Malaysia Solution 'Not In Our Name'
New Matilda, 26.7.11
By Jenny Haines
The Gillard Government has this week undermined the Labor Party's long tradition of fairness and social justice. Enough's enough, says party member Jenny Haines - and she's not the only one
Labor Party members are fed up. They are sick of being ignored, especially over refugee and asylum seeker issues. The divide between the politicians in government in Canberra and the party rank-and-file is growing.
At the last National Conference of the ALP in 2009 the conference adopted a policy that amended Section 157 of the National Platform to say that claims for asylum made in Australia would be assessed here. It reads:
"Protection claims made in Australia will be assessed by Australians on Australian Territory. Those found to be owed Australia’s protection under the Refugee Convention and other international instruments will be given permanent protection under the Migration Act 1958 and will be provided with appropriate settlement and support services."
Section 158 of the National Platform adopted by the 2009 National Conference goes on to say:
"For the Australian people to have confidence and trust in the integrity of our migration system, protection claims made in Australia should be assessed and reviewed in a manner which balances efficient decision making with procedural fairness and ensures that our international human rights obligations are met."
This policy was supported at the time by the National Secretary of the AWU, Paul Howes, a participant in the coup that installed Julia Gillard not long after this conference. Even Bob Hawke was quoted in the context of the 2010 federal election as saying "We are all bloody boat people".
So where did the decision to send 800 refugees to Malaysia for processing come from? If the ALP is a political party, and National Conference is any sort of decision-making body about policy, then the decision of the conference should be respected and implemented by those in power in government.
As Robin Rothfield from Labor for Refugees Victoria wrote in a press statement issued on the weekend: "How can party members have any interest in participating in the forthcoming National Conference in December 2011 when a key policy decision made at the National Conference 2009 can be so blatantly ignored?"
This does not mean that refugee advocates inside the party will not be at the next National Conference, but it is a valid question about how the party now functions. No other decision of the National Conference in 2009 seems to have been so blatantly ignored, so what is it about the refugee and asylum seeker issue that causes political blindness?
ALP members joined the party because they wanted Labor to make a difference in government — to bring about a fairer, more just and equitable society. Much is being done by the Labor government in Canberra to achieve those ends, a lot of it under-reported by the media, but when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, all of the party’s traditions of fairness and social justice fall away in the face of public hysteria about "boat people". Where there is such hysteria, party members expect their government to lead by example and to educate the public, not be influenced by uninformed voters in marginal seats and focus groups.
Labor Party members are not fools, and throw up their hands in despair at government announcements with no initial substance, which lead to the appalling polls that Julia Gillard and her team now face.
As Shane Prince, the Right faction convener of Labor for Refugees in NSW, has said:
"The NSW disease is rampant in this Federal Government and it will have the same effect on Federal Labor as it had on NSW Labor. There is absolutely no difference between the breach of the Platform by the Gillard Government on refugees and the attempted breach of the Platform on the privatisation of electricity in NSW. These people seem intent on tearing the party apart by tearing up its rules."
Of course, one of the proposals being discussed by those pushing for reform within the party is that federal Labor politicians no longer be required to be bound by party policy as decided by National Conference. It seems pointless having a party if that becomes part of the rules!
Labor Party members want their party back, a party that is committed to fairness and social justice for all — including refugees and asylum seekers. Clause One of Chapter 7 of the Party’s Platform says: "Labor believes that every Australian should have the opportunity to reach their potential and to participate fully in the economic and social life of the nation … We have always stood for equality."
Why shouldn’t this apply to refugees and asylum seekers?
Enter your comments here
David Grayling 26/07/11 5:46PM
We live in a world where the right-wing of politics is always ready to pick up support where they can and enlarge their odious ranks.
Why is the left-wing of politics in Australia trying to emulate the right-wing, trying to outdo them in brutality and cruelty towards refugees?
This Malaysian solution is bizarre and does great discredit to the Labor Party and what it is supposed to stand for AND to our country.
Perhaps you could send the refugees to one of Australia’s many uninhabited islands, Julia, let them fend for themselves?
That’d learn them, eh!
www.dangerouscreation.com
jackal01 26/07/11 10:36PM
I don’t think the left is so much trying to follow the right. The problem is that no one realy understands the Australian working and middle classes anymore.
I heard a discussion on Radio and there was talk on how we helped the Vietnamies etc..way back then and how did Australians become so cruel now, so anti Refugees. Its not the people that have changed, its the circumstances. You see, way back then we still had Government departments that labour or the Liberals, but mostly Labour could stack full of Unemployed people. It is Privatisation, Rationalisation or what ever they called it and Casualisation of the working classes coupled with a shortage of and high housing costs that has changed the future of peoples hopes.
GIO gone, CBA gone, Gov. Printers gone, Railways partly Privatised, Telstra gone, Public works Dept gone, RTA torn apart etc. etc.
Their is no where left to hide a few thousand unemployed. In the old days working for a Government Dept. used to be known as working for the Dole, now you have to walk along the road and pick up pieces of paper, you don’t learn anything anymore, there is no more Training. Prisoners don’t even make number plates anymore. All we have left is, move the Deck chairs about on the Titanic so that they look as if their Employed even if it is for just 2 days. Junee used to be a thriving Railway Town then Governments killed the Railways and that killed the town and they did all that bull so that they could destroy Unions, Union Influance, so that the rich and famous could get back what they had before the 1930 Depression and actually caused it.
The GFC came about because Clinton removed the GLASS, SEGALL ACTS in 1998??? they were put in place to stop the 1930 Depression coming back.
Greed is back and so is the Jack Boot of our masters and when your down trodden the last thing you need is even more, down trodden. So think on this, Politicans caused this mess, will the old Australia ever come back, no, we are now a dog eat dog world, where people struggle and get angry and direct that anger at Refugees. I Pox on both their houses, bring in the Greens, these idiots have been around for far too long, their like stale bread.
GocomSys 27/07/11 7:15AM
Thinking outside the box!
Let’s say we have a current government that tries, often in a very clumsy way mind you, to make a difference. On the other side we have the others who for their own devious reasons are continuously undermining it.
The current OZ government avoided the GFC. We know what and why they did it. We know it worked.
The current OZ government is putting a price on pollution. Is it a perfect scheme? Of course not but it is a start!
The current OZ government is attempting to stop the people smuggler trade. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not! Is it a sincere attempt in a very small way to improve the seemingly intractable worldwide refugee crisis situation? Yes it is!
I urge everyone to stop knocking, to look at the broader picture and become positive and pro-active.
We can do without armchair critics.
jennyhaines 27/07/11 9:28AM
GoComSys - you will note that I gave the Gillard Government credit for implementing a lot of underreported initiatives in the article. I am an active member of the Labor Party and take great interest in the political life and achievements of government. I hate to think what an Abbott led government would have done to this country when the GFC hit. And Abbott is nuts on carbon pricing - doesn’t know what he thinks!
But politics is not just about the doing, it is also about the ideas that underpin what is done, and the morality and ethics of what is done, and when the Labor Party comes together and debates and updates progressive policy in party forums and conferences that is as important in political life as the putting in place of strategies to address issues. If we become a valueless party, we are nothing. I hardly think that the National Conference of the party in 2009 counts as armchair critics. Nor do the concerned members of the party who have joined Labor for Refugees.
Mairi 27/07/11 2:17PM
Here for what it’s worth is one ALP grassroots member who supports the policy, on the grounds that its primary objective is deterrence, therefore it’s likely that nobody will suffer negative effects.
In the event that some do, then I take a utilitarian viewpoint that it will benefit more people than it disadvantages.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
FIRST TEST LOOMS FOR MALAYSIA SOLUTION
First test looms for Malaysia asylum solution
Mark Dodd and Paul Maley
From: The Australian July 27, 2011
THE first asylum-seekers who will be sent to Malaysia under the refugee swap deal were last night thought to be already on their way to the Australian territory of Christmas Island.
The Australian has been told Border Protection Command had information on Monday that at least one boat could have left Indonesia for Christmas Island.
The 380km journey from Java to Christmas Island has been known to take as little as 30 hours in a fast boat with GPS. But some asylum-seekers have told The Australian they were at sea for as many as 11 days from Indonesia trying to reach the Australian territory. News of the first boatload of asylum-seekers to be subjected to the terms of the Gillard government's deal with Malaysia came as Labor supporters angered by the deal vowed to take a policy to the ALP's national conference in December that would ensure asylum-seekers were processed in Australia.
Labor for Refugees (Victoria) is a rank-and-file party group with more than 180 members supported by several federal MPs. About 75 state branches are affiliated with the group and former ALP national president Barry Jones is a member.
Secretary Robin Rothfield, a member of the party's socialist Left faction, said yesterday the refugee deal was a repudiation of traditional Labor values and needed to be changed.
"If ministers can so blatantly ignore the party platform, what is the point of having a national conference -- writing up a platform -- when they're just going to ignore it?" Mr Rothfield said.
Under the Malaysia deal, Australia will be able to send 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia in return for 4000 UN-assessed refugees over the next four years.
Malaysian government sources yesterday told The Australian responsibility for organising the transit accommodation to be used to house transferred asylum-seekers for the first 45 days of their stay rested with the Australian government.
The Australian has been told three sites are under consideration. One is a former hotel, described by one official as "run down". All three sites are in the vicinity of Kuala Lumpur and its airport. But as The Australian reported on Monday, the government has yet to sign a single lease for any of the transit facilities.
International human rights watchdog Amnesty International yesterday slammed the deal, warning that refugees in Malaysia are "frequently caged in appalling conditions, exploited and caned".
In Malaysia, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen played down safety concerns saying Malaysian authorities would uphold protection guarantees for asylum-seekers sent by Australia.
"With the assistance of the International Organisation for Migration, they'll move into the community," Mr Bowen said. "They will have the right to self-reliance, including work rights, they'll have the right for children to attend schools and they'll have the right to basic healthcare. And they'll receive Australia and Malaysia identification to establish their legal right to be in Malaysia, as is very clear in the arrangement."
The Law Council of Australia remained unconvinced. "There are significant shortcomings . . . in particular a lack of detail about unaccompanied minors and legal assistance for transferees," it said.
Mark Dodd and Paul Maley
From: The Australian July 27, 2011
THE first asylum-seekers who will be sent to Malaysia under the refugee swap deal were last night thought to be already on their way to the Australian territory of Christmas Island.
The Australian has been told Border Protection Command had information on Monday that at least one boat could have left Indonesia for Christmas Island.
The 380km journey from Java to Christmas Island has been known to take as little as 30 hours in a fast boat with GPS. But some asylum-seekers have told The Australian they were at sea for as many as 11 days from Indonesia trying to reach the Australian territory. News of the first boatload of asylum-seekers to be subjected to the terms of the Gillard government's deal with Malaysia came as Labor supporters angered by the deal vowed to take a policy to the ALP's national conference in December that would ensure asylum-seekers were processed in Australia.
Labor for Refugees (Victoria) is a rank-and-file party group with more than 180 members supported by several federal MPs. About 75 state branches are affiliated with the group and former ALP national president Barry Jones is a member.
Secretary Robin Rothfield, a member of the party's socialist Left faction, said yesterday the refugee deal was a repudiation of traditional Labor values and needed to be changed.
"If ministers can so blatantly ignore the party platform, what is the point of having a national conference -- writing up a platform -- when they're just going to ignore it?" Mr Rothfield said.
Under the Malaysia deal, Australia will be able to send 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia in return for 4000 UN-assessed refugees over the next four years.
Malaysian government sources yesterday told The Australian responsibility for organising the transit accommodation to be used to house transferred asylum-seekers for the first 45 days of their stay rested with the Australian government.
The Australian has been told three sites are under consideration. One is a former hotel, described by one official as "run down". All three sites are in the vicinity of Kuala Lumpur and its airport. But as The Australian reported on Monday, the government has yet to sign a single lease for any of the transit facilities.
International human rights watchdog Amnesty International yesterday slammed the deal, warning that refugees in Malaysia are "frequently caged in appalling conditions, exploited and caned".
In Malaysia, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen played down safety concerns saying Malaysian authorities would uphold protection guarantees for asylum-seekers sent by Australia.
"With the assistance of the International Organisation for Migration, they'll move into the community," Mr Bowen said. "They will have the right to self-reliance, including work rights, they'll have the right for children to attend schools and they'll have the right to basic healthcare. And they'll receive Australia and Malaysia identification to establish their legal right to be in Malaysia, as is very clear in the arrangement."
The Law Council of Australia remained unconvinced. "There are significant shortcomings . . . in particular a lack of detail about unaccompanied minors and legal assistance for transferees," it said.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
LABOR MPs MAY REVOLT
Anna Patty, SMH.
5 July 2011.
LABOR'S rank and file vow an open revolt against Sussex Street powerbrokers if their calls for reform are rejected at the party's annual state conference in Sydney this weekend.
More than 100 members, including ALP branch secretaries and presidents, have signed a strongly worded letter threatening an ongoing war against party bosses if they reject genuine reform and fail to give members a greater say in how the party is run.
''If conference chooses not to endorse any increased powers for members, it will be an unmistakeable repudiation of the will of our party's rank and file,'' the letter says.
Advertisement: Story continues below ''Such a snub has the potential to provoke rank and file members across the state into a campaign of open revolt against the party's current hierarchy.''
The letter says the executive's proposals ''provide no road map at all for how to halt and reverse the devastating shrinking and ageing of our membership base over the next three years''.
Among the letter's signatories is Paul Pearce, president of Labor's Bronte branch and former MP for Coogee.
In a scathing account of the party's massive failure at the state polls in March, he criticised the ''ideological straitjacket of public-private options, or outright privatisation'' of services.
He said "ideologues in the cabinet and Caucus" - including former Treasurer Michael Costa and numbers man Joe Tripodi - pushed power privatisation in a "brutal and uncompromising manner.''
In his confidential submission to a review of the ALP defeat by former minister John Watkins, Mr Pearce, of the party left, said the power privatisation "was a step too far for even those members who were generally open to private sector involvement, yet numbers were brutally crunched, personal abuse became a tool of trade, and coherent argument ceased". Mr Pearce said Mr Costa had undermined the authority of the former premier, Morris Iemma, who was later forced to ''fall on his sword''.
''The final nails in the coffin came with the ill-advised and, to the public perception at least, arguably incompetent exercise by the former Treasurer to proceed with the partial privatisation of the electricity assets,'' Mr Pearce said in his submission
5 July 2011.
LABOR'S rank and file vow an open revolt against Sussex Street powerbrokers if their calls for reform are rejected at the party's annual state conference in Sydney this weekend.
More than 100 members, including ALP branch secretaries and presidents, have signed a strongly worded letter threatening an ongoing war against party bosses if they reject genuine reform and fail to give members a greater say in how the party is run.
''If conference chooses not to endorse any increased powers for members, it will be an unmistakeable repudiation of the will of our party's rank and file,'' the letter says.
Advertisement: Story continues below ''Such a snub has the potential to provoke rank and file members across the state into a campaign of open revolt against the party's current hierarchy.''
The letter says the executive's proposals ''provide no road map at all for how to halt and reverse the devastating shrinking and ageing of our membership base over the next three years''.
Among the letter's signatories is Paul Pearce, president of Labor's Bronte branch and former MP for Coogee.
In a scathing account of the party's massive failure at the state polls in March, he criticised the ''ideological straitjacket of public-private options, or outright privatisation'' of services.
He said "ideologues in the cabinet and Caucus" - including former Treasurer Michael Costa and numbers man Joe Tripodi - pushed power privatisation in a "brutal and uncompromising manner.''
In his confidential submission to a review of the ALP defeat by former minister John Watkins, Mr Pearce, of the party left, said the power privatisation "was a step too far for even those members who were generally open to private sector involvement, yet numbers were brutally crunched, personal abuse became a tool of trade, and coherent argument ceased". Mr Pearce said Mr Costa had undermined the authority of the former premier, Morris Iemma, who was later forced to ''fall on his sword''.
''The final nails in the coffin came with the ill-advised and, to the public perception at least, arguably incompetent exercise by the former Treasurer to proceed with the partial privatisation of the electricity assets,'' Mr Pearce said in his submission
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
LIBERALS ON WORKPLACE REFORM
Reith blasts Abbott on IR reform
Michelle Grattan, The Age
June 28, 2011
FORMER Howard government workplace relations minister Peter Reith has accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of dragging his feet on industrial relations reform.
In a stinging criticism of the man whose vote cost him the Liberal Party federal presidency, Mr Reith has compared Mr Abbott's conservative position unfavorably with the bolder approaches on workplace issues taken by Ted Baillieu in Victoria and Barry O'Farrell in NSW.
Writing in The Age, Mr Reith points out that Mr Baillieu and Mr O'Farrell both backed him in the Liberal presidency ballot, while Mr Abbott and Western Australia's Colin Barnett - both workplace relations conservatives - voted for incumbent Alan Stockdale, who won 57-56.
Advertisement: Story continues below ''It seems that the reformers on workplace relations were also supporters for party reform; once a reformer, always a reformer,'' Mr Reith writes.
A Reith campaign for the Coalition to take a robust industrial relations reform program to the next federal election will irk Mr Abbott because it will encourage those within the party who believe the opposition must advocate change. They include senior frontbenchers Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb and a ginger group of younger backbenchers.
Mr Abbott wants to play down industrial relations as much as possible, fearing Labor's ability to frighten voters about a possible return to WorkChoices.
Reverberations from the bitter Liberal presidency contest continued yesterday, with Reith supporters insisting Mr Abbott had encouraged Mr Reith to run. A senior source in the Stockdale camp, meanwhile, said Mr Abbott had indicated several times that he would vote for Mr Stockdale, to whom he showed his ballot paper.
The Liberals are gearing up for a battle over how much to implement of Mr Reith's blueprint to bring more democracy into the party. The blueprint criticises the ''fiefdom'' at the top, with a tight exclusive relationship between the leader, president and party director, Brian Loughnane.
In his article in The Age today, Mr Reith writes that he promised Mr Abbott that, as party president, he would suspend public advocacy of workplace reform, thinking this was the best way he could support Mr Abbott and ''quietly encourage good policy''.
He had been more than surprised to find after the ballot that Mr Abbott had thrown his support behind Mr Stockdale. ''I have no idea why,'' he writes.
The Liberal Party has to take responsibility for labour market reform, Mr Reith writes.
These issues ''are at the heart of productivity and, in the end, about living standards. Australia's productivity performance has been poor in recent years. We cannot pretend that this problem does not exist''.
In a line going to the heart of Mr Abbott's fears, he says: ''Too many people are too worried about WorkChoices.
''If we jump in fright every time Nick Minchin says the ALP is salivating at the thought of the Liberals doing something necessary, then Australia's prospects are not looking good.''
Senator Minchin, backing Mr Stockdale, warned Labor would be able to rev up a damaging campaign on IR if Mr Reith became president.
Mr Reith points out that Mr O'Farrell and Mr Baillieu have not been deterred from industrial relations initiatives by Labor reprises of the WorkChoices bogyman. ''Luckily these two premiers will not be deterred by a scare campaign and they will act in the public
interest. By addressing practical problems with specific reforms, these premiers are demonstrating an approach that Tony could emulate,'' Mr Reith writes. He says Mr Abbott's current policy is that the workplace issue ''is dead, buried and cremated''.
''The ambivalence about workplace relations reform on show at the Liberal meeting is a continuing concern not just for me but for a growing number of Australians running businesses large and small. The Liberals must win at the next election but winning is not enough.
''Let's aim higher than a rerun of the Fraser years. In the same way that Baillieu and O'Farrell have put aside fears about the bogyman the next federal government also needs to be pro-reform''.
He welcomes Mr Abbott's call for the business community to make the case for reform but adds pointedly: ''I hope he means it''.
Michelle Grattan, The Age
June 28, 2011
FORMER Howard government workplace relations minister Peter Reith has accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of dragging his feet on industrial relations reform.
In a stinging criticism of the man whose vote cost him the Liberal Party federal presidency, Mr Reith has compared Mr Abbott's conservative position unfavorably with the bolder approaches on workplace issues taken by Ted Baillieu in Victoria and Barry O'Farrell in NSW.
Writing in The Age, Mr Reith points out that Mr Baillieu and Mr O'Farrell both backed him in the Liberal presidency ballot, while Mr Abbott and Western Australia's Colin Barnett - both workplace relations conservatives - voted for incumbent Alan Stockdale, who won 57-56.
Advertisement: Story continues below ''It seems that the reformers on workplace relations were also supporters for party reform; once a reformer, always a reformer,'' Mr Reith writes.
A Reith campaign for the Coalition to take a robust industrial relations reform program to the next federal election will irk Mr Abbott because it will encourage those within the party who believe the opposition must advocate change. They include senior frontbenchers Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb and a ginger group of younger backbenchers.
Mr Abbott wants to play down industrial relations as much as possible, fearing Labor's ability to frighten voters about a possible return to WorkChoices.
Reverberations from the bitter Liberal presidency contest continued yesterday, with Reith supporters insisting Mr Abbott had encouraged Mr Reith to run. A senior source in the Stockdale camp, meanwhile, said Mr Abbott had indicated several times that he would vote for Mr Stockdale, to whom he showed his ballot paper.
The Liberals are gearing up for a battle over how much to implement of Mr Reith's blueprint to bring more democracy into the party. The blueprint criticises the ''fiefdom'' at the top, with a tight exclusive relationship between the leader, president and party director, Brian Loughnane.
In his article in The Age today, Mr Reith writes that he promised Mr Abbott that, as party president, he would suspend public advocacy of workplace reform, thinking this was the best way he could support Mr Abbott and ''quietly encourage good policy''.
He had been more than surprised to find after the ballot that Mr Abbott had thrown his support behind Mr Stockdale. ''I have no idea why,'' he writes.
The Liberal Party has to take responsibility for labour market reform, Mr Reith writes.
These issues ''are at the heart of productivity and, in the end, about living standards. Australia's productivity performance has been poor in recent years. We cannot pretend that this problem does not exist''.
In a line going to the heart of Mr Abbott's fears, he says: ''Too many people are too worried about WorkChoices.
''If we jump in fright every time Nick Minchin says the ALP is salivating at the thought of the Liberals doing something necessary, then Australia's prospects are not looking good.''
Senator Minchin, backing Mr Stockdale, warned Labor would be able to rev up a damaging campaign on IR if Mr Reith became president.
Mr Reith points out that Mr O'Farrell and Mr Baillieu have not been deterred from industrial relations initiatives by Labor reprises of the WorkChoices bogyman. ''Luckily these two premiers will not be deterred by a scare campaign and they will act in the public
interest. By addressing practical problems with specific reforms, these premiers are demonstrating an approach that Tony could emulate,'' Mr Reith writes. He says Mr Abbott's current policy is that the workplace issue ''is dead, buried and cremated''.
''The ambivalence about workplace relations reform on show at the Liberal meeting is a continuing concern not just for me but for a growing number of Australians running businesses large and small. The Liberals must win at the next election but winning is not enough.
''Let's aim higher than a rerun of the Fraser years. In the same way that Baillieu and O'Farrell have put aside fears about the bogyman the next federal government also needs to be pro-reform''.
He welcomes Mr Abbott's call for the business community to make the case for reform but adds pointedly: ''I hope he means it''.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
SHOULD PUBLIC SERVICE PAY BE CAPPED?
SMH, 25.6.11.
Four experts debate the merits of curbing the pay for the state’s nurses, teachers, fire fighters and bus drivers.
THE ECONOMIST: JEFF BORLAND
One of the big changes in the Australian labour market in the past 20 years has been the shift towards decentralised wage-setting, tailored to individual workplaces and industries increasingly exposed to international trade, new technology and changing patterns of employment.
Against that background the new public sector pay policy in NSW is a step back to the past. Of course, that does not necessarily make it a bad step. Having a centralised wage-setting system was for many years a good policy. It allowed wage increases during inflationary periods to be managed on an economy-wide basis, while providing equity in wage outcomes.
Advertisement: Story continues below So perhaps the NSW pay policy can be justified on these terms – as a way of seeking to control a wage break-out. The data suggests not.
First, there is no indication of rapid growth in public sector wages in NSW. Over the past 15 years, wages of public sector and private sector workers in NSW have moved closely together. Australian Bureau of Statistics data on the average weekly earnings of adult workers in NSW (working full-time ordinary hours) show that in the first time period for which data is available – August 1994 – the ratio of earnings of public sector to private sector workers was 107 per cent; in the last time period available – February 2011 – the ratio was also 107 per cent. In the past two years average earnings of public sector workers have increased at a slightly higher rate than private sector workers, but most of this relative growth occurred a year ago. In the past six months the ratio of public sector to private sector earnings in NSW has decreased.
Secondly, it doesn’t seem that wage increases in NSW overall have been excessive compared with the rest of Australia. For example, in the two years to February 2011, average weekly earnings of adults in NSW (working full-time ordinary hours) increased by 5.1 per cent a year, compared to 4.8 per cent in all Australia.
If there is little benefit to centralised wage-setting for public sector workers in NSW, what are likely to be the costs? There may be several. If you try to hold wage increases of public sector workers below the size of increases obtained in the private sector, you will lose talented workers to the private sector.
Also, a uniform wage increase for all public sector workers reduces the scope for responding to particular circumstances in specific public sector labour markets, thereby reducing efficiency. Where workers respond by adjusting their effort and working hours to what they think is fair based on their wages, you also get a lower quality of public services.
Jeff Borland is professor of economics at the University of Melbourne.
THE ACADEMIC: JOHN BUCHANAN
When setting pay for public sector workers the NSW Industrial Relations Commission has performed its function professionally and effectively.
Contrary to assertions from NSW Treasury, there has been no public sector wages ‘‘blowout’’. Research by Yury Andrienko and Serena Yu at Sydney University’s Workplace Research Centre confirms that when factors like education levels and time in the job are considered for NSW public sector workers, they are paid almost identical wages as their private sector counterparts.
Research I have undertaken shows that senior teachers, police officers and nurses are paid roughly the same as their interstate colleagues. If this policy had been in place since 2000, people in these positions would be between $9000 and $17,000 a year worse off. And this in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the country.
The courts give great weight to treating like cases alike when settling disputes. Consistency in the treatment of people in similar circumstances is widely recognised as the key feature of a civilised society that values fairness.
Allowing Treasury and not the independent umpire to set wages is unfair. More importantly, it is inefficient. Fair wages are crucial for maintaining motivation and underpinning a sustainable approach to recruitment and retention.
People with good teaching, nursing and policing skills are in high demand. If the NSW government does not reward them competitively, we will have big trouble staffing schools, hospitals, police stations and a host of other services with the personnel needed to provide quality public services.
The global financial crisis proved treasuries around the world are incapable of delivering policies that achieve sustainable, stable economic development. Why should we believe they have the answer on public sector pay?
There are problems in our economy today. It’s time to get serious about ending systemic tax avoidance. The tax support provided to high income earnings with private superannuation now costs more than all government expenditure on the public pension. Fiscal problems arise from problems in taxation as much as from public expenditure.
Arbitrarily capping wages is an easy way of saving public money in the short term. But at what long-term cost? Let’s have an informed, widespread debate on how to meet budget challenges and move beyond ill-informed, simple-minded public sector bashing.
Dr John Buchanan is director of the Workplace Research Centre at the University of Sydney Business School.
THE ADVISER: JOHN EGAN
From a government’s perspective, this question is about cost and efficiency. Is the issue wage levels or the rate of increase? Should the discussion extend to more highly paid professional and technical staff, as well as senior executives in public service?
There is a significant diversity of jobs in the public sector, from senior executives, professional, technical and administrative staff providing community services through to operating business enterprises. Many of these roles require well-trained and dedicated people deserving of fair pay and recognition of their contribution to the national good.
From the perspective of cost and efficiency, the challenge is broader than base-pay levels or pay increases and embraces terms and conditions of employment, including rostered days off; overtime payments; productivity; and the quality of leadership.
A key weakness of tribunals adjudicating on this diversity of public sector employees is, just like the private sector, that one size does not fit all. If a pay increase of 2per cent, 3per cent or 4per cent is considered appropriate for the least well-paid to meet living costs, should that flow through the entire workforce?
At what level of pay should performance be a more significant determinant of wage levels and wage increases?
Productivity is clearly a challenge in the public sector. If a commitment to efficiency and continuous improvement is not an embedded principle in government workforces, taxpayers are often paying more than they should for service and other outputs. As in the private sector, budget constraints lead to an audit of resources and an examination of staff performance.
Given the pressure on the Australian economy, with low unemployment, some of these cost pressures and wage challenges may well be addressed by the government considering the outsourcing of contracts and the sending of jobs offshore, releasing public servants to pursue more satisfying opportunities in the private sector.
Clearly one of the challenges in the public sector is meeting round-the-clock demand when employees have two to five weeks of RDOs available, plus personal carer’s leave, plus public holidays, plus annual leave. In a national workforce of one million this is likely to require governments to employ an extra 100,000 people, adding between $5 billion and $7 billion to the nation’s wages cost.
It is unlikely the challenge is one of wage levels or wage increases alone but more likely to be one of quality of leadership, clarity in government of accountability and training to ensure efficiencies are comparable to the best-run private companies.
John Egan is an adviser on executive pay.
THE UNIONIST: JEFF LAWRENCE
It is an attack on rights at work.
Public sector employees are no different from the rest of the workforce.
They are teachers, nurses, bus drivers, firefighters, park rangers, office workers and the countless others who keep public services in NSW running. And they face exactly the same cost of living pressures as everyone else.
The latest measure of employee living costs from the ABS shows these rose 4.9per cent in the past year.
An arbitrary cap on wages – whether public or private sector – bears no relation to the economy, nor to the necessity of maintaining the real value of earnings.
Imagine if your employer came to you and said: “Next year, I’m capping your wages at below inflation. No ifs, no buts, no negotiation. Take it or leave it.”
That’s effectively what the O’Farrell government’s 2.5per cent public sector wages cap will do. It will result in pay cuts for hundreds of thousands of people and their families.
But let’s not be fooled. The O’Farrell government’s Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011 is not a wages policy. It is not a fiscal policy. It is an attack on rights at work, dressed up as a wages policy.
And for this reason, reversing these laws matters to every Australian worker and their family.
The O’Farrell government has been eager to portray its changes as identical to the wages policies that state Labor governments also adopt.
But this is a con job because it glosses over a crucial and central distinction. Unions regularly have stoushes with state governments – Labor and Liberal – over pay. And similar disputes are taking place in Europe and some US states over government austerity programs.
But it is a long accepted principle – and a requirement of international law – that the final outcome of any wage claim is a matter of negotiation and bargaining.
The O’Farrell government is not sitting down with their workforce to reach an agreement. It is changing the law – not only to dictate wage increases below the cost of living but also to cut important workplace conditions.
In no other state or territory has the government sought to implement a wages policy by stripping away workers’ rights.
No person or party who cares about working people, about Australian jobs or about the services in our community could support these laws.
Jeff Lawrence is secretary of the ACTU.
Four experts debate the merits of curbing the pay for the state’s nurses, teachers, fire fighters and bus drivers.
THE ECONOMIST: JEFF BORLAND
One of the big changes in the Australian labour market in the past 20 years has been the shift towards decentralised wage-setting, tailored to individual workplaces and industries increasingly exposed to international trade, new technology and changing patterns of employment.
Against that background the new public sector pay policy in NSW is a step back to the past. Of course, that does not necessarily make it a bad step. Having a centralised wage-setting system was for many years a good policy. It allowed wage increases during inflationary periods to be managed on an economy-wide basis, while providing equity in wage outcomes.
Advertisement: Story continues below So perhaps the NSW pay policy can be justified on these terms – as a way of seeking to control a wage break-out. The data suggests not.
First, there is no indication of rapid growth in public sector wages in NSW. Over the past 15 years, wages of public sector and private sector workers in NSW have moved closely together. Australian Bureau of Statistics data on the average weekly earnings of adult workers in NSW (working full-time ordinary hours) show that in the first time period for which data is available – August 1994 – the ratio of earnings of public sector to private sector workers was 107 per cent; in the last time period available – February 2011 – the ratio was also 107 per cent. In the past two years average earnings of public sector workers have increased at a slightly higher rate than private sector workers, but most of this relative growth occurred a year ago. In the past six months the ratio of public sector to private sector earnings in NSW has decreased.
Secondly, it doesn’t seem that wage increases in NSW overall have been excessive compared with the rest of Australia. For example, in the two years to February 2011, average weekly earnings of adults in NSW (working full-time ordinary hours) increased by 5.1 per cent a year, compared to 4.8 per cent in all Australia.
If there is little benefit to centralised wage-setting for public sector workers in NSW, what are likely to be the costs? There may be several. If you try to hold wage increases of public sector workers below the size of increases obtained in the private sector, you will lose talented workers to the private sector.
Also, a uniform wage increase for all public sector workers reduces the scope for responding to particular circumstances in specific public sector labour markets, thereby reducing efficiency. Where workers respond by adjusting their effort and working hours to what they think is fair based on their wages, you also get a lower quality of public services.
Jeff Borland is professor of economics at the University of Melbourne.
THE ACADEMIC: JOHN BUCHANAN
When setting pay for public sector workers the NSW Industrial Relations Commission has performed its function professionally and effectively.
Contrary to assertions from NSW Treasury, there has been no public sector wages ‘‘blowout’’. Research by Yury Andrienko and Serena Yu at Sydney University’s Workplace Research Centre confirms that when factors like education levels and time in the job are considered for NSW public sector workers, they are paid almost identical wages as their private sector counterparts.
Research I have undertaken shows that senior teachers, police officers and nurses are paid roughly the same as their interstate colleagues. If this policy had been in place since 2000, people in these positions would be between $9000 and $17,000 a year worse off. And this in a state with one of the highest costs of living in the country.
The courts give great weight to treating like cases alike when settling disputes. Consistency in the treatment of people in similar circumstances is widely recognised as the key feature of a civilised society that values fairness.
Allowing Treasury and not the independent umpire to set wages is unfair. More importantly, it is inefficient. Fair wages are crucial for maintaining motivation and underpinning a sustainable approach to recruitment and retention.
People with good teaching, nursing and policing skills are in high demand. If the NSW government does not reward them competitively, we will have big trouble staffing schools, hospitals, police stations and a host of other services with the personnel needed to provide quality public services.
The global financial crisis proved treasuries around the world are incapable of delivering policies that achieve sustainable, stable economic development. Why should we believe they have the answer on public sector pay?
There are problems in our economy today. It’s time to get serious about ending systemic tax avoidance. The tax support provided to high income earnings with private superannuation now costs more than all government expenditure on the public pension. Fiscal problems arise from problems in taxation as much as from public expenditure.
Arbitrarily capping wages is an easy way of saving public money in the short term. But at what long-term cost? Let’s have an informed, widespread debate on how to meet budget challenges and move beyond ill-informed, simple-minded public sector bashing.
Dr John Buchanan is director of the Workplace Research Centre at the University of Sydney Business School.
THE ADVISER: JOHN EGAN
From a government’s perspective, this question is about cost and efficiency. Is the issue wage levels or the rate of increase? Should the discussion extend to more highly paid professional and technical staff, as well as senior executives in public service?
There is a significant diversity of jobs in the public sector, from senior executives, professional, technical and administrative staff providing community services through to operating business enterprises. Many of these roles require well-trained and dedicated people deserving of fair pay and recognition of their contribution to the national good.
From the perspective of cost and efficiency, the challenge is broader than base-pay levels or pay increases and embraces terms and conditions of employment, including rostered days off; overtime payments; productivity; and the quality of leadership.
A key weakness of tribunals adjudicating on this diversity of public sector employees is, just like the private sector, that one size does not fit all. If a pay increase of 2per cent, 3per cent or 4per cent is considered appropriate for the least well-paid to meet living costs, should that flow through the entire workforce?
At what level of pay should performance be a more significant determinant of wage levels and wage increases?
Productivity is clearly a challenge in the public sector. If a commitment to efficiency and continuous improvement is not an embedded principle in government workforces, taxpayers are often paying more than they should for service and other outputs. As in the private sector, budget constraints lead to an audit of resources and an examination of staff performance.
Given the pressure on the Australian economy, with low unemployment, some of these cost pressures and wage challenges may well be addressed by the government considering the outsourcing of contracts and the sending of jobs offshore, releasing public servants to pursue more satisfying opportunities in the private sector.
Clearly one of the challenges in the public sector is meeting round-the-clock demand when employees have two to five weeks of RDOs available, plus personal carer’s leave, plus public holidays, plus annual leave. In a national workforce of one million this is likely to require governments to employ an extra 100,000 people, adding between $5 billion and $7 billion to the nation’s wages cost.
It is unlikely the challenge is one of wage levels or wage increases alone but more likely to be one of quality of leadership, clarity in government of accountability and training to ensure efficiencies are comparable to the best-run private companies.
John Egan is an adviser on executive pay.
THE UNIONIST: JEFF LAWRENCE
It is an attack on rights at work.
Public sector employees are no different from the rest of the workforce.
They are teachers, nurses, bus drivers, firefighters, park rangers, office workers and the countless others who keep public services in NSW running. And they face exactly the same cost of living pressures as everyone else.
The latest measure of employee living costs from the ABS shows these rose 4.9per cent in the past year.
An arbitrary cap on wages – whether public or private sector – bears no relation to the economy, nor to the necessity of maintaining the real value of earnings.
Imagine if your employer came to you and said: “Next year, I’m capping your wages at below inflation. No ifs, no buts, no negotiation. Take it or leave it.”
That’s effectively what the O’Farrell government’s 2.5per cent public sector wages cap will do. It will result in pay cuts for hundreds of thousands of people and their families.
But let’s not be fooled. The O’Farrell government’s Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011 is not a wages policy. It is not a fiscal policy. It is an attack on rights at work, dressed up as a wages policy.
And for this reason, reversing these laws matters to every Australian worker and their family.
The O’Farrell government has been eager to portray its changes as identical to the wages policies that state Labor governments also adopt.
But this is a con job because it glosses over a crucial and central distinction. Unions regularly have stoushes with state governments – Labor and Liberal – over pay. And similar disputes are taking place in Europe and some US states over government austerity programs.
But it is a long accepted principle – and a requirement of international law – that the final outcome of any wage claim is a matter of negotiation and bargaining.
The O’Farrell government is not sitting down with their workforce to reach an agreement. It is changing the law – not only to dictate wage increases below the cost of living but also to cut important workplace conditions.
In no other state or territory has the government sought to implement a wages policy by stripping away workers’ rights.
No person or party who cares about working people, about Australian jobs or about the services in our community could support these laws.
Jeff Lawrence is secretary of the ACTU.
BLIND TO THE SUFFERING
Blind to the suffering
Paul Daley
June 26, 2011 Sun Herald
.
NOT too many years ago as you emerged from the English Channel on the Eurostar at the French town of Calais you would see them - hordes of men, and a few women, milling close to the giant security fences beside the railway tracks.
They were would-be asylum seekers - people who had come to live in squalid camps all around Calais from all over the globe, and who were willing to risk anything for a chance to get across the channel, somehow, to Britain.
A few days ago, while en route to the European Western Front of the First World War, I looked out the window as the train screeched out of the darkness. But I couldn't see any of the desperate people who had previously been such a familiar sight.
Had they stopped coming?
No. They are still living, in increasing numbers and desperate circumstances, in Calais and the surrounding countryside. But increasingly intense security (even more so after discussions this month between French and British ministers) means that none get anywhere near the tunnel these days.
Well that's the theory, anyway.
Last year 6535 asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat compared with just 1553 this year. More than 34,000 unauthorised entrants sought asylum in Britain last year. Last year French and British authorities thwarted 10,000 illegal attempts to cross the Channel. So far this year 3500 such attempts have been thwarted.
Many more are arriving, having escaped brutal regimes in Libya, Tunisia and Syria. Now that is a genuine, large-scale asylum seeker problem.
Australia has a refugee issue. But the only crisis that exists is the inability of Australian politics to deal with it honestly, maturely and compassionately. But hey, it's not all the politicians' fault. Maybe they're just giving us what we deserve. Others are, thankfully, less willing to let public and media sentiment shape political response.
The member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, said recently: ''I've received thousands of emails about cows and sheep and their terrible treatment … I haven't received thousands of emails concerned about people getting into leaking boats and drowning. So I just find it a funny debate where people don't get things into I suppose the perspective I have on them.'' Well said.
Like so many who watched ABC's Four Corners program that exposed the terrible treatment of our livestock in Indonesian slaughterhouses, I felt sick and angry.
The program sparked a viscerally emotive reaction of the type rarely seen in Australia. Our politicians had to react meaningfully. It's worth pondering here precisely what would have happened had the Gillard government not done so, albeit somewhat tardily. My bet is we'd have seen protests in the street.
The government acted because it correctly read the mood and sidestepped the public emotion that it knew would quickly transmogrify into political destruction.
Good governments do that. Not that the Gillard government deserves, by any measure, to be termed good. But its response on this occasion was, initially at least, appropriate.
By the same token, good governments should steadfastly refuse to be moved by public sentiment when the principle behind that mood is ill-founded or morally abhorrent.
Which brings me back to Burke and her comments that, I believe, held a mirror up to a not altogether palatable truth about Australians.
For many years there has been a compassionless and caustic edge to the most vocal proponents of the toughest punitive measures for asylum seekers. I'm no longer sure if they are just a vocal minority. I can't tell you the number of conversations I've had with politicians and opinion-makers who have said that the penny dropped for them when the Four Corners show went to air.
Why? Because it coincided with the latest episode in our unedifying tough on law and order-style political auction on asylum seekers.
''I really started to wonder if we actually care more about animals than we do about asylum seekers. I realised when I saw that show that we as a country have really lost our way,'' a senior Liberal told me.
Many Australians were deeply upset by the tragedy at Christmas Island last year. Some blamed the government. Some rightly blamed the people smugglers. But a number of politicians will confide that they also detected, with great unease, a hard of heart sentiment among some that the asylum seekers themselves were to blame. Serves them right, right?
Desperate, uninvited human beings? Abused animals? For whom do we care more?
Ugly question, that.
Paul Daley
June 26, 2011 Sun Herald
.
NOT too many years ago as you emerged from the English Channel on the Eurostar at the French town of Calais you would see them - hordes of men, and a few women, milling close to the giant security fences beside the railway tracks.
They were would-be asylum seekers - people who had come to live in squalid camps all around Calais from all over the globe, and who were willing to risk anything for a chance to get across the channel, somehow, to Britain.
A few days ago, while en route to the European Western Front of the First World War, I looked out the window as the train screeched out of the darkness. But I couldn't see any of the desperate people who had previously been such a familiar sight.
Had they stopped coming?
No. They are still living, in increasing numbers and desperate circumstances, in Calais and the surrounding countryside. But increasingly intense security (even more so after discussions this month between French and British ministers) means that none get anywhere near the tunnel these days.
Well that's the theory, anyway.
Last year 6535 asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat compared with just 1553 this year. More than 34,000 unauthorised entrants sought asylum in Britain last year. Last year French and British authorities thwarted 10,000 illegal attempts to cross the Channel. So far this year 3500 such attempts have been thwarted.
Many more are arriving, having escaped brutal regimes in Libya, Tunisia and Syria. Now that is a genuine, large-scale asylum seeker problem.
Australia has a refugee issue. But the only crisis that exists is the inability of Australian politics to deal with it honestly, maturely and compassionately. But hey, it's not all the politicians' fault. Maybe they're just giving us what we deserve. Others are, thankfully, less willing to let public and media sentiment shape political response.
The member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, said recently: ''I've received thousands of emails about cows and sheep and their terrible treatment … I haven't received thousands of emails concerned about people getting into leaking boats and drowning. So I just find it a funny debate where people don't get things into I suppose the perspective I have on them.'' Well said.
Like so many who watched ABC's Four Corners program that exposed the terrible treatment of our livestock in Indonesian slaughterhouses, I felt sick and angry.
The program sparked a viscerally emotive reaction of the type rarely seen in Australia. Our politicians had to react meaningfully. It's worth pondering here precisely what would have happened had the Gillard government not done so, albeit somewhat tardily. My bet is we'd have seen protests in the street.
The government acted because it correctly read the mood and sidestepped the public emotion that it knew would quickly transmogrify into political destruction.
Good governments do that. Not that the Gillard government deserves, by any measure, to be termed good. But its response on this occasion was, initially at least, appropriate.
By the same token, good governments should steadfastly refuse to be moved by public sentiment when the principle behind that mood is ill-founded or morally abhorrent.
Which brings me back to Burke and her comments that, I believe, held a mirror up to a not altogether palatable truth about Australians.
For many years there has been a compassionless and caustic edge to the most vocal proponents of the toughest punitive measures for asylum seekers. I'm no longer sure if they are just a vocal minority. I can't tell you the number of conversations I've had with politicians and opinion-makers who have said that the penny dropped for them when the Four Corners show went to air.
Why? Because it coincided with the latest episode in our unedifying tough on law and order-style political auction on asylum seekers.
''I really started to wonder if we actually care more about animals than we do about asylum seekers. I realised when I saw that show that we as a country have really lost our way,'' a senior Liberal told me.
Many Australians were deeply upset by the tragedy at Christmas Island last year. Some blamed the government. Some rightly blamed the people smugglers. But a number of politicians will confide that they also detected, with great unease, a hard of heart sentiment among some that the asylum seekers themselves were to blame. Serves them right, right?
Desperate, uninvited human beings? Abused animals? For whom do we care more?
Ugly question, that.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
JAILED AND CANED
Tom Allard, SMH, 25.6.11
A YOUNG Burmese refugee was rounded up, sent to prison for three months and lashed three times with a rattan cane last year even though he possessed a coveted refugee card supposed to offer protection from persecution in Malaysia.
Kap Lian's account of his arrest, incarceration and punishment, the first by an actual holder of a refugee card, raises new questions about the federal government's guarantee that no asylum seeker it sends to Malaysia will be abused under its proposed refugee swap deal.
Malaysia and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees insist protections of refugees have improved substantially in recent times. In a significant development, it was announced on Thursday that the feared volunteer corps, known by its Malay acronym RELA, has ceased operations against irregular migrants since March.
Advertisement: Story continues below But Mr Kap Lian's nightmare occurred when the UNHCR was supposed to have an arrangement with the police and immigration authorities that any genuine refugees would not be detained, let alone punished with caning.
It all began, Mr Kap Lian tells the Herald, when RELA cadres stormed his apartment block in Kuala Lumpur in the early hours of March 11 last year.
''There were 20 of us picked up and six of us had UNHCR cards,'' says Mr Kap Lian, a quietly spoken 20-year-old from the persecuted Chin ethnic minority. ''We showed them the cards, but they just took them from us and kept them … and then took us to prison.''
After 14 days, Mr Kap Lian was taken before a court. But, he says, they had no legal representation and could not understand what was happening because they did not speak Malay. ''The sentence was three months and three hits with the cane. It was the same for all six of us.''
Trussed up and naked except for a blindfold and a small piece of cloth to cover his genitalia, Mr Kap Lian said he took three hits across his buttocks from the long rattan cane. The pain was like no other he had experienced.
''It was very bad,'' he says. ''For one week I couldn't sleep. For two weeks, I couldn't sit down.'' He was given medicine just once.
Mr Kap Lian's story could not be independently verified with the UNHCR but the young Chin bears the scars of his ordeal. He explained he couldn't contact the UNHCR because his card, which contained a hotline number on the back that he could call for help, was confiscated. Guards at the detention centre also refused to let him call community leaders who might have been able to help him, he said.
As a 14-year-old, Mr Kap Lian says he was intermittently pressganged by Burma's military, and forced to serve as a porter. At 18, told he would have to serve full-time, he left to join 40,000 other Chin in Malaysia.
As he waits for resettlement, he works illegally as a construction worker, earning about $15 a day.
''If I could come to Australia, well, it would be better than Malaysia,'' he says. ''Even better, though, would be if the government changed in Burma and I could go back.''
A YOUNG Burmese refugee was rounded up, sent to prison for three months and lashed three times with a rattan cane last year even though he possessed a coveted refugee card supposed to offer protection from persecution in Malaysia.
Kap Lian's account of his arrest, incarceration and punishment, the first by an actual holder of a refugee card, raises new questions about the federal government's guarantee that no asylum seeker it sends to Malaysia will be abused under its proposed refugee swap deal.
Malaysia and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees insist protections of refugees have improved substantially in recent times. In a significant development, it was announced on Thursday that the feared volunteer corps, known by its Malay acronym RELA, has ceased operations against irregular migrants since March.
Advertisement: Story continues below But Mr Kap Lian's nightmare occurred when the UNHCR was supposed to have an arrangement with the police and immigration authorities that any genuine refugees would not be detained, let alone punished with caning.
It all began, Mr Kap Lian tells the Herald, when RELA cadres stormed his apartment block in Kuala Lumpur in the early hours of March 11 last year.
''There were 20 of us picked up and six of us had UNHCR cards,'' says Mr Kap Lian, a quietly spoken 20-year-old from the persecuted Chin ethnic minority. ''We showed them the cards, but they just took them from us and kept them … and then took us to prison.''
After 14 days, Mr Kap Lian was taken before a court. But, he says, they had no legal representation and could not understand what was happening because they did not speak Malay. ''The sentence was three months and three hits with the cane. It was the same for all six of us.''
Trussed up and naked except for a blindfold and a small piece of cloth to cover his genitalia, Mr Kap Lian said he took three hits across his buttocks from the long rattan cane. The pain was like no other he had experienced.
''It was very bad,'' he says. ''For one week I couldn't sleep. For two weeks, I couldn't sit down.'' He was given medicine just once.
Mr Kap Lian's story could not be independently verified with the UNHCR but the young Chin bears the scars of his ordeal. He explained he couldn't contact the UNHCR because his card, which contained a hotline number on the back that he could call for help, was confiscated. Guards at the detention centre also refused to let him call community leaders who might have been able to help him, he said.
As a 14-year-old, Mr Kap Lian says he was intermittently pressganged by Burma's military, and forced to serve as a porter. At 18, told he would have to serve full-time, he left to join 40,000 other Chin in Malaysia.
As he waits for resettlement, he works illegally as a construction worker, earning about $15 a day.
''If I could come to Australia, well, it would be better than Malaysia,'' he says. ''Even better, though, would be if the government changed in Burma and I could go back.''
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
REFUGEES SHOULD NOT BE LOCKED UP
Refugees shouldn't be locked up and should live in the community, argues Susie O'Brien.
Source: Herald Sun, 21.6.11
LIFE isn't easy in the outer suburbs. There's not much work, little public transport and nothing much to do.
Everywhere is more expensive, and it seems like everyone is trying to rip off hard-working families.
Racism is an issue, because there's lots of pockets of new Australians who don't speak much English, and don't seem to want to fit in.
And so we lash out at the most desperate, pathetic group of foreigners of all - those who arrive here by sea seeking refuge.
But don't blame these asylum seekers, who are doing nothing more than coming here lawfully, seeking a better life.
They're nothing more than scapegoats in boats.
What do you think? Blog all day with Susie at The Big O
Instead, blame successive governments for not doing enough to help Aussie battlers get by.
And blame them for creating fear and loathing in our community towards asylum seekers.
It's a political con, and too many Australians - particularly those living in multicultural outer suburbs -- are falling for it.
And so we believe it when they tell us that these foreign dark-skinned people are going to harm us if they're allowed to roam free in the community.
It's got so bad that we don't want them in our suburbs, and so we lock them up in our deserts. And we're going even further with offshore processing, now making sure they don't even make it here in the first place.
Sadly, the scare campaign is working and 85 per cent of Australians in a recent poll said they didn't want Australia to allow more boat arrivals.
But I don't blame individuals, I blame successive governments who have used asylum seekers as political pawns.
It's no wonder many people - especially those who are doing it tough themselves - are scared of asylum seekers and what they represent.
We're told we're being swamped by boat arrivals - even though we're not.
We're told they're getting more generous welfare handouts than us - even though they don't.
We're made to feel like they're a threat to our Aussie way of life - even though most of them are just people like you and me who need somewhere safe to live.
We're told they're queue-jumpers, even though there are no orderly migration queues in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq, and only 1 per cent of refugees worldwide are in UN "queues".
But trust me, everyone looks like a criminal when they're viewed from behind razor wire in the middle of Australia's most hostile locations.
However, during Refugee Week, I think it's time to get smarter than that, and to expose some of the myths and lies circulating about asylum seekers. And we need to end the twin evils of mandatory detention and offshore processing.
FACT: Mandatory detention isn't working as a deterrent, so why do we persist with it?
In 2001, 43 boats containing 5516 asylum seekers arrived. In 2000, it was 2939 people on 51 boats, and the year before that, 3721 people on 86 boats.
Clearly, mandatory detention, brought in by the Keating Labor government in 1992, hasn't been any sort of real deterrent for boat arrivals.
Yes, the number of boats coming to Australia is high at present, but the number of refugees around the world is at a 15-year high.
FACT: Offshore processing isn't reducing the number of boats coming to Australia.
The number of unauthorised boat arrivals dropped after 2001, when the Howard government introduced offshore processing. But that doesn't mean it worked. The policy continued under Labor, and in 2009 the number of arrivals suddenly jumped from 161 in 2008 to 2726 in 2009.
The simple fact is that the number of onshore arrivals has waxed and waned over the years according to the wars, famine and conflict around the world.
FACT: Genuine refugees from the Middle East don't pose any safety risk to law-abiding Australians.
The vast majority of those arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees, who go on to be productive members of our community. Around 99.7 per cent of Afghans are found to be legitimate refugees, but only 42 per cent of those from China are.
FACT: Air arrivals are less likely to be genuine refugees.
Only 40 per cent of unauthorised air arrivals will be found to be refugees, compared with 94 per cent of all those who arrive by boat.
But no one is making a fuss about these people who arrive with a valid visa, then are given a bridging visa and allowed to stay in the community until their protection visa has been processed.
FACT: Australia is not being swamped by illegal immigrants.
Throughout 2010, 134 boats containing 6500 asylum seekers came to Australia. Yes, it sounds like a lot, but it's just a fraction of the 400,000 people who come to live in Australia each year from other countries. And it's just a fraction of the world's refugee population.
It's time that Australian people demand an end for the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and to the policy of offshore processing.
Those who pose a safety risk, or cannot be identified easily, should be detained until their security status can be ascertained. Others should be housed in the community, at a fraction of the cost of detention centres.
We really have nothing to be afraid of.
After all, between 1948 and 1992, when the Keating government brought in mandatory detention, around 450,000 refugees lived peacefully in the wider community while their claims were being processed.
No one wants people to die on leaky boats en route to Australian shores. And no one wants people smugglers to win. But we can do more to crack down on this deadly industry without detaining innocent refugees.
Don't forget: when governments spend most of their time and money fighting an imagined enemy, they're not improving the quality of life for the rest of us.
Source: Herald Sun, 21.6.11
LIFE isn't easy in the outer suburbs. There's not much work, little public transport and nothing much to do.
Everywhere is more expensive, and it seems like everyone is trying to rip off hard-working families.
Racism is an issue, because there's lots of pockets of new Australians who don't speak much English, and don't seem to want to fit in.
And so we lash out at the most desperate, pathetic group of foreigners of all - those who arrive here by sea seeking refuge.
But don't blame these asylum seekers, who are doing nothing more than coming here lawfully, seeking a better life.
They're nothing more than scapegoats in boats.
What do you think? Blog all day with Susie at The Big O
Instead, blame successive governments for not doing enough to help Aussie battlers get by.
And blame them for creating fear and loathing in our community towards asylum seekers.
It's a political con, and too many Australians - particularly those living in multicultural outer suburbs -- are falling for it.
And so we believe it when they tell us that these foreign dark-skinned people are going to harm us if they're allowed to roam free in the community.
It's got so bad that we don't want them in our suburbs, and so we lock them up in our deserts. And we're going even further with offshore processing, now making sure they don't even make it here in the first place.
Sadly, the scare campaign is working and 85 per cent of Australians in a recent poll said they didn't want Australia to allow more boat arrivals.
But I don't blame individuals, I blame successive governments who have used asylum seekers as political pawns.
It's no wonder many people - especially those who are doing it tough themselves - are scared of asylum seekers and what they represent.
We're told we're being swamped by boat arrivals - even though we're not.
We're told they're getting more generous welfare handouts than us - even though they don't.
We're made to feel like they're a threat to our Aussie way of life - even though most of them are just people like you and me who need somewhere safe to live.
We're told they're queue-jumpers, even though there are no orderly migration queues in war-torn Afghanistan and Iraq, and only 1 per cent of refugees worldwide are in UN "queues".
But trust me, everyone looks like a criminal when they're viewed from behind razor wire in the middle of Australia's most hostile locations.
However, during Refugee Week, I think it's time to get smarter than that, and to expose some of the myths and lies circulating about asylum seekers. And we need to end the twin evils of mandatory detention and offshore processing.
FACT: Mandatory detention isn't working as a deterrent, so why do we persist with it?
In 2001, 43 boats containing 5516 asylum seekers arrived. In 2000, it was 2939 people on 51 boats, and the year before that, 3721 people on 86 boats.
Clearly, mandatory detention, brought in by the Keating Labor government in 1992, hasn't been any sort of real deterrent for boat arrivals.
Yes, the number of boats coming to Australia is high at present, but the number of refugees around the world is at a 15-year high.
FACT: Offshore processing isn't reducing the number of boats coming to Australia.
The number of unauthorised boat arrivals dropped after 2001, when the Howard government introduced offshore processing. But that doesn't mean it worked. The policy continued under Labor, and in 2009 the number of arrivals suddenly jumped from 161 in 2008 to 2726 in 2009.
The simple fact is that the number of onshore arrivals has waxed and waned over the years according to the wars, famine and conflict around the world.
FACT: Genuine refugees from the Middle East don't pose any safety risk to law-abiding Australians.
The vast majority of those arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees, who go on to be productive members of our community. Around 99.7 per cent of Afghans are found to be legitimate refugees, but only 42 per cent of those from China are.
FACT: Air arrivals are less likely to be genuine refugees.
Only 40 per cent of unauthorised air arrivals will be found to be refugees, compared with 94 per cent of all those who arrive by boat.
But no one is making a fuss about these people who arrive with a valid visa, then are given a bridging visa and allowed to stay in the community until their protection visa has been processed.
FACT: Australia is not being swamped by illegal immigrants.
Throughout 2010, 134 boats containing 6500 asylum seekers came to Australia. Yes, it sounds like a lot, but it's just a fraction of the 400,000 people who come to live in Australia each year from other countries. And it's just a fraction of the world's refugee population.
It's time that Australian people demand an end for the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and to the policy of offshore processing.
Those who pose a safety risk, or cannot be identified easily, should be detained until their security status can be ascertained. Others should be housed in the community, at a fraction of the cost of detention centres.
We really have nothing to be afraid of.
After all, between 1948 and 1992, when the Keating government brought in mandatory detention, around 450,000 refugees lived peacefully in the wider community while their claims were being processed.
No one wants people to die on leaky boats en route to Australian shores. And no one wants people smugglers to win. But we can do more to crack down on this deadly industry without detaining innocent refugees.
Don't forget: when governments spend most of their time and money fighting an imagined enemy, they're not improving the quality of life for the rest of us.
Monday, June 20, 2011
WORLD REFUGEE DAY 2011
Red News Readers,
Doug Cameron is not speaking in accordance with Labor Policy here, nor the policy of Labor for Refugees
Jenny Haines
Thousands turn out for World Refugee Day
ABC News, 20.6.11
The World Refugee Day rallies on Sunday saw about 1,000 people protest in Melbourne, another 1,000 in Sydney, 100 in Adelaide and a smaller crowd in Darwin.
In Melbourne, prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside warned Australia will take a huge step backwards if the Government's Malaysia solution goes ahead, while in Darwin, a man being held in detention there jumped the fence to talk to protesters.
The single Iraqi father, who introduced himself as Raheem, carried his young daughter to meet the small group of people gathered outside Darwin's Airport Lodge.
The hotel is used to house asylum seekers who do not fit into the city's overflowing detention centre.
Raheem told the group he suffers insomnia after almost a year in detention.
"Ten months. No mother. Problem for baby. No sleep tonight. Problem," he said.
"What have they done wrong?" he said, referring to children in detention.
'Groundhog Day'
In Melbourne and Sydney, thousands turned out to protest the Government's asylum seeker deal with Malaysia.
The UN refugee agency has criticised the deal that will see 800 asylum seekers who arrive by boat in Australia transferred to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australian plans to take 4,000 people already granted refugee status in Malaysia.
Prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside told Melbourne's World Refugee Day rally that 10 years after the Howard government's children overboard incident, nothing had changed.
"Welcome to Groundhog Day," he told the crowd.
"Here we are at the start of refugee week about to take an enormous step backwards with the Government's idea of the Malaysian solution."
Mr Burnside said the Malaysia solution was worse than the Opposition's alternative to reopen Nauru "only in the sense that garrotting is worse than hanging".
He said anyone who fled war and was forced to live indefinitely in Indonesia without legal access to a job or schools would become desperate enough to make a dash for safety across dangerous seas to Australia.
He said he wanted to ask Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott what they would do in that situation.
"If (Ms Gillard) were in that position, what would she do? What would you do? Wouldn't you want to make a run for safety? Wouldn't you want to get your kids to safety, wouldn't you want to do what it takes to get yourself to safety and make sure you have a life," he asked the rally.
"If you got an honest answer from (Tony Abbott) ... he might say that he'd make a dash for it as well, because Tony Abbott, like all of us, has the human impulse for survival and that's what refugees are all about.
"So why do we have to mistreat the people who do nothing more than what we would do if we were unlucky enough to be in their shoes."
'Playing politics'
Also in Melbourne, Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt tried to turn the tide by harking back to the golden days of Australian immigration.
"What would Carlton be like if we didn't open our arms to refugees? What would Richmond be like," he said.
He told the rally allowing people to live in the community while their asylum claims were processed was the humane, practical and cheap alternative to detention.
"No-one's ever accused me of being an economic rationalist before but what is very clear is that it's also the cheapest alternative when we have a Government spending a billion dollars on offshore processing while we can't find enough money for schools," he said.
Mr Bandt said now was a great time to have a seismic shift in Australian politics and to end mandatory detention once and for all.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Sydney rally the Federal Government should stop jumping at the ghosts of the former Howard government with its asylum seeker policies.
"Don't simply brush this off as another political fight. It's time that politicians started acting with decency, respect, compassion, spine and stopped playing politics with people's lives," she said.
Labor left
Earlier, Labor Senator Doug Cameron reiterated the party's left faction will only support the Federal Government's proposed asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia if it is backed by the UN's refugee agency.
The Government is still negotiating the terms of the agreement with the Malaysian government and says it is working with the UNHCR to make sure asylum seekers taken to Malaysia are treated humanely.
Senator Cameron says it is vital to get the UNHCR on board.
"What we've said is that any Malaysian agreement must include the UNHCR. They have to sign off on it, it has to be consistent with our international obligations," he told Sky News.
He also dismissed the Opposition's plan to reopen the detention centre on Nauru, which unlike Malaysia is in the process of signing up to the UN convention on refugees.
"Sending people to Nauru, putting them out of sight out of mind for five years until they end up mentally disturbed, is not the way we want to go," he said.
- ABC/AAP
Doug Cameron is not speaking in accordance with Labor Policy here, nor the policy of Labor for Refugees
Jenny Haines
Thousands turn out for World Refugee Day
ABC News, 20.6.11
The World Refugee Day rallies on Sunday saw about 1,000 people protest in Melbourne, another 1,000 in Sydney, 100 in Adelaide and a smaller crowd in Darwin.
In Melbourne, prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside warned Australia will take a huge step backwards if the Government's Malaysia solution goes ahead, while in Darwin, a man being held in detention there jumped the fence to talk to protesters.
The single Iraqi father, who introduced himself as Raheem, carried his young daughter to meet the small group of people gathered outside Darwin's Airport Lodge.
The hotel is used to house asylum seekers who do not fit into the city's overflowing detention centre.
Raheem told the group he suffers insomnia after almost a year in detention.
"Ten months. No mother. Problem for baby. No sleep tonight. Problem," he said.
"What have they done wrong?" he said, referring to children in detention.
'Groundhog Day'
In Melbourne and Sydney, thousands turned out to protest the Government's asylum seeker deal with Malaysia.
The UN refugee agency has criticised the deal that will see 800 asylum seekers who arrive by boat in Australia transferred to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australian plans to take 4,000 people already granted refugee status in Malaysia.
Prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside told Melbourne's World Refugee Day rally that 10 years after the Howard government's children overboard incident, nothing had changed.
"Welcome to Groundhog Day," he told the crowd.
"Here we are at the start of refugee week about to take an enormous step backwards with the Government's idea of the Malaysian solution."
Mr Burnside said the Malaysia solution was worse than the Opposition's alternative to reopen Nauru "only in the sense that garrotting is worse than hanging".
He said anyone who fled war and was forced to live indefinitely in Indonesia without legal access to a job or schools would become desperate enough to make a dash for safety across dangerous seas to Australia.
He said he wanted to ask Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott what they would do in that situation.
"If (Ms Gillard) were in that position, what would she do? What would you do? Wouldn't you want to make a run for safety? Wouldn't you want to get your kids to safety, wouldn't you want to do what it takes to get yourself to safety and make sure you have a life," he asked the rally.
"If you got an honest answer from (Tony Abbott) ... he might say that he'd make a dash for it as well, because Tony Abbott, like all of us, has the human impulse for survival and that's what refugees are all about.
"So why do we have to mistreat the people who do nothing more than what we would do if we were unlucky enough to be in their shoes."
'Playing politics'
Also in Melbourne, Federal Greens MP Adam Bandt tried to turn the tide by harking back to the golden days of Australian immigration.
"What would Carlton be like if we didn't open our arms to refugees? What would Richmond be like," he said.
He told the rally allowing people to live in the community while their asylum claims were processed was the humane, practical and cheap alternative to detention.
"No-one's ever accused me of being an economic rationalist before but what is very clear is that it's also the cheapest alternative when we have a Government spending a billion dollars on offshore processing while we can't find enough money for schools," he said.
Mr Bandt said now was a great time to have a seismic shift in Australian politics and to end mandatory detention once and for all.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young told the Sydney rally the Federal Government should stop jumping at the ghosts of the former Howard government with its asylum seeker policies.
"Don't simply brush this off as another political fight. It's time that politicians started acting with decency, respect, compassion, spine and stopped playing politics with people's lives," she said.
Labor left
Earlier, Labor Senator Doug Cameron reiterated the party's left faction will only support the Federal Government's proposed asylum seeker swap deal with Malaysia if it is backed by the UN's refugee agency.
The Government is still negotiating the terms of the agreement with the Malaysian government and says it is working with the UNHCR to make sure asylum seekers taken to Malaysia are treated humanely.
Senator Cameron says it is vital to get the UNHCR on board.
"What we've said is that any Malaysian agreement must include the UNHCR. They have to sign off on it, it has to be consistent with our international obligations," he told Sky News.
He also dismissed the Opposition's plan to reopen the detention centre on Nauru, which unlike Malaysia is in the process of signing up to the UN convention on refugees.
"Sending people to Nauru, putting them out of sight out of mind for five years until they end up mentally disturbed, is not the way we want to go," he said.
- ABC/AAP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
