Red News Readers,
Those members of Gen X and Y who have not registered to vote would do well to remember the words of Nelson Mandela on the day that he voted for the first time in his life. He said that this was the day that he had spent 25 years in jail for, the day on which he could vote, as a citizen in a democratic election in South Africa. They should also remember the words of UN Aid Workers in Cambodia, touched by the sight of women in Cambodia, crouched by the side of a road after having walked all night, waiting for the polling booths to open, so they too could vote for the first time in the Cambodian elections after the fall of Pol Pot. And recently I was touched by the reports of election observers in Afghanistan who observed crowds of people taking their life in their hands, under threat from the Taliban, but willing to take the risk, just for the right to vote. The right to vote is a priviledge that should not be taken lightly or ignored. Many have died and suffered for it. Register to vote and have your say. Even better, get active in a political issue that interests you. The future of this country is in your hands.
Jenny Haines
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
MY REPLY TO HENDERSON ON REFUGEES
Red News Readers,
Gerard Henderson in today’s SMH reviews some of the dark history of government decision making on refugees and asylum seekers. While he remembers Labor in a bad light, he tries to justify all that Howard et al did. My blog posting is below:-
“Some of what Gerard Henderson says about past governments, Labor and Liberal Coalition is true unfortunately, but past mistakes do not justify current repetition of mistakes or lack of humanity. On Amanda Tattersall's statement, Gerard, I refer you to Page 228, of Dark Victory, by Marr and Wilkinson, "But critically the purpose of Operation Relex was not search and rescue. It was a military operation to stop the boats and turn them back before they reached Australia." And you may like to turn to Page 291 of the same book to find their comment about John Faulkner, "the questioning of civilian and military officials was driven by Labor's John Faulkner in a ruthless forensic exercise extending over many months. He and his colleagues on the committee laid bare much of this story."
If you wish to add to this blog go to the link:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/before-moving-forward-have-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror-20100712-107so.html?comments=41#comments
Jenny Haines
Gerard Henderson in today’s SMH reviews some of the dark history of government decision making on refugees and asylum seekers. While he remembers Labor in a bad light, he tries to justify all that Howard et al did. My blog posting is below:-
“Some of what Gerard Henderson says about past governments, Labor and Liberal Coalition is true unfortunately, but past mistakes do not justify current repetition of mistakes or lack of humanity. On Amanda Tattersall's statement, Gerard, I refer you to Page 228, of Dark Victory, by Marr and Wilkinson, "But critically the purpose of Operation Relex was not search and rescue. It was a military operation to stop the boats and turn them back before they reached Australia." And you may like to turn to Page 291 of the same book to find their comment about John Faulkner, "the questioning of civilian and military officials was driven by Labor's John Faulkner in a ruthless forensic exercise extending over many months. He and his colleagues on the committee laid bare much of this story."
If you wish to add to this blog go to the link:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/before-moving-forward-have-a-look-in-the-rearview-mirror-20100712-107so.html?comments=41#comments
Jenny Haines
Friday, July 09, 2010
SUPPORT REFUGEES RALLY 9.7.10
Mandatory detention destroyed my life: refugee
SMH, July 9, 2010 - 3:58PM
.
Gillard eats her words over refugees
Abbott smells blood
Richard Ackland: Facts and furphies
What would you do?
A former immigration detainee has told a rally protesting the government's new policy on asylum seekers that mandatory detention destroyed his life.
Iranian refugee Mohsen Soltani says he lives with the scars of his detention.
"They destroy my whole life in detention," said the poet and musician, who spent four years in immigration detention centres in Western Australia and New South Wales.
"I run away from torture and execution in my country, but here they crush all my spirit."
Mr Soltani was sent to the Port Hedland detention centre in WA in 1999 and was later transferred to Villawood, in Sydney's southwest, before being released in 2003.
He told about 60 people outside the Immigration Department offices in Sydney's CBD today that detention centres were "hell".
The rally was held to protest against Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposal for a regional offshore processing centre for asylum seekers.
Protesters waved banners and chanted: "Say it out loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here".
Mr Soltani told the rally that Ms Gillard's proposal showed she was the same as former prime minister John Howard and his immigration minister Philip Ruddock.
"We don't want the same history repeated with more mandatory detention - with more mental people released from that bloody hell," he said
"I have a huge mental illness from the detention."
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is also proposing a return to offshore processing of asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
Jenny Haines, spokeswoman for Labor for Refugees, said Ms Gillard's proposal was an election tactic.
"To cave into that idiot Abbott's idea that we can offshore process and then send (people) back to dangerous places like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka is reprehensible," she said.
Mark Goudkamp from the Refugee Action Collective castigated both sides of politics.
"It seems like its a debate on who can be ... more tough in terms of stopping asylum seekers even getting to Australia," he said.
Ms Gillard this week announced East Timor was a possible location for a detention centre, but later had to tone down her remarks after Timorese Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao responded negatively.
The government has since had discussions with Papua New Guinea.
AAP
SMH, July 9, 2010 - 3:58PM
.
Gillard eats her words over refugees
Abbott smells blood
Richard Ackland: Facts and furphies
What would you do?
A former immigration detainee has told a rally protesting the government's new policy on asylum seekers that mandatory detention destroyed his life.
Iranian refugee Mohsen Soltani says he lives with the scars of his detention.
"They destroy my whole life in detention," said the poet and musician, who spent four years in immigration detention centres in Western Australia and New South Wales.
"I run away from torture and execution in my country, but here they crush all my spirit."
Mr Soltani was sent to the Port Hedland detention centre in WA in 1999 and was later transferred to Villawood, in Sydney's southwest, before being released in 2003.
He told about 60 people outside the Immigration Department offices in Sydney's CBD today that detention centres were "hell".
The rally was held to protest against Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposal for a regional offshore processing centre for asylum seekers.
Protesters waved banners and chanted: "Say it out loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here".
Mr Soltani told the rally that Ms Gillard's proposal showed she was the same as former prime minister John Howard and his immigration minister Philip Ruddock.
"We don't want the same history repeated with more mandatory detention - with more mental people released from that bloody hell," he said
"I have a huge mental illness from the detention."
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is also proposing a return to offshore processing of asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
Jenny Haines, spokeswoman for Labor for Refugees, said Ms Gillard's proposal was an election tactic.
"To cave into that idiot Abbott's idea that we can offshore process and then send (people) back to dangerous places like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka is reprehensible," she said.
Mark Goudkamp from the Refugee Action Collective castigated both sides of politics.
"It seems like its a debate on who can be ... more tough in terms of stopping asylum seekers even getting to Australia," he said.
Ms Gillard this week announced East Timor was a possible location for a detention centre, but later had to tone down her remarks after Timorese Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao responded negatively.
The government has since had discussions with Papua New Guinea.
AAP
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
GILLARD: THE EAST TIMOR SOLUTION
Red News Readers,
Having just read Gillard’s speech, my view is that she seems to be trying to walk the middle path in the first part of the speech and then she lurchs towards Abbott with her East Timor processing centre. Why does she need this centre? She has Christmas Island and the onshore processing centres on the Australian mainland. East Timor I presume is in addition to what we have, not in place of? .
I agree with John Dowd who I heard on ABC 702 yesterday morning. He said that if the people that have recently arrived were white South Africans or white Zimbabweans, no one would be raising a murmur. But because they are brown and from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan there is a problem. John Dowd said this is racism. And it is, and Gillard should be ashamed that she is caving in to such forces in our community.
Mind you it is a good thing that she is not sending the Hazaras back to Afghanistan immediately. William Maley, an Australian National University expert on the Hazara, said in the SMH today: ”On the day Julia Gillard became prime minister, 11 Hazaras travelling in a vehicle in Oruzgan, the province where our troops are deployed, were waylaid by the Taliban and had their heads cut off.” He said it would be extremely dangerous to send any Hazara back to Afghanistan at present, and that no Afghan specialist in the world would say that the situation in Afghanistan is improving.
But pity the Sri Lankans. At the very moment that the EU is cutting off trade benefits to Sri Lanka because of the failure of its government to improve human rights, at a time when human rights organisations are reporting continued human rights abuses, Australia is planning to send vulnerable applicants for refugee and asylum seeker status back to Sri Lanka. Will Australians be satisfied when some, or god help us all of these returning refugees are imprisoned, or worse executed on their return? I hope Gillard, Abbott and those advocating their return can lie easy in their beds, because I can’t knowing what may very well happen to the Sri Lankans on their return.
Jenny Haines
Gillard on asylum seekers: time for an East Timor Solution
by Bernard Keane, Crikey 6.7.10
Australia will establish a revised “Pacific Solution”, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard flagging a “regional processing centre” for asylum seekers to be based in East Timor, to where asylum seekers who arrive by boat would be redirected as part of a “regional protection framework”.
In an address to the Lowy Institute this morning, the Prime Minister moved to establish a tougher line on asylum seekers by announcing her intention to pursue an East Timor processing facility with President Jose Ramos-Horta, the New Zealand government and the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees.
She also flagged that improved conditions in Sri Lanka now meant Tamil asylum seekers were likely to be sent home, and that negotiations were proceeding with the Afghan government on the repatriation of failed Afghan asylum seekers. Gillard also indicated unspecified measures to strengthen penalties for people smugglers whose actions lead to death, and committed to ensuring that successful asylum seekers would receive no “special treatment”.
Gillard explicitly denied that the proposed East Timor facility would be “a new Pacific Solution”, instead insisting it would be a “sustainable, effective regional protection framework”, but the difference with the Howard government’s approach of spending large sums of taxpayer money to send asylum seekers to locations such as Nauru for processing is unclear, beyond the promised involvement of the UNHCR.
The Prime Minister indicated that, in light of the UNHCR’s overnight report indicating a significantly improved security and legal situation in Sri Lanka, most Tamil asylum seekers faced being put on a plane back to their homeland if they attempted to reach Australia, although acknowledging that case-by-case determinations would remain. The present suspension of claims by Sri Lankan asylum seekers, put in place by Kevin Rudd just under three months ago, would be lifted.
The present suspension of processing of claims for Afghan asylum seekers would remain in place, but Gillard appeared to suggest this awaited the resolution of repatriation arrangements with the Afghan government. She emphasised that nearly three-quarters of Afghan asylum applicants had been refused in recent months.
Gillard also sought to address the persistent community myth that refugees are given extensive and special taxpayer assistance. “When newcomers settle in our community, they accept their responsibilities as members of the community — to learn English, enter the workforce, and send their kids to school like everyone else. Most refugees fulfil these obligations and are grateful to be able to make a new home in Australia … But the rules are the rules. We will ensure refugees shoulder the same obligations as Australians generally.”
What action this would entail remains unclear.
Earlier today, the opposition sought to further toughen its own stance on asylum seekers by indicating those who “deliberately destroyed” identity documentation would be denied asylum, an approach that appears unworkable given Australia’s international commitments and the practicalities of establishing “deliberate destruction” in the context of escape from brutal regimes and people smuggling.
The opposition also proposed to move the Minister for Immigration back into asylum claims processing, suggesting the minister be given the right to intervene in any asylum claim. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration would also be required to sign off on all asylum claim determinations, rather than lower level officials, although the power could be delegated.
Having just read Gillard’s speech, my view is that she seems to be trying to walk the middle path in the first part of the speech and then she lurchs towards Abbott with her East Timor processing centre. Why does she need this centre? She has Christmas Island and the onshore processing centres on the Australian mainland. East Timor I presume is in addition to what we have, not in place of? .
I agree with John Dowd who I heard on ABC 702 yesterday morning. He said that if the people that have recently arrived were white South Africans or white Zimbabweans, no one would be raising a murmur. But because they are brown and from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan there is a problem. John Dowd said this is racism. And it is, and Gillard should be ashamed that she is caving in to such forces in our community.
Mind you it is a good thing that she is not sending the Hazaras back to Afghanistan immediately. William Maley, an Australian National University expert on the Hazara, said in the SMH today: ”On the day Julia Gillard became prime minister, 11 Hazaras travelling in a vehicle in Oruzgan, the province where our troops are deployed, were waylaid by the Taliban and had their heads cut off.” He said it would be extremely dangerous to send any Hazara back to Afghanistan at present, and that no Afghan specialist in the world would say that the situation in Afghanistan is improving.
But pity the Sri Lankans. At the very moment that the EU is cutting off trade benefits to Sri Lanka because of the failure of its government to improve human rights, at a time when human rights organisations are reporting continued human rights abuses, Australia is planning to send vulnerable applicants for refugee and asylum seeker status back to Sri Lanka. Will Australians be satisfied when some, or god help us all of these returning refugees are imprisoned, or worse executed on their return? I hope Gillard, Abbott and those advocating their return can lie easy in their beds, because I can’t knowing what may very well happen to the Sri Lankans on their return.
Jenny Haines
Gillard on asylum seekers: time for an East Timor Solution
by Bernard Keane, Crikey 6.7.10
Australia will establish a revised “Pacific Solution”, with Prime Minister Julia Gillard flagging a “regional processing centre” for asylum seekers to be based in East Timor, to where asylum seekers who arrive by boat would be redirected as part of a “regional protection framework”.
In an address to the Lowy Institute this morning, the Prime Minister moved to establish a tougher line on asylum seekers by announcing her intention to pursue an East Timor processing facility with President Jose Ramos-Horta, the New Zealand government and the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees.
She also flagged that improved conditions in Sri Lanka now meant Tamil asylum seekers were likely to be sent home, and that negotiations were proceeding with the Afghan government on the repatriation of failed Afghan asylum seekers. Gillard also indicated unspecified measures to strengthen penalties for people smugglers whose actions lead to death, and committed to ensuring that successful asylum seekers would receive no “special treatment”.
Gillard explicitly denied that the proposed East Timor facility would be “a new Pacific Solution”, instead insisting it would be a “sustainable, effective regional protection framework”, but the difference with the Howard government’s approach of spending large sums of taxpayer money to send asylum seekers to locations such as Nauru for processing is unclear, beyond the promised involvement of the UNHCR.
The Prime Minister indicated that, in light of the UNHCR’s overnight report indicating a significantly improved security and legal situation in Sri Lanka, most Tamil asylum seekers faced being put on a plane back to their homeland if they attempted to reach Australia, although acknowledging that case-by-case determinations would remain. The present suspension of claims by Sri Lankan asylum seekers, put in place by Kevin Rudd just under three months ago, would be lifted.
The present suspension of processing of claims for Afghan asylum seekers would remain in place, but Gillard appeared to suggest this awaited the resolution of repatriation arrangements with the Afghan government. She emphasised that nearly three-quarters of Afghan asylum applicants had been refused in recent months.
Gillard also sought to address the persistent community myth that refugees are given extensive and special taxpayer assistance. “When newcomers settle in our community, they accept their responsibilities as members of the community — to learn English, enter the workforce, and send their kids to school like everyone else. Most refugees fulfil these obligations and are grateful to be able to make a new home in Australia … But the rules are the rules. We will ensure refugees shoulder the same obligations as Australians generally.”
What action this would entail remains unclear.
Earlier today, the opposition sought to further toughen its own stance on asylum seekers by indicating those who “deliberately destroyed” identity documentation would be denied asylum, an approach that appears unworkable given Australia’s international commitments and the practicalities of establishing “deliberate destruction” in the context of escape from brutal regimes and people smuggling.
The opposition also proposed to move the Minister for Immigration back into asylum claims processing, suggesting the minister be given the right to intervene in any asylum claim. The Secretary of the Department of Immigration would also be required to sign off on all asylum claim determinations, rather than lower level officials, although the power could be delegated.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
US NURSES STRIKE OVER RATIOS
Largest Ever Nurses' Strike Could Be Sign of Future Unrest
Robert Lowes
June 11, 2010 — A 1-day strike of 12,000 nurses in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota — said to be the largest in US history — ended as planned this morning, but experts expect more labor unrest to roil the hospital industry.
The nurses on strike from14 hospitals in the Twin Cities belong to the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA), an affiliate of an ambitious new "super union" with 155,000 members called National Nurses United (NNU). The NNU advocates nationwide adoption of nurse-to-patient staffing ratios that it deems low enough to ensure good patient care and prevent nurse burnout.
Staffing levels figure heavily into continuing negotiations between the Minnesota nurses and their hospitals over a new labor contract. Other points of contention are wages and the Minnesota hospitals' proposal to reduce the nurses' pension benefits.
The Minnesota nurses set their strike date of June 10 about 2 weeks beforehand, giving hospitals time to prepare. Maureen Schriner, a spokesperson for a trade group called Twin Cities Hospitals, said the 14 affected hospitals brought in 2800 replacement nurses on Thursday. Some hospitals rescheduled surgeries.
"Things ran smoothly," Schriner said. "The level of patient care was the same as it always had been."
The strike is the third major labor battle waged by the NNU this year. Members of an NNU affiliate in Philadelphia went on strike from Temple University Hospital for 28 days this spring, and just this week, a state judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop members of the affiliated California Nurses Association (CNA) from walking off their jobs yesterday at University of California medical centers and student health facilities. The NNU was formed last December when the CNA merged with the Massachusetts Nurses Association and United American Nurses.
NNU leaders say they will take aggressive action wherever hospitals put profits above patient care and the well-being of nurses.
"This phenomenon is not just in Minnesota," NNU co-president Jean Ross, RN, told Medscape Medical News. "In this recession, employers expect everybody to sacrifice whether there's a need to or not, or whether it's prudent or not, and it always comes on the backs of nurses.
"This union is prepared to do what it needs to do to get its needs met. What's good for nurses is good for patients."
Labor Historian Expects More Strikes in Era of Consolidation
Over the past 10 years, strikes by nurses have been "sort of rare," Peter Buerhaus, PhD, RN, a professor of nursing at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, told Medscape Medical News. Dr. Buerhaus said the drive to unionize nurses comes at a time when many aspects of the hospital workplace have improved, leading to higher job satisfaction.
"It's a much better picture than it was in the 1990s," said Dr. Buerhaus, referring to surveys of nurses that he has helped conduct over the years.
To Peter Rachleff, PhD, a labor historian at Macalester College in St. Paul, this week's 1-day strike illustrates how the nursing profession is responding to a healthcare industry marked by consolidation among health insurers and hospitals. "A new generation of nurses sees collective action as necessary to develop national standards for how they work," Dr. Rachleff said.
Asked if he expects to see more nurse strikes in the near future, Dr. Rachleff replied, "Absolutely."
In one sense, said Dr. Rachleff, nurses are trying to fill in the details of healthcare reform legislation enacted by Congress.
"The nurses are addressing issues of delivery of care that weren't clear in the larger macro discussion," he said. "They're taking it to the next level."
Opinion Divided on Value of Mandatory Staffing Ratios
One detail of healthcare reform dear to nurses in the Twin Cities is staffing levels. Their union is asking hospitals to maintain a ratio of 1 RN to 4 patients in medical and surgical units, and 1 RN to 2 patients in critical-care units, for example.
NNU co-president Jean Ross said some hospitals in the Twin Cities assign 3 patients per nurse in intensive care units instead of the 2 patients sought by the union.
"When things get more hectic, you're more likely to miss fine changes in a patient's condition," she said. "You can't be as watchful. You're afraid you're going to maim or kill someone."
The NNU maintains that mandatory staffing levels — already the law of the land in California — will not only save lives, but also solve the nursing shortage by improving job satisfaction. However, the nursing profession is divided on the effectiveness of mandatory staffing levels, with supporters and opponents pointing to research that supports their respective positions.
The trade group Twin Cities Hospitals argues that there is no objective evidence linking specific staffing ratios and patient safety. It calls the union proposal inflexible and expensive, adding at least $250 million to the annual expenses of the 14 affected hospitals.
Maureen Schriner, the spokesperson for Twin Cities Hospitals, said that previous contracts between the hospitals and nurses contained detailed language on staffing levels that in some cases exceed what the union is demanding.
"Instead of trying to work with what we already had, they came forward with their own ratios," said Schriner.
Robert Lowes
June 11, 2010 — A 1-day strike of 12,000 nurses in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota — said to be the largest in US history — ended as planned this morning, but experts expect more labor unrest to roil the hospital industry.
The nurses on strike from14 hospitals in the Twin Cities belong to the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA), an affiliate of an ambitious new "super union" with 155,000 members called National Nurses United (NNU). The NNU advocates nationwide adoption of nurse-to-patient staffing ratios that it deems low enough to ensure good patient care and prevent nurse burnout.
Staffing levels figure heavily into continuing negotiations between the Minnesota nurses and their hospitals over a new labor contract. Other points of contention are wages and the Minnesota hospitals' proposal to reduce the nurses' pension benefits.
The Minnesota nurses set their strike date of June 10 about 2 weeks beforehand, giving hospitals time to prepare. Maureen Schriner, a spokesperson for a trade group called Twin Cities Hospitals, said the 14 affected hospitals brought in 2800 replacement nurses on Thursday. Some hospitals rescheduled surgeries.
"Things ran smoothly," Schriner said. "The level of patient care was the same as it always had been."
The strike is the third major labor battle waged by the NNU this year. Members of an NNU affiliate in Philadelphia went on strike from Temple University Hospital for 28 days this spring, and just this week, a state judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop members of the affiliated California Nurses Association (CNA) from walking off their jobs yesterday at University of California medical centers and student health facilities. The NNU was formed last December when the CNA merged with the Massachusetts Nurses Association and United American Nurses.
NNU leaders say they will take aggressive action wherever hospitals put profits above patient care and the well-being of nurses.
"This phenomenon is not just in Minnesota," NNU co-president Jean Ross, RN, told Medscape Medical News. "In this recession, employers expect everybody to sacrifice whether there's a need to or not, or whether it's prudent or not, and it always comes on the backs of nurses.
"This union is prepared to do what it needs to do to get its needs met. What's good for nurses is good for patients."
Labor Historian Expects More Strikes in Era of Consolidation
Over the past 10 years, strikes by nurses have been "sort of rare," Peter Buerhaus, PhD, RN, a professor of nursing at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, told Medscape Medical News. Dr. Buerhaus said the drive to unionize nurses comes at a time when many aspects of the hospital workplace have improved, leading to higher job satisfaction.
"It's a much better picture than it was in the 1990s," said Dr. Buerhaus, referring to surveys of nurses that he has helped conduct over the years.
To Peter Rachleff, PhD, a labor historian at Macalester College in St. Paul, this week's 1-day strike illustrates how the nursing profession is responding to a healthcare industry marked by consolidation among health insurers and hospitals. "A new generation of nurses sees collective action as necessary to develop national standards for how they work," Dr. Rachleff said.
Asked if he expects to see more nurse strikes in the near future, Dr. Rachleff replied, "Absolutely."
In one sense, said Dr. Rachleff, nurses are trying to fill in the details of healthcare reform legislation enacted by Congress.
"The nurses are addressing issues of delivery of care that weren't clear in the larger macro discussion," he said. "They're taking it to the next level."
Opinion Divided on Value of Mandatory Staffing Ratios
One detail of healthcare reform dear to nurses in the Twin Cities is staffing levels. Their union is asking hospitals to maintain a ratio of 1 RN to 4 patients in medical and surgical units, and 1 RN to 2 patients in critical-care units, for example.
NNU co-president Jean Ross said some hospitals in the Twin Cities assign 3 patients per nurse in intensive care units instead of the 2 patients sought by the union.
"When things get more hectic, you're more likely to miss fine changes in a patient's condition," she said. "You can't be as watchful. You're afraid you're going to maim or kill someone."
The NNU maintains that mandatory staffing levels — already the law of the land in California — will not only save lives, but also solve the nursing shortage by improving job satisfaction. However, the nursing profession is divided on the effectiveness of mandatory staffing levels, with supporters and opponents pointing to research that supports their respective positions.
The trade group Twin Cities Hospitals argues that there is no objective evidence linking specific staffing ratios and patient safety. It calls the union proposal inflexible and expensive, adding at least $250 million to the annual expenses of the 14 affected hospitals.
Maureen Schriner, the spokesperson for Twin Cities Hospitals, said that previous contracts between the hospitals and nurses contained detailed language on staffing levels that in some cases exceed what the union is demanding.
"Instead of trying to work with what we already had, they came forward with their own ratios," said Schriner.
THE LESSONS OF PATEL
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/seven-years-for-jayant-patel-fails-to-ease-the-anger/story-e6frg6nf-1225886908290
Sent to the daily papers but not pubished:
The lessons that should be learnt from the whole Dr Patel and Bundaberg Hospital saga is that rewarding managers through performance based pay based on the achievement of productivity and efficiency targets can produce terrible outcomes in the health system. But sadly, with the current economic and human resources theologies in the health system, I doubt if this will be the lesson drawn. Interesting to hear a spokesperson of the Queensland medical fraternity say that there were plenty of doctors willing to go to Bundaberg to take the surgical position Patel held, but it was considered more cost efficient to employ Patel.
All credit to Toni Hoffman, the Nursing Unit Manager who kept going to senior management of Bundaberg Hospital over a 2 year period raising concerns about Dr Patel’s standards of care only, to be rebuffed and told that she needed to learn how to get on with overseas born doctors. All credit to Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland, who today paid tribute to Toni as a whistleblower, and recognised the suffering that Toni has undergone because she was a whistleblower.
It is not all over yet, as there is to be an appeal and the suffering of Patel’s patients, and the families of the patient’s who died, continues. To those patients and families, I pay tribute. Despite the callous indifference of some, there are many in the health system who are thinking about you, and send you our sympathies.
Jenny Haines
Sent to the daily papers but not pubished:
The lessons that should be learnt from the whole Dr Patel and Bundaberg Hospital saga is that rewarding managers through performance based pay based on the achievement of productivity and efficiency targets can produce terrible outcomes in the health system. But sadly, with the current economic and human resources theologies in the health system, I doubt if this will be the lesson drawn. Interesting to hear a spokesperson of the Queensland medical fraternity say that there were plenty of doctors willing to go to Bundaberg to take the surgical position Patel held, but it was considered more cost efficient to employ Patel.
All credit to Toni Hoffman, the Nursing Unit Manager who kept going to senior management of Bundaberg Hospital over a 2 year period raising concerns about Dr Patel’s standards of care only, to be rebuffed and told that she needed to learn how to get on with overseas born doctors. All credit to Anna Bligh, Premier of Queensland, who today paid tribute to Toni as a whistleblower, and recognised the suffering that Toni has undergone because she was a whistleblower.
It is not all over yet, as there is to be an appeal and the suffering of Patel’s patients, and the families of the patient’s who died, continues. To those patients and families, I pay tribute. Despite the callous indifference of some, there are many in the health system who are thinking about you, and send you our sympathies.
Jenny Haines
REFUGEES AND THE WEST
REFUGEES AND THE WEST
Julia Gillard as part of her intial policy statement as Prime Minister said that she understood the concerns of the Australian people about the arrival of refugees by boats, and would move to address those concerns, signalling that she intends to adopt and even harder stance than that of Kevin Rudd’s Government. She seemed to particularly target her message to the western suburbs of Sydney.
When I grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney in the 1950s through to the 1970s, life was not easy. The post war boom was in progress, but families struggled. In more recent times the western suburbs is now a mix of those struggling, but also the aspirational middle class. If I could summarise the apparent concerns of people in the west, it would be that they are concerned that those refugees and asylum seekers arriving by boat are queue jumpers, taking advantage of their apparent wealth compared with those still waiting in countries of origin to pay people smugglers to get to Australia on leaky unsafe boats. The taxpayer of Australia then pays for their detention while they are processed.
The big problem with this view is that there is no queue. The Australian Ambassadorial staff in the countries of origin do not put on their pith helmets and go out to the refugee camps and set up a table and chairs and take names on an orderly list. If you are unlucky enough to be in opposition, or an unwanted activist in one of these countries of origin, you probably leave in the dead of night, to avoid attracting attention to your departure. You leave behind whatever family you have, and you don’t want to imperil their continued existence after you leave. You may have sold everything you have ever owned to pay travel expenses. Your travel to a second country, and maybe a third. If you get to Indonesia, and your presence as a refugee and asylum seeker comes to the attention of the authorities there, you may be interned. You pray that you are interned in an Indonesian government run facility, as the standard of accommodation and treatment is better than the Australian run and paid for facilities. In the latter, the guards can threaten you with injury or death, and there is nothing you can do about it. If you are not interned in Indonesia, and can still afford it from what you have sold, earned, or borrowed, you find a people smuggler who will offer you a place on a boat in exchange for the last of your money. You then arrive at the dock to find the boat heavily overloaded, but you have paid you money and the people smuggler does not do reimbursements to dissatisfied customers.
If you are fortunate your fishing boat arrives off the north west coast of Australia, where you are met by Australia’s navy, and taken to Christmas Island for mandatory detention while you are processed. Having left your country of origin in the dead of night, you may not have brought with you your birth certificate, passport and all of the documentation required to identify you, so processing can take some time. Then there is the ASIO check to make sure you are not a terrorist. Mind you what self respecting terrorist would travel this way? ASIO processing takes a very long time. Even ASIO says they are understaffed. Then under the Howard Government system, even if recognised as a refugee under international conventions, you were placed on a temporary protection visa, but allowed out of detention into the community. But the trick of this was that you could not work or receive Medicare health benefits. So to survive, you relied on the goodness of charities, churches and friends. Thank heavens the Rudd Government abolished TPVs, and may they never return. Such bureaucratised cruelty!!
Life on the refugee trail is desperate and disorganised. You do what you have can to survive. Refugees who came to Australia before and after World War Two will recognise these circumstances, and no doubt be able to tell similar stories of pushing their way forward to a new life, against all of the forces arrayed against them.
Refugees arriving in Australia by boat constitute 4% of those seeking refuge in this country. The other 96% come by plane. QANTAS –Australia’s own people smuggler? The numbers of refugees arriving in this country are no threat to anyone, particularly people in the western suburbs of Sydney. I recently saw an election leaflet for one of the conservative parties. It said that the people of the electorate were being deprived of health, education and welfare services because money for these services was being spent on servicing refugee and asylum seekers arriving in this country by boat. Budget stringencies by State and Federal Governments in relation to health, welfare and education services have a multitude of other causes that have nothing to do with refugees and detention centres.
I am a member of Labor for Refugees. Labor for Refugees has become a rank and file organisation within the Labor Party that has improved party policy several times since the dark days of the Tampa Election in 2001, at National and State Conferences of the Party, I wait with interest the next moves by the Gillard Government, but remind the Government and the parliamentary leadership of the party of party policy, plus of course, the real politik that up until Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party was haemorrhaging to the Left ie the Greens, on the issue of refugees and asylum seekers and it is the real politik that matters on election day, not populism.
Jenny Haines
Julia Gillard as part of her intial policy statement as Prime Minister said that she understood the concerns of the Australian people about the arrival of refugees by boats, and would move to address those concerns, signalling that she intends to adopt and even harder stance than that of Kevin Rudd’s Government. She seemed to particularly target her message to the western suburbs of Sydney.
When I grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney in the 1950s through to the 1970s, life was not easy. The post war boom was in progress, but families struggled. In more recent times the western suburbs is now a mix of those struggling, but also the aspirational middle class. If I could summarise the apparent concerns of people in the west, it would be that they are concerned that those refugees and asylum seekers arriving by boat are queue jumpers, taking advantage of their apparent wealth compared with those still waiting in countries of origin to pay people smugglers to get to Australia on leaky unsafe boats. The taxpayer of Australia then pays for their detention while they are processed.
The big problem with this view is that there is no queue. The Australian Ambassadorial staff in the countries of origin do not put on their pith helmets and go out to the refugee camps and set up a table and chairs and take names on an orderly list. If you are unlucky enough to be in opposition, or an unwanted activist in one of these countries of origin, you probably leave in the dead of night, to avoid attracting attention to your departure. You leave behind whatever family you have, and you don’t want to imperil their continued existence after you leave. You may have sold everything you have ever owned to pay travel expenses. Your travel to a second country, and maybe a third. If you get to Indonesia, and your presence as a refugee and asylum seeker comes to the attention of the authorities there, you may be interned. You pray that you are interned in an Indonesian government run facility, as the standard of accommodation and treatment is better than the Australian run and paid for facilities. In the latter, the guards can threaten you with injury or death, and there is nothing you can do about it. If you are not interned in Indonesia, and can still afford it from what you have sold, earned, or borrowed, you find a people smuggler who will offer you a place on a boat in exchange for the last of your money. You then arrive at the dock to find the boat heavily overloaded, but you have paid you money and the people smuggler does not do reimbursements to dissatisfied customers.
If you are fortunate your fishing boat arrives off the north west coast of Australia, where you are met by Australia’s navy, and taken to Christmas Island for mandatory detention while you are processed. Having left your country of origin in the dead of night, you may not have brought with you your birth certificate, passport and all of the documentation required to identify you, so processing can take some time. Then there is the ASIO check to make sure you are not a terrorist. Mind you what self respecting terrorist would travel this way? ASIO processing takes a very long time. Even ASIO says they are understaffed. Then under the Howard Government system, even if recognised as a refugee under international conventions, you were placed on a temporary protection visa, but allowed out of detention into the community. But the trick of this was that you could not work or receive Medicare health benefits. So to survive, you relied on the goodness of charities, churches and friends. Thank heavens the Rudd Government abolished TPVs, and may they never return. Such bureaucratised cruelty!!
Life on the refugee trail is desperate and disorganised. You do what you have can to survive. Refugees who came to Australia before and after World War Two will recognise these circumstances, and no doubt be able to tell similar stories of pushing their way forward to a new life, against all of the forces arrayed against them.
Refugees arriving in Australia by boat constitute 4% of those seeking refuge in this country. The other 96% come by plane. QANTAS –Australia’s own people smuggler? The numbers of refugees arriving in this country are no threat to anyone, particularly people in the western suburbs of Sydney. I recently saw an election leaflet for one of the conservative parties. It said that the people of the electorate were being deprived of health, education and welfare services because money for these services was being spent on servicing refugee and asylum seekers arriving in this country by boat. Budget stringencies by State and Federal Governments in relation to health, welfare and education services have a multitude of other causes that have nothing to do with refugees and detention centres.
I am a member of Labor for Refugees. Labor for Refugees has become a rank and file organisation within the Labor Party that has improved party policy several times since the dark days of the Tampa Election in 2001, at National and State Conferences of the Party, I wait with interest the next moves by the Gillard Government, but remind the Government and the parliamentary leadership of the party of party policy, plus of course, the real politik that up until Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party was haemorrhaging to the Left ie the Greens, on the issue of refugees and asylum seekers and it is the real politik that matters on election day, not populism.
Jenny Haines
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
MY REPLY TO ANDREW BOLT
Dear All,
The ever revolting Andrew Bolt is out dog whistling in the Daily Smellograph today. He has a blog you may wish to contribute to. It would be good to get some balance on this blog, as it seems to be full of the refugee haters, which seems to be Andrew’s purpose. But if you can’t stand the stench of their arguments, don’t go there!
Jenny Haines
“Andrew Bolt where have you been? Or do you have a hearing problem? There are plenty of organisations and persons having a go at Rudd and his inner cabinet over their treatment of asylum seekers. Take for example Pamela Curr who was on Lateline two nights ago talking about asylum seekers in an Australian funded detention centre in Indonesia being tasered and threatened with death. And Ian Rintoul of Refugee Action Coalition criticising Rudd transfering boat people to desert detention centres yesterday. And Labor for Refugees criticising Rudd in a front page newspaper article only 2 weeks ago. And Labor for Refugees Victoria printing off a very telling criticism of the Government for the Victorian State ALP conference which was very well received by conference delegates. And Project Safe.Com beavering away in Western Australia on all aspects of the injustices of the refugee and asylum seeker system in this country. For someone who is supposed to be an on the ball journalist, how have you missed all this, and more? Mind you, your column seems to have worked in being a dog whistle call to all the asylum seeker haters to come out and bray against the Rudd Government.
Jenny Haines of Newtown (Reply)”
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_why_no_tears_now_for_dead_asylum_seekers/desc/#commentsmore
The ever revolting Andrew Bolt is out dog whistling in the Daily Smellograph today. He has a blog you may wish to contribute to. It would be good to get some balance on this blog, as it seems to be full of the refugee haters, which seems to be Andrew’s purpose. But if you can’t stand the stench of their arguments, don’t go there!
Jenny Haines
“Andrew Bolt where have you been? Or do you have a hearing problem? There are plenty of organisations and persons having a go at Rudd and his inner cabinet over their treatment of asylum seekers. Take for example Pamela Curr who was on Lateline two nights ago talking about asylum seekers in an Australian funded detention centre in Indonesia being tasered and threatened with death. And Ian Rintoul of Refugee Action Coalition criticising Rudd transfering boat people to desert detention centres yesterday. And Labor for Refugees criticising Rudd in a front page newspaper article only 2 weeks ago. And Labor for Refugees Victoria printing off a very telling criticism of the Government for the Victorian State ALP conference which was very well received by conference delegates. And Project Safe.Com beavering away in Western Australia on all aspects of the injustices of the refugee and asylum seeker system in this country. For someone who is supposed to be an on the ball journalist, how have you missed all this, and more? Mind you, your column seems to have worked in being a dog whistle call to all the asylum seeker haters to come out and bray against the Rudd Government.
Jenny Haines of Newtown (Reply)”
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_why_no_tears_now_for_dead_asylum_seekers/desc/#commentsmore
Monday, June 07, 2010
MOST PREFER PACIFIC SOLUTION
Red News Readers,
What sobering reading, that two thirds of those surveyed would be happy with a Coalition Government re-establishing the Pacific Solution, and it appears, the same percentage favour re-introducing temporary protection visas. As a capuccino drinking city voter (I hate lattes!) I can understand that these voters want orderly entry into Australia by everyone, and that fishing boats bringing refugees to our shores is seen as a disorderly way to arrive in this country. I wonder how many of these voters realise the casual cruelty that the Howard Government Pacific Solution inflicted on those detained, and on those who lived for years with the insecurity of temporary protection visas, not being allowed to work or have access to Australian health facilities, reliant on the kindness of charities and strangers.
It is sobering that so few people in this country take the time and effort to understand international law on the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers have the right by whatever means of transport to seek asylum in a second and third country. Natural justice and procedural fairness, which all citizens of Australia claim for themselves, also applies to refugees and asylum seekers who arrive, and have the right to due processing of their claims. The refugee and asylum seeker world is not an orderly queue. It is desperate and disorganised. You do what you can to survive. We are not being swamped with refugees and asylum seekers. We are not being threatened by terrorists coming in by fishing boat. No self respecting terrorist would arrive by boat, they would come by plane. How many Australians would say to the Jews and refugees who came to Australia before and after WW2, go home, you didn't arrive in this country in an orderly way?
Jenny Haines
Most prefer 'Pacific solution', poll finds
PHILLIP COOREY AND YUKO NARUSHIMA, SMH.
June 7, 2010
ALMOST two-thirds of voters support the Coalition's decision to reintroduce the Howard government's ''Pacific solution'' for dealing with asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
The latest Herald/Nielsen poll also finds the Coalition the preferred party overall to deal with asylum seekers which is looming as a central issue in this year's federal election.
The poll of 1400 voters, taken between Thursday and Saturday, came after the announcement by Tony Abbott that a Coalition government would once more detain asylum seekers indefinitely in locations such as Nauru.
The Coalition would also reintroduce the controversial temporary protection visas which Labor abolished on humanitarian grounds.
The poll found 62 per cent of voters supported ''the Howard government's policy of processing asylum seekers in countries outside Australia''. A minority of 33 per cent opposed the policy.
Asked which party had the best asylum-seeker policy, 35 per cent nominated the Coalition while support for Labor and the Greens was 19 per cent and 18 per cent respectively.
''A majority of Australians are likely to support policies presented as tough and uncompromising and are less likely to support policies perceived as soft,'' said a Nielsen pollster, John Stirton.
So far this year 133 boats have arrived in Australian waters and Labor MPs reported to caucus last week the arrivals were becoming a dominant concern among voters.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said he would not engage in a policy race to the bottom with Mr Abbott but promised to explain the facts more often to offset some of the myths and fears being perpetrated.
For example, Australia took about 13,000 refugees a year, whether they arrived by boat or air. If boat arrivals increased, the net intake would not, he said.
The Opposition claims the government has lost control of the borders. It said the arrival of four boats in two days over the weekend showed the three-month and six-month processing freeze the Rudd government placed on Sri Lankans and Afghans respectively had failed to deter asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers found on the most recent boats were intercepted north of Ashmore Island and Scott Reef. They are en route to Christmas Island where 2436 people are detained in facilities with space for 2500.
The government has budgeted for the arrival of 2000 asylum seekers by boat in the year to June 30 next year. This is a drop on the year before but costs will double as more people fight their deportation and spend longer in detention to do so.
The rates of rejection are increasing, with almost half of the 480 who arrived last year rejected as refugees by the Immigration Department in the past two months.
As the government postponed the transfer of about 30 families to the remote mining town of Leonora yesterday, it prepared the detention centre in Curtin to receive hundreds of asylum seekers affected by the April 9 suspension.
''The policy has been as ineffective as it is discriminatory,'' the opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said. The first transfer of 90 people to Leonora, scheduled for yesterday, was cancelled.
Source: The Age
What sobering reading, that two thirds of those surveyed would be happy with a Coalition Government re-establishing the Pacific Solution, and it appears, the same percentage favour re-introducing temporary protection visas. As a capuccino drinking city voter (I hate lattes!) I can understand that these voters want orderly entry into Australia by everyone, and that fishing boats bringing refugees to our shores is seen as a disorderly way to arrive in this country. I wonder how many of these voters realise the casual cruelty that the Howard Government Pacific Solution inflicted on those detained, and on those who lived for years with the insecurity of temporary protection visas, not being allowed to work or have access to Australian health facilities, reliant on the kindness of charities and strangers.
It is sobering that so few people in this country take the time and effort to understand international law on the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Refugees and asylum seekers have the right by whatever means of transport to seek asylum in a second and third country. Natural justice and procedural fairness, which all citizens of Australia claim for themselves, also applies to refugees and asylum seekers who arrive, and have the right to due processing of their claims. The refugee and asylum seeker world is not an orderly queue. It is desperate and disorganised. You do what you can to survive. We are not being swamped with refugees and asylum seekers. We are not being threatened by terrorists coming in by fishing boat. No self respecting terrorist would arrive by boat, they would come by plane. How many Australians would say to the Jews and refugees who came to Australia before and after WW2, go home, you didn't arrive in this country in an orderly way?
Jenny Haines
Most prefer 'Pacific solution', poll finds
PHILLIP COOREY AND YUKO NARUSHIMA, SMH.
June 7, 2010
ALMOST two-thirds of voters support the Coalition's decision to reintroduce the Howard government's ''Pacific solution'' for dealing with asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
The latest Herald/Nielsen poll also finds the Coalition the preferred party overall to deal with asylum seekers which is looming as a central issue in this year's federal election.
The poll of 1400 voters, taken between Thursday and Saturday, came after the announcement by Tony Abbott that a Coalition government would once more detain asylum seekers indefinitely in locations such as Nauru.
The Coalition would also reintroduce the controversial temporary protection visas which Labor abolished on humanitarian grounds.
The poll found 62 per cent of voters supported ''the Howard government's policy of processing asylum seekers in countries outside Australia''. A minority of 33 per cent opposed the policy.
Asked which party had the best asylum-seeker policy, 35 per cent nominated the Coalition while support for Labor and the Greens was 19 per cent and 18 per cent respectively.
''A majority of Australians are likely to support policies presented as tough and uncompromising and are less likely to support policies perceived as soft,'' said a Nielsen pollster, John Stirton.
So far this year 133 boats have arrived in Australian waters and Labor MPs reported to caucus last week the arrivals were becoming a dominant concern among voters.
The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said he would not engage in a policy race to the bottom with Mr Abbott but promised to explain the facts more often to offset some of the myths and fears being perpetrated.
For example, Australia took about 13,000 refugees a year, whether they arrived by boat or air. If boat arrivals increased, the net intake would not, he said.
The Opposition claims the government has lost control of the borders. It said the arrival of four boats in two days over the weekend showed the three-month and six-month processing freeze the Rudd government placed on Sri Lankans and Afghans respectively had failed to deter asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers found on the most recent boats were intercepted north of Ashmore Island and Scott Reef. They are en route to Christmas Island where 2436 people are detained in facilities with space for 2500.
The government has budgeted for the arrival of 2000 asylum seekers by boat in the year to June 30 next year. This is a drop on the year before but costs will double as more people fight their deportation and spend longer in detention to do so.
The rates of rejection are increasing, with almost half of the 480 who arrived last year rejected as refugees by the Immigration Department in the past two months.
As the government postponed the transfer of about 30 families to the remote mining town of Leonora yesterday, it prepared the detention centre in Curtin to receive hundreds of asylum seekers affected by the April 9 suspension.
''The policy has been as ineffective as it is discriminatory,'' the opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said. The first transfer of 90 people to Leonora, scheduled for yesterday, was cancelled.
Source: The Age
Friday, May 28, 2010
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
