued.
The inquest has been adjourned.
So if a Tony Abbott led government is going to turn the boats around and send them back out to sea, there will be more desperate actions like this.
Jenny Haines
Asylum seekers knew of plan
LINDSAY MURDOCH DARWIN CORRESPONDENT, SMH.
February 19, 2010
MANY of the asylum seekers aboard a boat that exploded near Ashmore Reef killing five people were aware of a plan to set it alight, the Northern Territory coroner says.
Greg Cavanagh said he held the reasonable view that a crime was committed on the boat known as SIEV36 before the explosion and would refer allegations against three Afghan men to authorities for possible criminal charges.
But Mr Cavanagh said it may well be that no charges are laid because any one of 49 people on the boat could have ignited the fuel, causing the explosion.
Summing up evidence at a three-week inquest into the deaths, Stephen Walsh, QC, counsel assisting the coroner, said it was likely that Sabzali Salman, Arman Ali Brahimi and Mohammad Anwar Mohammadi acted in concert to implement a plan that involved a series of deliberate acts to ensure they could not be sent back to Indonesia.
"The petrol was spilled by an Afghan passenger and it was ignited by an Afghan passenger at a point somewhere near the hatch of the bow or possibly a little towards the larger hatch at the front of the cabin," Mr Walsh said.
"The purpose was to disable the boat and prevent what was perceived to be their return to Indonesian waters."
But Mr Walsh said it was likely those involved did not expect there to be an explosion.
Peter Hanks, QC, counsel for the Commonwealth, said the lighting of the fuel "was a deliberate and malicious act and those involved must have known it would put lives at risk".
"It is clear that many of the passengers have knowledge of the events but have not come forward with that information," he said.
Mr Walsh said the asylum seekers became agitated and started screaming after they had been read an "inappropriate" warning notice which they mistakenly thought meant they were going to be forced to return to Indonesia.
He said the explosion could have been prevented if Australian Defence Force personnel had followed procedures.
"Clearly the most direct reason why the explosion was not avoided was because the unleaded petrol was not secured," Mr Walsh said.
Mr Walsh said the explosion may have been avoided if Australian Defence personnel who boarded the boat had confiscated lighters and matches.
He said the asylum seekers should have been simply and clearly told they were not going to be forced to return to Indonesia and would be taken to Australia.
Mr Walsh said changes in the way the ADF handles unauthorised arrivals meant Mr Cavanagh need not consider making any recommendations to the ADF.
"The lessons of SIEV36 have been appropriately learnt and actioned," he said.
Mr Walsh said if asylum seekers had been wearing lifejackets "it is possible some of the persons who died may have survived."
Lifejackets are now more readily available.
Other changes since the explosion include that warning notices are no longer issued to unauthorised boats and language cards have been issued to naval boarding parties.
Mr Walsh said no adverse finding can be made about ADF personnel rescuing their colleagues before the asylum seekers because more people may have died "if the navy officers had not acted as they did."
He said the evidence shows that an ADF medic, Sharon Jager, may have died if navy seaman Adrian Medbury had not kicked, forcing an asylum seeker hanging on to her to let go. He said the man who fell back into the water from a rescue vessel was rescued.
The inquest has been adjourned.
THE END OF ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION??
Powerless: electricity sale stalls
ANDREW CLENNELL AND BRIAN ROBINS, SMH
February 19, 2010
THE state government has delayed the sale of its electricity retail assets, raising questions as to whether the sale will proceed at all before the election next year.
A day after the Herald revealed the government would defer construction of the metro system, in effect meaning the project is doomed, another key project has been postponed.
''The state is stalled,'' said the opposition treasury spokesman, Mike Baird.
''We have full-on paralysis.''
The Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, announced the deferral of the $5 billion-$10 billion proposed sale of EnergyAustralia, Integral Energy and Country Energy, and electricity trading rights yesterday.
Mr Roozendaal said the sale, first proposed by the premier Morris Iemma in 2007, would be complete by the end of the year, but there was widespread scepticism about this in political and industry circles yesterday.
Sources said the complexity of the government's sale proposal had put off banks and electricity companies alike. Credit ratings agencies had warned that failure to privatise electricity could jeopardise the state's triple A credit rating.
The former finance minister Joe Tripodi, who spent $300,000 on an around-the-world trip to spruik the sale, came up with the complex Gen-Trader model, under which generation trading rights would be sold in a virtual stock exchange with the retailers.
One industry source said: ''There have been issues with getting private sector confidence in the Gen-Trader model. I know we had a lot of trouble getting our head around it.''
After Mr Roozendaal's statement yesterday, potential buyers threatened to walk away. A spokesman for Origin Energy said it would ''consider other, competing, investment options''.
Mr Roozendaal is hiring the former head of the department of premier and cabinet Col Gellatly, another former senior public servant, John Dermody, and the former minister Kim Yeadon to help the sale through, the Herald has learnt.
Do you know more? contact@smh.com.au
ANDREW CLENNELL AND BRIAN ROBINS, SMH
February 19, 2010
THE state government has delayed the sale of its electricity retail assets, raising questions as to whether the sale will proceed at all before the election next year.
A day after the Herald revealed the government would defer construction of the metro system, in effect meaning the project is doomed, another key project has been postponed.
''The state is stalled,'' said the opposition treasury spokesman, Mike Baird.
''We have full-on paralysis.''
The Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, announced the deferral of the $5 billion-$10 billion proposed sale of EnergyAustralia, Integral Energy and Country Energy, and electricity trading rights yesterday.
Mr Roozendaal said the sale, first proposed by the premier Morris Iemma in 2007, would be complete by the end of the year, but there was widespread scepticism about this in political and industry circles yesterday.
Sources said the complexity of the government's sale proposal had put off banks and electricity companies alike. Credit ratings agencies had warned that failure to privatise electricity could jeopardise the state's triple A credit rating.
The former finance minister Joe Tripodi, who spent $300,000 on an around-the-world trip to spruik the sale, came up with the complex Gen-Trader model, under which generation trading rights would be sold in a virtual stock exchange with the retailers.
One industry source said: ''There have been issues with getting private sector confidence in the Gen-Trader model. I know we had a lot of trouble getting our head around it.''
After Mr Roozendaal's statement yesterday, potential buyers threatened to walk away. A spokesman for Origin Energy said it would ''consider other, competing, investment options''.
Mr Roozendaal is hiring the former head of the department of premier and cabinet Col Gellatly, another former senior public servant, John Dermody, and the former minister Kim Yeadon to help the sale through, the Herald has learnt.
Do you know more? contact@smh.com.au
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS NO-ONE CARES ABOUT.
The mental patients no one cares about
By Richard Noone
From: The Daily Telegraph February 16, 2010 12:00AM
NSW HOSPITALS are being turned into dumping grounds for the mentally ill.
The situation has inflamed tense relations between frontline police, paramedics and hospital staff forced to deal with the constant influx.
Paramedics are reluctant to restrain and transport violent patients and hospitals refuse to admit them if they show signs of intoxication.
"I didn't sign up to arrest people," one paramedic said. "I didn't get into this job to be smacked in the mouth by a mental health patient."
Figures reveal that from January to November last year paramedics used medical restraints 128 times.
From January to December police responded to 22,926 mental health incidents, often having to baby-sit patients overnight in police custody cells which were not equipped to accommodate them.
Related CoverageEditorial: The cruel result of good intentions
Latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures show 77,699 mental health patients went or were taken to NSW emergency departments, 43.5 per cent of the 178,595 mental patients presenting in Australia and more than twice that of any other state or territory.
But the figures, collected in 2006-07 and only released late last year, could be much worse.
Given a diagnosis is only reported in 72 per cent of all patients going to emergency, it is estimated the figure could be closer to 100,000.
Mental Health Council of Australia boss David Crosbie said of those presenting only about 21,000 were later admitted.
"So . . . what happens to the other people?" he said.
Most, he said, were sent away until they deteriorated to the point where:
*THEY were forced to return to hospital emergency points;
* THEY hurt themselves; or
* THEY committed a crime and ended up in jail where, according to NSW prison data, 80 per cent of inmates have a mental illness.
Mental health experts argue the alarming rise in these numbers reflects a glaring failure of the NSW mental health system.
They blame the Government of trying to play catch-up by ploughing billions of dollars into hospital-run psychiatric beds instead of investing in community-based residential care.
Community-based residential care employs trained on-site staff to rehabilitate, treat and care for patients for up to 24 hours a day.
Mr Crosbie said adequate community-based care - 30 beds per 100,000 people - could cut emergency visits by 40 per cent.
NSW announced a record $1.171 billion spend on mental health in 2009-10, trebling the state's mental health budget over the past 15 years.
But NSW Mental Health Consumer Advisory Group executive officer Karen Oakley said it was not just a case of the Government spending more money.
"We have become such a crisis-driven system that people usually only get seen during a crisis and at that point it's too late," she said.
At the same time, NSW Police figures show a huge rise in the number of incidents they attended involving the mentally ill - from 2882 in 2000 to 39,352 in 2007.
Anecdotal evidence suggested this figure had since fallen after mental health intervention teams were set up with officers who are specifically trained in mental illness.
By Richard Noone
From: The Daily Telegraph February 16, 2010 12:00AM
NSW HOSPITALS are being turned into dumping grounds for the mentally ill.
The situation has inflamed tense relations between frontline police, paramedics and hospital staff forced to deal with the constant influx.
Paramedics are reluctant to restrain and transport violent patients and hospitals refuse to admit them if they show signs of intoxication.
"I didn't sign up to arrest people," one paramedic said. "I didn't get into this job to be smacked in the mouth by a mental health patient."
Figures reveal that from January to November last year paramedics used medical restraints 128 times.
From January to December police responded to 22,926 mental health incidents, often having to baby-sit patients overnight in police custody cells which were not equipped to accommodate them.
Related CoverageEditorial: The cruel result of good intentions
Latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures show 77,699 mental health patients went or were taken to NSW emergency departments, 43.5 per cent of the 178,595 mental patients presenting in Australia and more than twice that of any other state or territory.
But the figures, collected in 2006-07 and only released late last year, could be much worse.
Given a diagnosis is only reported in 72 per cent of all patients going to emergency, it is estimated the figure could be closer to 100,000.
Mental Health Council of Australia boss David Crosbie said of those presenting only about 21,000 were later admitted.
"So . . . what happens to the other people?" he said.
Most, he said, were sent away until they deteriorated to the point where:
*THEY were forced to return to hospital emergency points;
* THEY hurt themselves; or
* THEY committed a crime and ended up in jail where, according to NSW prison data, 80 per cent of inmates have a mental illness.
Mental health experts argue the alarming rise in these numbers reflects a glaring failure of the NSW mental health system.
They blame the Government of trying to play catch-up by ploughing billions of dollars into hospital-run psychiatric beds instead of investing in community-based residential care.
Community-based residential care employs trained on-site staff to rehabilitate, treat and care for patients for up to 24 hours a day.
Mr Crosbie said adequate community-based care - 30 beds per 100,000 people - could cut emergency visits by 40 per cent.
NSW announced a record $1.171 billion spend on mental health in 2009-10, trebling the state's mental health budget over the past 15 years.
But NSW Mental Health Consumer Advisory Group executive officer Karen Oakley said it was not just a case of the Government spending more money.
"We have become such a crisis-driven system that people usually only get seen during a crisis and at that point it's too late," she said.
At the same time, NSW Police figures show a huge rise in the number of incidents they attended involving the mentally ill - from 2882 in 2000 to 39,352 in 2007.
Anecdotal evidence suggested this figure had since fallen after mental health intervention teams were set up with officers who are specifically trained in mental illness.
WHO TRUSTS ABBOTT ON IR??
Fed: Survey reveals Australians don't trust Abbott on IR
15 February 2010 | Content provided to you by AAP.
CANBERRA, Feb 15 AAP - Most Australians believe federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott would bring back Work Choices if elected, a poll has found.
The ACTU poll comes as both sides of politics gear up for an election with industrial relations again to be a key feature.
Mr Abbott has previously said the Work Choices industrial relations regime introduced by the Howard government was "dead" and that he had no intention of reviving it.
However, the poll of 2099 people found just 18 per cent believe it is unlikely the coalition will reintroduce Work Choices.
More than half of those surveyed (53 per cent) believe it is likely or very likely the coalition would seek to reintroduce Work Choices or a similar system under a different name.
ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the results showed Australians had deep suspicions about Mr Abbott's support for hardline industrial relations policies.
"Australians remember the damage caused by Work Choices under the former Liberal government in which Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey were senior ministers," Ms Burrow said.
15 February 2010 | Content provided to you by AAP.
CANBERRA, Feb 15 AAP - Most Australians believe federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott would bring back Work Choices if elected, a poll has found.
The ACTU poll comes as both sides of politics gear up for an election with industrial relations again to be a key feature.
Mr Abbott has previously said the Work Choices industrial relations regime introduced by the Howard government was "dead" and that he had no intention of reviving it.
However, the poll of 2099 people found just 18 per cent believe it is unlikely the coalition will reintroduce Work Choices.
More than half of those surveyed (53 per cent) believe it is likely or very likely the coalition would seek to reintroduce Work Choices or a similar system under a different name.
ACTU president Sharan Burrow said the results showed Australians had deep suspicions about Mr Abbott's support for hardline industrial relations policies.
"Australians remember the damage caused by Work Choices under the former Liberal government in which Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey were senior ministers," Ms Burrow said.
Monday, February 15, 2010
ABBOTT WANTS HOSPITAL BOARDS
Red News Readers,
Re-establishing hospital boards will not change anything in the health system. Abbott’s policy is just a gift to those doctors who support the Coalition. And in fact, hospital boards may become the scapegoat in the system, so those doctors advocating the return of hospital boards may want to think carefully about what they are proposing. Having a few elite members of an institution attend a board meeting, is not going to do anything for elective surgery waiting times, or emergency department access, or clinical standards performance by inexperienced staff lacking adequate supervision from more experienced staff. These are the immediate issues that need to be dealt with, not establishing a meeting where doctors get a warm feeling in their tummy that they have their power back.
Jenny Haines
Abbott plans boards to rescue ailing hospitals
JACOB SAULWICK AND CONRAD WALTERS, SMH
February 15, 2010
NSW hospitals are so bad they need a Northern Territory-style intervention, says Tony Abbott, who wants local boards to assume control of the state's major public hospitals.
The opposition leader was flanked by his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, as he announced his first major health policy, which was immediately dismissed by the government as a Band-Aid solution, inadequate to the health system's problems.
Under a Coalition government, chief executive officers would manage hospitals in NSW and Queensland. These officers would be accountable to management boards made up of community and business leaders and doctor and nurse representatives, and who would control the hospital's funding.
Governments would set the overall funding for a hospital, but would not be able to cut spending on a hospital if it raised money from private patients or fund-raising. The idea mirrors a proposal Mr Abbott made while health minister in the Howard government.
''That is the change that our public hospital system needs … particularly in NSW and Queensland where chronic, systemic mismanagement really requires federal intervention along the lines of the intervention in the Northern Territory's remote communities back in 2007,'' Mr Abbott said yesterday, alongside his health spokesman, Peter Dutton, and Mr Turnbull.
The hospital where Mr Abbott chose to make his announcement, St Vincent's, is in Mr Turnbull's electorate.
The Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said Mr Abbott's policy was a ''minor-league solution'' to a ''major-league problem''.
She said it would not make any difference for three reasons. It was not a national policy; it did not do anything to manage waste or duplication in the health system; and it provided no additional funding for doctors or beds.
The government is due to announce its own health policy in coming months, and yesterday stressed its policy would tackle the duplication of funding across state and federal governments.
But Ms Roxon did not rule out empowering local boards along the lines of Mr Abbott's idea.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has said that one of the key comments he heard while consulting hospitals was that clinicians wanted more control over finances. Yesterday he conceded he had taken longer than planned to put in place reform, but said the delay was needed to get it right.
''We believe the system requires urgent surgery, we need more hospital beds, we need the elimination of waste between the Commonwealth and the states, and that is why a bold reform plan for the future is necessary,'' Mr Rudd said.
Tim Woodruff, president of the Doctors Reform Society, said the health system needed more co-ordination, not to be divided up along the lines suggested by Mr Abbott. ''Our feeling is that this is a move back to the 1950s,'' he said. ''Hospital boards throughout the country would simply result in a lot more infighting.''
In its budget submission, released today, the Business Council of Australia calls for federal and state health funding to be combined to reduce the duplication of programs.
Re-establishing hospital boards will not change anything in the health system. Abbott’s policy is just a gift to those doctors who support the Coalition. And in fact, hospital boards may become the scapegoat in the system, so those doctors advocating the return of hospital boards may want to think carefully about what they are proposing. Having a few elite members of an institution attend a board meeting, is not going to do anything for elective surgery waiting times, or emergency department access, or clinical standards performance by inexperienced staff lacking adequate supervision from more experienced staff. These are the immediate issues that need to be dealt with, not establishing a meeting where doctors get a warm feeling in their tummy that they have their power back.
Jenny Haines
Abbott plans boards to rescue ailing hospitals
JACOB SAULWICK AND CONRAD WALTERS, SMH
February 15, 2010
NSW hospitals are so bad they need a Northern Territory-style intervention, says Tony Abbott, who wants local boards to assume control of the state's major public hospitals.
The opposition leader was flanked by his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, as he announced his first major health policy, which was immediately dismissed by the government as a Band-Aid solution, inadequate to the health system's problems.
Under a Coalition government, chief executive officers would manage hospitals in NSW and Queensland. These officers would be accountable to management boards made up of community and business leaders and doctor and nurse representatives, and who would control the hospital's funding.
Governments would set the overall funding for a hospital, but would not be able to cut spending on a hospital if it raised money from private patients or fund-raising. The idea mirrors a proposal Mr Abbott made while health minister in the Howard government.
''That is the change that our public hospital system needs … particularly in NSW and Queensland where chronic, systemic mismanagement really requires federal intervention along the lines of the intervention in the Northern Territory's remote communities back in 2007,'' Mr Abbott said yesterday, alongside his health spokesman, Peter Dutton, and Mr Turnbull.
The hospital where Mr Abbott chose to make his announcement, St Vincent's, is in Mr Turnbull's electorate.
The Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said Mr Abbott's policy was a ''minor-league solution'' to a ''major-league problem''.
She said it would not make any difference for three reasons. It was not a national policy; it did not do anything to manage waste or duplication in the health system; and it provided no additional funding for doctors or beds.
The government is due to announce its own health policy in coming months, and yesterday stressed its policy would tackle the duplication of funding across state and federal governments.
But Ms Roxon did not rule out empowering local boards along the lines of Mr Abbott's idea.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has said that one of the key comments he heard while consulting hospitals was that clinicians wanted more control over finances. Yesterday he conceded he had taken longer than planned to put in place reform, but said the delay was needed to get it right.
''We believe the system requires urgent surgery, we need more hospital beds, we need the elimination of waste between the Commonwealth and the states, and that is why a bold reform plan for the future is necessary,'' Mr Rudd said.
Tim Woodruff, president of the Doctors Reform Society, said the health system needed more co-ordination, not to be divided up along the lines suggested by Mr Abbott. ''Our feeling is that this is a move back to the 1950s,'' he said. ''Hospital boards throughout the country would simply result in a lot more infighting.''
In its budget submission, released today, the Business Council of Australia calls for federal and state health funding to be combined to reduce the duplication of programs.
Monday, February 08, 2010
STATES PUSH AGAINST NATIONAL TAKEOVER
Red News Readers,
Having been in the health system a very long time, I take a jaundiced view of promises for more funding for community based services. There have been several attempts at this over the last 40 years with some initial success, but as soon as economic circumstances change, it is community based services that take the cuts to services and staffing levels first, and usually without much protest, as it is an area that unions find hard to organise into activity. Health bureaucrats mouth platitudes about their commitment to community based health and mental health services but they don't like the autonomy of the services and the practitioners in them and they certainly don't like community based services that overrun their budget, hence the latest move over the last couple of years, placing community health and mental health under the operational control of hospitals. It all seems to go around in one big cycle!
Jenny Haines
States push back against national hospital takeover
MARK METHERELL AND JULIE ROBOTHAM
February 8, 2010
THE federal government appears increasingly unlikely to seek a mandate to take over public hospitals, as a revamp of community health and GP services instead moves to the centre of the national health reform agenda.
The Prime Minister's pledge before the last election to seek a federal takeover of public hospital funding if the state governments failed to fix them before the middle of last year is being undermined by state resistance.
Having injected an extra $20 billion over five years into public hospitals, the federal government faces a growing campaign to expand primary care in the community provided by doctors, nurses and other health professionals. This is being seen as a more practicable way of reducing the pressure on public hospitals, whose defenders say they have been hit by crises because of years of inadequate funding.
Last week the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, repeated the threat of taking the issue of a federal health takeover to the election or a referendum if the states failed to join the government's health reforms.
But yesterday the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, dismissed any notion of a federal takeover. His view is also shared by the NSW Government. Both states say, however, they want to see a co-operative arrangement to dispense with blame-shifting and cost-shifting, which blights health administration.
A recent top-level meeting between NSW and federal government representatives is believed to have focused on a restructure of primary healthcare services, electronic health records and workforce issues, rather than a wholesale takeover of public hospitals.
Under the proposals, being driven by federal treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet along with the Department of Health and Ageing, general practitioner services - now paid for by the federal government - would be integrated with state-funded community health services.
The resulting services could either be directly funded by the federal government or in a state-federal partnership, would give doctors incentives to work in a team, and would aim to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital because of inadequate treatment of a long-term condition.
Australians are 20 to 30 per cent more likely to be admitted to hospital overnight than people in Britain or US, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which says 9 per cent of all hospital stays are potentially preventable, involving complications from diabetes and other chronic illnesses.
Electronic health records, to support integrated GP and hospital treatment, also figured prominently in the discussions, along with planning for the expanded health workforce needed to handle increasing disease in an ageing population. State-run public hospitals argue they need more federal support to accommodate a massive influx of inexperienced new doctors, nurses and health workers.
The talks also canvassed increasing performance-based health funding to states.
The federal government has continued its predecessor's policy of tying large grants to reducing emergency department and elective surgery waiting times and hospital infections, in a strategy which increases the federal control over public hospital priorities while avoiding administrative responsibility.
Having been in the health system a very long time, I take a jaundiced view of promises for more funding for community based services. There have been several attempts at this over the last 40 years with some initial success, but as soon as economic circumstances change, it is community based services that take the cuts to services and staffing levels first, and usually without much protest, as it is an area that unions find hard to organise into activity. Health bureaucrats mouth platitudes about their commitment to community based health and mental health services but they don't like the autonomy of the services and the practitioners in them and they certainly don't like community based services that overrun their budget, hence the latest move over the last couple of years, placing community health and mental health under the operational control of hospitals. It all seems to go around in one big cycle!
Jenny Haines
States push back against national hospital takeover
MARK METHERELL AND JULIE ROBOTHAM
February 8, 2010
THE federal government appears increasingly unlikely to seek a mandate to take over public hospitals, as a revamp of community health and GP services instead moves to the centre of the national health reform agenda.
The Prime Minister's pledge before the last election to seek a federal takeover of public hospital funding if the state governments failed to fix them before the middle of last year is being undermined by state resistance.
Having injected an extra $20 billion over five years into public hospitals, the federal government faces a growing campaign to expand primary care in the community provided by doctors, nurses and other health professionals. This is being seen as a more practicable way of reducing the pressure on public hospitals, whose defenders say they have been hit by crises because of years of inadequate funding.
Last week the Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, repeated the threat of taking the issue of a federal health takeover to the election or a referendum if the states failed to join the government's health reforms.
But yesterday the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, dismissed any notion of a federal takeover. His view is also shared by the NSW Government. Both states say, however, they want to see a co-operative arrangement to dispense with blame-shifting and cost-shifting, which blights health administration.
A recent top-level meeting between NSW and federal government representatives is believed to have focused on a restructure of primary healthcare services, electronic health records and workforce issues, rather than a wholesale takeover of public hospitals.
Under the proposals, being driven by federal treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet along with the Department of Health and Ageing, general practitioner services - now paid for by the federal government - would be integrated with state-funded community health services.
The resulting services could either be directly funded by the federal government or in a state-federal partnership, would give doctors incentives to work in a team, and would aim to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital because of inadequate treatment of a long-term condition.
Australians are 20 to 30 per cent more likely to be admitted to hospital overnight than people in Britain or US, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which says 9 per cent of all hospital stays are potentially preventable, involving complications from diabetes and other chronic illnesses.
Electronic health records, to support integrated GP and hospital treatment, also figured prominently in the discussions, along with planning for the expanded health workforce needed to handle increasing disease in an ageing population. State-run public hospitals argue they need more federal support to accommodate a massive influx of inexperienced new doctors, nurses and health workers.
The talks also canvassed increasing performance-based health funding to states.
The federal government has continued its predecessor's policy of tying large grants to reducing emergency department and elective surgery waiting times and hospital infections, in a strategy which increases the federal control over public hospital priorities while avoiding administrative responsibility.
CALL TO STOP COMPULSORY INCOME QUARANTINING
Call to stop compulsory income quarantining
ADELE HORIN, SMH.
February 8, 2010
THE government's plan to roll out compulsory income management across Australia for long-term welfare recipients, including sole parents and young people, is based on flimsy and contradictory evidence from the Northern Territory intervention and should be stopped, the nation's peak welfare organisation says.
In a stinging attack, the Australian Council of Social Service says extension of the scheme across the country to quarantine 50 to 70 per cent of the income of welfare recipients would prove expensive, intrusive and unnecessary.
Clare Martin, the chief executive officer of ACOSS, said: ''The government is presuming whole categories of Australians are irresponsible with the small income they get, when there is no evidence for that. This will waste money on administration when it could go to target assistance to those who need it.''
The government has introduced three bills to address the racial discriminatory aspects of the Coalition's intervention in the Northern Territory, to bring in new income quarantine measures, exclude recipients such as age and disability pensioners who are presently affected, and to roll out the scheme beyond the territory.
It is considered one of the most significant shifts in the history of social security policy, and involves the government declaring certain communities ''disadvantaged'' and imposing income management on particular groups of welfare recipients who normally live there.
In a submission to the Senate inquiry into the legislation, ACOSS says it is concerned a national roll-out is proposed despite the ''weak and conflicting evidence'' from Northern Territory indigenous communities.
ACOSS says measures that, if well-targeted, might suit a few would be imposed on many, subjecting them to humiliation and discrimination. Compulsory income management would create ''a perception that long-term[welfare] recipients are unable or unwilling to manage their very limited finances''.
The groups affected include people who have been on a Newstart Allowance or Parenting Payment or Special Benefit for more than a year in the past two; ''disengaged'' youth in receipt of a payment for more than 13 of the past 26 weeks; people deemed ''vulnerable'' to financial crisis, domestic violence or economic abuse; and where there are child protection concerns.
ACOSS understand the scheme will first be rolled out across the Northern Territory by mid-2011, and then, after evaluation, across the country. Affected welfare recipients, including mature-age long-term unemployed, would have to use a card in order to spend half of their payments on allowed items, and would be limited to shopping in designated stores. ACOSS says this has major implications for consumer choice and retail competition.
The government argues the measure would reduce spending on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling and porn, and would ''encourage socially responsible behaviour''.
ACOSS says the aim of social security policy is to reduce poverty, and it should not to used to effect ''broader social or behaviour change''.
It says restricted-use payment schemes, such as income management, are much more expensive to administer than cash payments because of the need for electronic payment systems, store licensing schemes and significantly increased client contact with government agencies.
ACOSS says the annual administrative cost of expanding the scheme across the Northern Territory is $4400 per person, and funds would be better spent on services.
ADELE HORIN, SMH.
February 8, 2010
THE government's plan to roll out compulsory income management across Australia for long-term welfare recipients, including sole parents and young people, is based on flimsy and contradictory evidence from the Northern Territory intervention and should be stopped, the nation's peak welfare organisation says.
In a stinging attack, the Australian Council of Social Service says extension of the scheme across the country to quarantine 50 to 70 per cent of the income of welfare recipients would prove expensive, intrusive and unnecessary.
Clare Martin, the chief executive officer of ACOSS, said: ''The government is presuming whole categories of Australians are irresponsible with the small income they get, when there is no evidence for that. This will waste money on administration when it could go to target assistance to those who need it.''
The government has introduced three bills to address the racial discriminatory aspects of the Coalition's intervention in the Northern Territory, to bring in new income quarantine measures, exclude recipients such as age and disability pensioners who are presently affected, and to roll out the scheme beyond the territory.
It is considered one of the most significant shifts in the history of social security policy, and involves the government declaring certain communities ''disadvantaged'' and imposing income management on particular groups of welfare recipients who normally live there.
In a submission to the Senate inquiry into the legislation, ACOSS says it is concerned a national roll-out is proposed despite the ''weak and conflicting evidence'' from Northern Territory indigenous communities.
ACOSS says measures that, if well-targeted, might suit a few would be imposed on many, subjecting them to humiliation and discrimination. Compulsory income management would create ''a perception that long-term[welfare] recipients are unable or unwilling to manage their very limited finances''.
The groups affected include people who have been on a Newstart Allowance or Parenting Payment or Special Benefit for more than a year in the past two; ''disengaged'' youth in receipt of a payment for more than 13 of the past 26 weeks; people deemed ''vulnerable'' to financial crisis, domestic violence or economic abuse; and where there are child protection concerns.
ACOSS understand the scheme will first be rolled out across the Northern Territory by mid-2011, and then, after evaluation, across the country. Affected welfare recipients, including mature-age long-term unemployed, would have to use a card in order to spend half of their payments on allowed items, and would be limited to shopping in designated stores. ACOSS says this has major implications for consumer choice and retail competition.
The government argues the measure would reduce spending on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling and porn, and would ''encourage socially responsible behaviour''.
ACOSS says the aim of social security policy is to reduce poverty, and it should not to used to effect ''broader social or behaviour change''.
It says restricted-use payment schemes, such as income management, are much more expensive to administer than cash payments because of the need for electronic payment systems, store licensing schemes and significantly increased client contact with government agencies.
ACOSS says the annual administrative cost of expanding the scheme across the Northern Territory is $4400 per person, and funds would be better spent on services.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
WHY DO PEOPLE OFTEN VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS?
BBC NEWS WEBSITE, 30.1.10
The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
Drew Westen argues that stories rather than facts convince voters
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Reverse revolution
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank thinks that voters have become blinded to their real interests
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.
This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.
This edition of Turkeys Voting for Christmas was first broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Sunday 24 January and repeated on Wednesday 27 January at 2045 GMT. Listen via the BBC iPlayer.
The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
Drew Westen argues that stories rather than facts convince voters
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Reverse revolution
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank thinks that voters have become blinded to their real interests
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.
This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.
This edition of Turkeys Voting for Christmas was first broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Sunday 24 January and repeated on Wednesday 27 January at 2045 GMT. Listen via the BBC iPlayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
