NSW Fire Brigade Employees' Union officials, including the FBEU president @FBEU, bring $1000 to the Fire and Rescue NSW Movember team, putting FRNSW team into 1st spot in the 000 challenge
Final hours - Please donate more here: http://mobro.co/darinsullivan
What union members want from their union's communications
by Alex
In my line of work, I hear a lot of opinion expressed as fact. A common one is that “union members don’t want our communications to look too corporate”, or “our members want a lot of detail, not a short summary”, or “our slogan should be ‘screw the boss’ or something like that”. You get the idea.
Union organisers often have years of experience in talking with members, motivating them to action, getting them to listen. But they are not communications professionals.
Most of these experiences are based on “anecdotal” evidence. Useful, but sometimes misleading. For example, union activists and delegates are a very different audience to an inactive member. While many union members are progressive, and support or vote for Labor (or Democrat, or Lib Dems, or Greens, or Socialist Alliance), many are also “centrist”, a-political or even conservative. In the 2004 Australian general election, research revealed that around 40% of union members voted for John Howard! (This number was improved in 2007, where some unions’ research revealed a Labor vote of 60% or greater amongst their members.)
Nevertheless, my point is that unions often make communications decisions based on “gut feeling” or anecdotal, untested assumptions.
There has been some research into what union members, and workers generally, want from communications from their union. The research includes polling and focus groups, of members and non-members. I’ve seen some of these (unfortunately confidential) reports, produced by several unions, including my own and the ACTU. (I should also note that I have worked as an organiser at one of Australia’s largest unions, and in my view, union communications should support and compliment a union’s organising strategy.)
Without revealing all of the details, a clear motif appears from the results. Generally, across the board, union members and workers generally, want communications that are:
Positive, proactive, forward looking, friendly
Authentic – no cliches
Not adversarial or victimising (they don’t want to be made into victims or to have to fight their employer)
People focused (centred around members, colleagues, peers, the community they serve)
Professional and of a high standard
Positive, proactive, forward looking, friendly
Most union members are not attracted by communications (leaflets, posters, emails, phone calls) that are negative, reactive or backwards looking. They don’t like constantly having to “fight against” their employer or the government. They want their union to build, not tear down, and they prefer messages that represent a struggle restore rights as improving, not “clawing back” their working conditions.
Authentic – no cliches
Union members respond – like most people – negatively to cliches. The union movement has a large supply of labour-related cliches, most of which are not well-received by union members. Many non-members also respond poorly to the “militant” slogans used by many unions. This is not to say “you shouldn’t use slogans” – you should. Rather, your union’s slogans should summarise a positive, people-focused campaign goal.
What members and non-members want instead is communications that show that the union is made up of real people. They don’t like faceless bureaucrats, or “generic” images/text.
Not adversarial or victimising
Most workers like their jobs and want to feel proud of their work. They want to feel like they achieve something positive during their working day. While they can come into conflict with their employer from time to time, they don’t like to be constantly fighting. Unions that present a message that pits a group of workers in a (never-ending) fight against their boss will not be maximising their communications with a significant section of workers – especially non-members.
Similarly, workers don’t like to feel like victims. Victims are powerless, and connote emotions such as shame. Unions should be empowering members, and lifting them up. Presenting workers as victims goes counter to this.
People focused
Put your members at the centre of communications. Campaigns and communications need to about about them, not you. Whether it was Work Choices or the Employee Free Choice Act, unions need to emphasise improvements for workers, not threats to their unions.
Professional and of a high standard
Workers live in a world of high-standard communications, whether on television, the Internet or in print. There is an assumption that the communications (letters, leaflets, posters, ads) are well written, professionally designed and easy to understand and use. Unions have long been laggards in adopting modern design standards – this needs to end. (This goal is one of the reasons why I co-founded Creative Unions.) Unions can’t get away with having sub-standard, amateurish design for their communications. Many organisers I have dealt with say “members don’t like slick, corporate design”, or “members don’t want us spending heaps of money on design”.
Unfortunately, the evidence from research shows the opposite. Members do want good design. They want to know that their dues are going to a union that is professional in everything it does – industrial advice, campaigns, and – yes – design.
Unions need to be authentic – slick, corporate designs are probably not appropriate. But good design doesn’t need to be corporate. This is something that the environment movement has learned – you can have excellent design that is useable and intuitive, without it looking like a Coke advert (the World Wildlife Fund is a great example).
Get a life and clock off from work on time. This is the message unions are sending out today to mark Go Home on Time Day.
However, the national day of avoiding overtime, invented by the Australia Institute three years ago to promote awareness of work/life balance, is likely to be ignored by many. New research found more than half of all full-time workers regularly worked unpaid overtime, and one in four put in a working week of 50 hours or more.
Sydney University's Workplace Research Centre tracked more than 8000 employees across the country over five years, working in a broad cross section of white-and blue-collar industries.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The study found fewer full time workers were doing a standard working week than at any time in the past five years.
The findings appear to be backed up by a separate study set to be released today by the commercial property multinational company Regus. Its global survey of 12,000 white-collar workers found 49 per cent of Australians are now putting in between nine and 11 hours every day, compared to 38 per cent of workers globally. Only 13 per cent of Australian workers said they never took work home.
The secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Lennon, said the research shattered claims the Fair Work Act was skewed to the workers' side.
"Anyone saying the pendulum has swung too far in favour of employees needs a grip on reality," he said.
But Mark Wooden, of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, dismissed the mounting body of research that suggests Australians have some of the longest working hours in the world as "absolute crap".
People tend to overestimate how long they work as a sort of "badge of courage" and find it difficult to estimate the hours they work accurately, he said.
"Workers in Japan and Korea work longer than Australians," he said. "Over the last 10 years, the proportion of Australians working long hours has been dropping."
Professor Wooden's claims prompted John Buchanan, the director of the Workplace Research Centre which conducted the national survey, to retaliate, saying his colleague's position was "idiosyncratic" and "mystified more than it clarified".
"Yes, hours for full-time Australian workers have dropped away slightly since the 1990s, but only by about an hour, after rising more than four hours in the [preceding] 20 years," Dr Buchanan said. "Australia still has one of the highest proportion of full-timers working long hours in the world."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/buck-trend-and-go-home-on-ti...
I know you like to believe that some of these celebrities you follow are genuine people. I know that it is comforting to hold out the hope for authentic famous people. Well, let me squash your hope really quickly.
I would argue that every single person on Twitter with a verified account is part of the ruling elites. Being part of the ruling elites negates their entire intellectual output. Whether it is Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or Kim Kardashian, they are all part of the system.
The verification symbol is a symbol that proclaims that these people can be trusted by the system. These people work to reinforce the system. These people are all dogs of the system.
Of course, some will argue that I am generalizing, but let’s face it, the truth of the matter is that symbolism is very powerful. The verified symbol identifies the person as a beneficiary and a loyal servant of the system. So hold out your hope no more, look to people around you that will empower you instead of celebrities and intellectuals who make power feel like a distant, mythical, thing.
Look to people who live out the struggle with every day of their lives, instead of following pampered individuals who proclaim the truth when all they speak is rubbish. Become part of the movements around you, instead of sitting like a voyeur watching the lives of the so called powerful.
They are not powerful, we are powerful. They are not honest, we are the truth. They are not interesting, we are the liveliness, the vividness of freedom.
So do yourself a favor and unfollow every single person with that wretched symbol, every single traitor, who has sold their soul for wealth and recognition.
Stolen Raven
Party Member #7001
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Benjamin Solah is a fiction writer, spoken word artist, blogger and socialist activist who sometimes describes his work as ‘Marxist horror’ incensed by the horrific nature of capitalist society. He lives in Melbourne, Australia where he is involved in campaigning for refugee rights and against mandatory detention. He is currently working on a collection of short stories entitled ‘Capital Comes Dripping.’
The Labor Party and the union movement have a unique relationship which has been responsible for many social innovations – from the aged pension to paid parental leave.
There are many in the union movement who do not support everything the current government has done, or wish it would go further to advance workers’ rights.
To me, this is a healthy sign, as both the Labor Party and the union movement are best served when the two work together, not when the unions are subservient to the ALP, or vice-versa. This is a mature relationship which is not dependent on financial affiliation (the ACTU is not affiliated with the ALP, although many of our unions are).
Politics can easily become divorced from reality. Unions give the ALP a reality check through our connections with workplaces across Australia.
Unions are the means by which welders, nurses, shop assistants, journalists, train drivers and thousands of others unite their voices and can be heard in our national policy debate, particularly workers on low-incomes, in insecure work, who are not part of powerful employers lobby groups.
Membership of all political parties is shrinking. People have a lot more options for their decreasing spare time and attending branch meetings in the evening is not the draw it was in the 1950s.
Inactive branches mean that the grassroots of the Labor Party tends to come even more from the union movement and our network of thousands of delegates in workplaces across Australia.
From the union side, affiliation with one of the two major parties in Australia gives working people a voice inside Government.
Unions will use this conference to fight for the interests of Australian workers and their families.
Three recent disputes that centre on the right of workers to have some say over what happens in their workplace have shown the importance of collective action.
At Qantas, workers have fought to stop jobs going offshore, At Baiada poultry they successfully campaigned for workplace safety and to end contract work that is undercutting wages, and in Victoria nurses have taken collective action to support the proper staffing of the health system.
For nurses, work is not just about pay and conditions, it is about the satisfaction of being part of a strong health system. The views of people on the frontline of the health system should not be ignored by bureaucrats or the Baillieu Government.
Watching thousands of nurses march through central Melbourne last Thursday in support of current staff ratios, and the support they got from passers-by, was a demonstration of the way the core values of the union movement are still supported by Australians.
We want the Fair Work Act amended to confirm that workers and unions can be involved in negotiations about issues beyond pay and conditions.
We also want better protections for the 40 per cent of Australian workers that are in insecure work, on casual wages or contracts. It is not acceptable that workers may spend years in the same job, without getting the security of paid leave and other benefits.
Unions will also be pushing for a future for Australian manufacturing. Manufacturing employs 1 million Australians, compared with the mining industry which employs 200,000 but the mining boom-fuelled dollar is making it harder for manufacturers to compete internationally.
It is not enough to say that this is inevitable, or a result of globalisation, when a few bad years could wipe out manufacturers that could stay competitive for decades with some support. Mining is important but it cannot be our entire economy.
We need to support manufacturing jobs, starting by pushing mining companies to use Australian manufactured materials where possible.
We will keep pushing for the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and its coercive powers, the last vestige of WorkChoices. The ABCC has wasted millions pursuing an anti-union agenda, while death rates on construction sites have risen.
Unions have been strong supporters of the Government’s move to increase the compulsory superannuation guarantee to 12 per cent, and of the move towards a National Disability Insurance Scheme.
The broader aspirations of the union movement still have resonance in Australia – decent working conditions, a fair wage, a social safety net for the vulnerable, and good schools and hospitals for everybody.
Unions have two million members, and we work to protect millions more through our role in arguing for a fair minimum wage and decent conditions.
We have recently won a commitment from the Government to support pay rises for the female-dominated workforce in the community sector, a major step towards pay equality.
Even workers who do not belong to a union, or are not covered by a union-negotiated agreement often benefit from innovations like paid leave, that were fought for by the union movement. What other organisation had the power and commitment to win a fair deal for victims of asbestos?
Union values of fairness and solidarity, remain relevant in the changing conditions of the 21st century.
This week-end’s Labor Conference should be a reminder to the ALP that the way forward for the party is to develop policies that benefit the working Australians who have been its backbone for the last 120 years.
Via:
Under a secret policy, Ambulance Service of NSW managers have ordered regular reports on workers' cancellation rates, pressuring them to persuade some patients whose ambulance request has already been logged to use private transport instead.
The policy applies to calls initially deemed less urgent - more than 3500 a month in the Sydney region - which are then directed to a registered nurse for further medical advice. An ambulance is still dispatched in such cases and can only be cancelled with the caller's permission.
Advertisement: Story continues below
But in an August letter, an operations manager told staff at the service's Alexandria control centre they needed to increase these cancellations.
''Our performance in achieving a non-ambulance response (cancellations) has deteriorated over the past three months,'' he wrote. ''Health advisers are to again focus on opportunities to achieve a non-ambulance response where appropriate.''
The manager said it was ''important … to continue to demonstrate [the unit's] role in managing demand on ambulance resources.''
If a crew was far from the caller's address, operators should make a return telephone call to, ''again take the opportunity to advise caller of time frame for ambulance response and suggest an alternative''.
Patients stood to benefit, he said, if there was ''an ambulance able to respond to them because the [unit] has been able to cancel a response!''
But the public has never been informed of the cancellation agenda, which experts yesterday criticised as unsafe.
Merrilyn Walton, professor of medical education (patient safety) at the University of Sydney, said a caller's description of symptoms would depend ''on the person's literacy, language, culture and state of mind,'' and it was dangerous to dismiss them. ''People don't make a 000 call lightly,'' she said.
Stating that ambulances should only be cancelled ''where appropriate'' did not neutralise the message that more paramedic crews should be called off. ''It's like a product, where you have to increase your sales,'' said Professor Walton. ''It's totally inappropriate for healthcare.'' Nurses who took such calls, ''have got ethical responsibilities and professional duties, and the patients' interests must always come first''.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/ambulance-staff-urged-to-say-no-2011112...
Inside this issue:
Retained pager pain: don’t get short-changed
Deeming update
Bathurst goes 10/14
Update on alternative duties terminations
Retained pager pain: don’t get short-changed
The Union has been notified that as of today there will be 87 retained stations affected by non-activation of the paging system, which is the primary alert method for all retained firefighters. The stations affected are located throughout Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, Central Coast and the Lower Hunter. The company providing the paging service has gone under and as a result, these stations will be left without pagers for up to (we fear, at least) one month.
The Department has assured the Union that measures are being put in place to ensure responses aren’t delayed and the RTAS (phone system) will be the temporary primary alert for the affected stations.
The Union is deeply concerned that this situation could lead to delayed or non-responses from the affected brigades. Members are advised that safe minimum crewing and members safety should not be compromised and that all delays should be reported to ensure further contingencies are put in place.
Further, members should not be financially disadvantaged by technical malfunctions and should therefore claim for any and all incidents where the failure of their call notification resulted in their non-attendance.
Deeming update
The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011 was passed by Federal Parliament this week. Members will recall that the Union, along with our firefighter comrades in the Northern Territory, made a lengthy submission to the Senate Committee inquiring into this Bill. The Bill was amended by its proposer to incorporate almost all of the additional cancers put forward by the FBEU in our submission and as a result, approximately 1,000 aviation and ACTFB firefighters will now have an expanded list of occupational cancers that is almost twice as long as the original.
Bathurst goes 10/14
SITREP 35/2011 reported that funding was secured in the state budget to upgrade Bathurst and Nowra to 10/14 staffing. Bathurst will now commence on the 10/14 roster at 0800 hours next Friday 2 December and it’s anticipated that Nowra will go onto the 10/14 roster early in 2012. Congratulations to all those members who worked hard to achieve this result.
Update on Alternate Duties terminations
While the agreement to suspend the termination of members reported in SITREP 39/2011 officially expires today, negotiations between the Union and Department continue. Progress has been made, but we remain a considerable way short of a comprehensive settlement. The members directly affected all remain employed by FRNSW and this is not expected to change any time soon. More to follow.
Jim Casey
State Secretary
Reforms to the NSW police compensation scheme have passed through the parliament, after the state's lower house voted for the bill 59 votes to 23.
After a morning of at times heated debate watched on by more than 50 police in the public gallery, the government-controlled lower house today passed the bill.
Police in the public gallery erupted in anger when the bill was passed, shouting "Shame, Barry, Shame", forcing Speaker Shelley Hancock to demand they leave the building.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The vote came a day after the upper house passed the legislation in a late night sitting, with the government agreeing to amendments of crossbenchers the Shooters Party and Christian Democrats.
The new legislation will replace the current scheme with a commercial insurance arrangement and restrict payouts to police injured on the job, which the government says are unsustainable.
The Police Association is threatening to escalate industrial action over the legislation, and are currently holding a membership vote to decide if officers will refuse to respond to anything other than emergencies.
Police in the public gallery had to be repeatedly warned to stop injecting during today's debate.
"I understand that you are emotional about this bill, as we all are ... but you will be removed from the gallery if you want to interject, and I don't want to do that," Speaker Shelley Hancock told police in the gallery at the outset of the debate.
"You have authority outside. I have authority here, and I don't want to remove you, but I will."
AAP
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/angry-police-shout-out-as-compensation-bill-passed-...
He’s a cretin, a hate-filled belligerent whose talent is in inverse proportion to his offensiveness. As Penbo pointed out yesterday, he’s a dead-set, rolled-gold, card-carrying dickhead.
Dickheads are a dime a dozen. Why is this one given a voice?
The short answer is he’s popular so he brings in the cash.
The longer answer is that 2DayFM (part of the Austereo network) hoist him up on a platform. Sponsors, advertisers and therefore listeners keep him there. And his tepidly giggling co-host Jackie O allows him to spout obnoxiousness virtually unchallenged.
Arsehats will probably always be arsehats. And yes, people can tune out (although you’ll passively inhale the arsehattery in some public places). But the people that allow this poisonous bile to spew out and make the world a worse place should be shamed into taking action and ridding the airwaves of Sandilands.
It’s tempting to say the Government should step in. After all, they regulate our exposure to cigarette smoke and pollution, they’re constantly working to stop us drinking and taking drugs. They try to protect kids from junk food advertising and sex on TV. So why not do something to stop what would be called hate speech if it were used in a racist context?
And the Government would clearly love the opportunity to better control the media. But remember, people, that way danger lies.
So it’s the enablers we need to focus on.
Let’s do a quick recap of the situation. Kyle and Jackie O host a TV special that is immediately and widely panned, and drops more than a million viewers in five minutes.
A journalist reports that it has been labelled a disaster.
Kyle makes a very personal attack on that journalist. An unforgiveable attack. Not only does he – as he has done before – gibber nasty insults about her appearance, but he makes a physical threat: “Watch your mouth, girl, or I will hunt you down”.
People say nasty crap like this all the time. But they’re not broadcast to the nation. Sandilands is, with the help of people who should know better.
The immediately obvious enabler is Jackie O. She sits next to this vindictive, immature, nasty piece of work as he spits out “fat slag” and worse. And she says nothing apart from weakly pleading that he learn to take it on the chin.
In a broader context the audience is to blame. What is it that makes all these people tune in to someone with such a consistent history of bastardry? This is the guy who turned to a 14-year-old rape victim and asked: “Is that the only experience you’ve had?”
This is the guy who suggested “you put (Magda Szubankski) in a concentration camp and you watch the weight fall off … like she could be skinny”.
The guy who pulled this particularly nasty stunt on refugees from Pol Pot’s Cambodian regime.
What sort of person are you to enjoy this sort of crap? Or do the whimsical charms of pop quizzes and psychics and the parade of celebrities make it all OK? Or is it the music?
Sorry, dear Listener, it’s not really your fault that they provide such a tempting trough for you to feed at.
No, it’s the big business behind Kyle that deserves every sharp toe of the bollocking they’re getting.
Holden and the Good Guys quite rightly pulled their sponsorship and there’s a move on to convince all advertisers to pull out of the show.
As they should. Even if they are willing to take the loss of good will towards them for their association with Sandilands in exchange for the exposure of his inexplicably popular show, they have some moral responsibility here.
But the people with the power, the people who made Sandilands into what he is today, the people who give him his voice, is the radio station and ultimately Austereo.
Dear Austereo - how dare you remain silent? How dare you offer ‘no comment’? When The Punch rang, why would nobody talk? By not condemning Sandilands, you are implicitly endorsing him.
It may be that you are revelling in all this controversy, as though it’s some confected outrage over a fashion malfunction or a naughty joke. If that’s the case, you’re as guilty of misreading the public’s mood as Qantas was with its Twitter PR stunt this week. And you’re also ultimately responsible for everything Kyle has done.
Not all publicity is good publicity. People are genuinely angry and upset at Kyle’s attack on and threats against the journalist. And it’s your fault. This was no one-off dummy spit. This is a guy who consistently picks on women, who intimated violence, who feeds hate. This has been building up for too long, and it’s reached bursting point.
You are culpable, and you must act.
Lance the boil, Austereo. Sack Sandilands
CONTROVERSIAL laws to reform spiralling compensation payouts for injured police are set to pass through NSW Parliament today.
Last night the O'Farrell government secured the crucial support of upper house Shooters and Fishers Party MPs who had opposed the legislation.
Their backing for the bill, with amendments, and that of the Christian Democrats MP Fred Nile, gave the government the numbers it needed to assure the bill's passage through the upper house last night.
The government spent hours negotiating with the cross-bench MPs to secure their support.
Thousands of uniformed police rallied in Sydney earlier this week in protest against the government's plans to slash their lump-sum payouts. The auditor-general also warned the growing costs of the scheme had spiralled out of control, delivering average payouts of more than $400,000.
The opposition and police association agree with the government that the police death and disability scheme is unsustainable and in need of reform, but have opposed the bill.
The Opposition Leader, John Robertson, said Labor would support the Christian Democratic Party amendments but oppose the bill. ''The O'Farrell government has put the interests of a private insurance company ahead of protecting injured and disabled police officers with its decision to ram this legislation through the NSW Parliament,'' he said. ''The one thing we know for certain is that NSW police will be worse off from Friday morning.''
The Greens MP and law and order spokesman, David Shoebridge, said: ''Police deserve better than this. Slashing benefits will not make the job any safer or reduce the number of injuries suffered by police.''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/deals-assure-police-compo-reforms-20111124-1nx9q.ht...
THE Labor government's prospects of surviving the full three-year term have increased dramatically after a lightning ambush in which the speaker of the House of Representatives, Harry Jenkins, resigned and was replaced by the Liberal turncoat, Peter Slipper.
The move, coming on the last day of Parliament and the fourth anniversary of Labor's 2007 election victory, has given the minority government an extra vote on the floor of the House and robbed the Coalition of one.
Labor's new two-vote majority shields the government against collapse caused by a sudden byelection, and eliminates the threat by the Tasmanian independent, Andrew Wilkie, to bring the government down should it not pass poker machine reforms by May 31.
The opposition decried the manoeuvre, revealed at 9am yesterday, as ''squalid'' and ''sordid'' but tried immediately to thwart it by trying to broker a similar deal with the NSW independent Rob Oakeshott.
Using the West Australian Nationals crossbencher, Tony Crook, as an intermediary, Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop worked on Mr Oakeshott throughout the morning.
Mr Abbott phoned him at midday to offer the deal he had refused the independent during the negotiations last year to form government - being speaker but still able to move private members' legislation. ''Whatever you want to do to improve the working of this place, we'll back you,'' Mr Abbott offered.
Although Mr Oakeshott had sought exactly that arrangement last year, he rejected it yesterday, telling the Herald he was ''once bitten, twice shy'' and that ''the offer was being made for all the wrong reasons''. He also declined the offer because he did not have the numbers.
His colleague, Tony Windsor, explained to him that the whole reason for elevating Mr Slipper was to take a Coalition vote out of play and give the government one extra.
When Parliament resumes in February, Labor will have 72 votes on the floor and will need only three of the six crossbenchers to secure a 75-74 majority to pass legislation.
Mr Abbott, whose team has been reduced to 71 votes, now needs five of the six crossbench votes to reach the required absolute majority of 76 votes to pass a motion of no confidence in the government.
If Mr Wilkie makes good his threat and withdraws his support for the government because it cannot pass the poker machine legislation, the government will still have a majority of one rather than collapse.
Ms Gillard assured Mr Wilkie at a meeting last night that the government still intended to honour the agreement and Mr Wilkie was satisfied. ''Nothing has changed,'' he said.
If the NSW MP Craig Thomson, who is under police investigation, falls foul of the law and has to leave Parliament, Labor can now survive a subsequent byelection loss.
It also needs only one vote to pass legislation to means-test the private health insurance rebate, worth $2.9 billion to the budget, and has the numbers to put through the lower house legislation for the Malaysian plan for asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
Mr Slipper has been a pariah among his Queensland Liberal National Party colleagues.
Tonight, the LNP state executive was due to meet either to expel him from the party or bring forward the ballot for his preselection, which he would have lost to the former Howard government minister Mal Brough.
Mr Abbott and the federal director of the Liberal Party, Brian Loughnane, had recently implored the LNP to back off, fearing it would drive Mr Slipper to the crossbenches.
The LNP refused to listen. Mr Slipper, who quit the party yesterday, cited his treatment as a reason for his defection. Federal MPs were furious.
''They have slapped Abbott in the face,'' said one frontbencher of the LNP.
''We are just bewildered that they can be so politically inept.''
Mr Abbott claimed Mr Jenkins had been pushed.
Mr Abbott told Parliament the ''Sussex Street death squad'' was back in action.
Sources close to Mr Jenkins denied this, saying he had been contemplating stepping down for some time.
Mr Jenkins declined to publicly reject Mr Abbott's allegation. He said he had grown progressively frustrated with the strictures of a hung Parliament.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-gives-abbott-the-slip-20111124-1nx0d.h...
Code breach ... Alan Jones failed to present more than one point of view. Photo: Marina Neil
The report
Alan Jones and 2GB have breached the commercial radio codes of practice, according to findings published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) today.
The broadcaster breached the codes by "failing to present factual material accurately and by not making reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints", ACMA said in a statement.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The segments of the Alan Jones Breakfast Show that were found to have breached the codes were broadcast in February this year and were about native vegetation laws and their administration by the then NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change.
ACMA said Jones failed to present more than one viewpoint about the laws.
"The codes require licensees to make reasonable efforts or give reasonable opportunities to present significant viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance," ACMA chairman Chris Chapman said.
"Licensees can do this either within the same program or across similar programs but merely presenting substantially identical viewpoints is not sufficient to satisfy the code."
ACMA also found that one of the segments contained a factual error.
The original complaint to ACMA also alleged 2GB breached the code rule against broadcasting material likely to encourage violence for its own sake but this was dismissed.
ACMA is in discussion with 2GB about its response to the breaches.
ACMA's investigation report into the breaches by 2GB outlined the complaints about broadcasts on February 8 and 11 2010.
In Jones's broadcast on February 8, 2010, he spoke to a farmer about a show-cause letter he allegedly received from the then Department of Environment and Climate Change.
Jones said the farmer faced up to $1.1 million in fines for clearing native vegetation on his own land.
But the complaint received by ACMA states that the letter was not sent to the man, but his neighbour, and it referred to illegally clearing land that did not belong to him.
"Even the most cursory checking of the facts would have revealed this," the complaint read.
In reply, 2GB said the alleged inaccuracies related to "an interpretation of the show-cause notice".
In its findings, ACMA said: "After examining this letter it is apparent that the show-cause notice was issued to a person as a result of that person clearing land on an adjacent property, rather than on their own property."
The complainant wrote to 2GB after the broadcasts, stating that they lacked balance as they presented only highly critical viewpoints on the then department.
2GB countered this by stating: "We are not aware that [the complainant] contacted Mr Jones or his production team to seek an opportunity for such an interview - or even, more formally, a right of reply."
But ACMA said there was no evidence the radio station had given genuine opportunity to third parties to present another viewpoint.
The findings state it was not reasonable to suggest a "phone-in" option for people who held other significant viewpoints.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/fair-go-alan-jones-breached-...
A man badly burnt in a house fire in Sydney’s northwest ran out onto the street engulfed in flames, screaming out for someone to help another person caught in the blaze, a neighbour says.
A body was found by emergency services after the fire in a house on Prince Street, Oatlands, about 8.45pm yesterday.
Do you know more? Message 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764) or email us with information or images.
A man, aged in his late 20s, was taken to Westmead Hospital with serious burns, before being transferred to Royal North Shore Hospital where he is believed to be in a critical condition.
A neighbour, who asked not to be named, said residents thought the house had been empty for about a year.
"The people to the right of the property, we spoke to them, and they heard ... what they thought was an explosion," he said.
Fatal fire ... one person is dead after a blaze in Oatlands. Photo: Nick Moir
"When they went outside they saw a chap and his clothes were on fire and he was running across the road."
The neighbour said his son heard a noise before they realised the house was on fire.
"The chap was apparently screaming, so that’s when we realised something was happening."
A fire engine sits outside the house in Prince Street. Photo: Nick Moir
Many other neighbours then went out onto the street and spoke to the injured man, while the fire engulfed the house very quickly, he said.
The man was calling out for a man named Paul, who he said was still in the house.
"He actually said to us there was someone in the house," the neighbour said
"He was very upset and he was very badly burnt.
"By the time we saw him, he only had underwear on - or remnants of underwear.
"The police came and they doused him in water for quite a long time and the ambulance came and took him away."
Residents in the street believed the men were squatters.
"That’s what we guessed," the neighbour said.
"As far as we know, the house was empty but it’s difficult to know."
Police said they are continuing to investigate the circumstances leading up to the fire and whether it was suspicious.
A police spokeswoman said officers had seized a car in the street, based on number plate checks.
She said the body found after the fire has not yet been identified.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/squatter-paul-dead-as-fire-engulfs-sydney-house-201...
THE O'Farrell government's war with public sector unions over wages and conditions has escalated after police threatened to turn their backs on responding to non-life threatening crimes - and emergency service workers went on standby to join the fight.
Thousands of NSW police yesterday marched from Hyde Park to Macquarie Street to protest against the government's plan to slash compensation payouts to injured officers under a death and disability scheme.
Tens of thousands of public service workers, including nurses and teachers, staged a rally in Sydney's Domain in September to protest against the NSW government's decision to cut jobs and cap salaries to 2.5 per cent, unless productivity savings could be demonstrated.
"In regards to the day-to-day functioning in NSW police, such as shop-lifting, minor stealing, break and enters, no police officers would be attending" ... Scott Weber. Photo: Quentin Jones
The government says the existing police scheme, which has delivered average one-off payments of $400,000 to $500,000, is unsustainable and it wants to focus on rehabilitating injured officers back to work.
Wearing their uniforms, in defiance of an order from the Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, the police marched to Parliament, where Labor MPs applauded.
The NSW Police Association estimated the number of protesters at 5000, revising an earlier figure of 3000.
Its president, Scott Weber, told the rally the government had failed to negotiate a fair deal for officers injured on duty and called on it to withdraw its death and disability law from Parliament.
If the bill was not withdrawn from the upper house, police would vote to take further industrial action. ''We would be attending to the armed hold-ups, the domestic violence incidents, those serious motor vehicle accidents. But in regards to the day-to-day functioning in NSW Police, such as shop-lifting, minor stealing, break and enters, no police officers would be attending.''
The Unions NSW secretary, Mark Lennon, said the association's threat of further industrial action was ''rare and unusual''.
''This government appears to have a pathological dislike of the front-line workers who protect our community, teach our kids and look after our sick,'' he said.
The South Coast Labor Council secretary, Arthur Rorris, yesterday said emergency workers were next in line to join other public sector unions in a war with the government over salaries and conditions.
''People know if [the government] get the police on this question that they'll be next.''
A spokesman for the Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, said it was ''disappointing'' the police association was considering further action. However, the government would continue to work with it to deliver changes to the death and disability scheme.
''We are not letting threats of industrial action affect our decision,'' a spokesman said.
Mr Gallacher said the spiralling costs of the existing death and disability scheme for police officers were unsustainable and had delivered lump-sum payments which had discouraged officers from returning to work.
The opposition police spokesman, Nathan Rees, criticised Mr Gallacher for putting the interests of a private insurance company before police after Mr Gallacher said he was constrained by a strict timeline the insurance company had given the government.
Mr Gallacher said he had made a ''commercial decision'' not to disclose the deadline, which meant he could not wait for the Industrial Relations Commission to hear the matter.
He said the government had rejected an alternative scheme proposed by the police association after having it assessed by KPMG actuaries.
Mr Gallacher said the government had increased its original offer to police by committing an extra $10 million into the new scheme for 12 months, bringing benefit levels up to 75 per cent of salaries over five years. This would depend on the agreement of the insurers.
The government would also invest a one-off $70 million in extending benefits to 302 officers booked in for medical assessments under the existing scheme.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-threat-to-ignore-crime-20111122-1nszd.html#i...
A ninth person has died after the Quakers Hill Nursing Home fire - a 90-year-old woman.
Neeltje Valkay died at Liverpool Hospital at 9.20am today, police said.
The eighth victim, Doris Mercy Becke, 96, died in Blacktown Hospital overnight.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Alma Smith ... one of the victims.
Mrs Becke had been in Blacktown Hospital's intensive care unit since the blaze at the nursing home on Friday.
Police said she had suffered health complications from the fire.
List of victims who have been named:
Alma Smith, 73
Lola Bennett, 86
Ella Wood, 97
Urbana Alipio, 79
Caesar Galea, 82
Doris Becke, 96
Neeltje Valkay, 90
Two others who died in the blaze have not yet been formally identified.
NSW Health said nine people were in intensive care units around Sydney. Another 22 were in hospitals in various conditions.
Two people in Westmead Hospital were in a critical but stable condition this morning, but their ages and genders were not available.
An 83-year-old woman and a 67-year-old woman at Royal North Shore Hospital were both in a serious but stable condition.
Eighteen others were in a stable condition at hospitals including Westmead, Concord, Fairfield, Nepean and Blacktown.
A registered nurse who was employed by the home, Roger Kingsley Dean, 35, is in custody, charged with four counts of murder relating to the fire.
A NSW Police spokesman said he would not speculate on whether Mr Dean would face more murder charges.
Mr Dean is due to appear in Central Local Court on Thursday.
There were 87 residents in the home on Hambledon Road when the fire broke out. Two people died in their rooms, while a third died after being rescued from the home.
The other five victims all died in hospital.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nursing-home-fire-death-toll-rises-to-nine-20111122...
Police, firies on protest march to Parliament
BY MICHELLE WEBSTER
22 Nov, 2011
Busloads of police from Wollongong, Lake Illawarra and Shoalhaven commands will head to Macquarie St today to protest at proposed changes to the force's death and disability scheme.
They will be among 3000 off-duty officers from across the state expected to descend upon Parliament House as the NSW Police Association makes its last stand against drastic cuts to injury compensation payouts.
Delegations from the South Coast Labour Council and Fire Brigade Employees' Union will attend to support police in voicing their disapproval at the changes.
The rally is designed to pressure crossbenchers and the Opposition into blocking the bill.
Police Association Wollongong official Bob Minns said the union had been frustrated by a lack of consultation and urged a change of heart from the O'Farrell government.
"Our goal is to get the Government to reconsider, to come back into negotiations for a proper death and disability scheme totally different to what they've proposed to us, which has just slashed our rights without a doubt," he said.
Earlier this month Police Minister Mike Gallacher announced changes to the death and disability scheme which would slash compensation payouts for officers seriously injured on the job.
Injured officers would stay on full salary for six months, but the amount would be gradually reduced to encourage them to undergo rehabilitation and return to work.
For officers who suffer a physical injury, payments would drop from $1,398,701 over five years to $974,743. However, for injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder, total payments would be slashed from $569,292 to $76,786.
A spokesman for Mr Gallacher said the changes were necessary to ensure the scheme remained sustainable into the future.
"We're intent on ensuring police not only have a scheme for the future, but also to ensure as many police as possible can get back to work," he said.
Fire Brigade Employees' Union state president Darin Sullivan said firefighters were keen to support their emergency service colleagues at today's rally. He said there were fears any change to the police scheme could also have repercussions for them.
Police, firies on protest march to Parliament
22 Nov, 2011 04:00 AMBusloads of police from Wollongong, Lake Illawarra and Shoalhaven commands will head to Macquarie St today to protest at proposed changes to the force's death and disability scheme.They will be among 3000 off-duty officers from across the state expected to descend upon Parliament House as the NSW Police Association makes its last stand against drastic cuts to injury compensation payouts.
Delegations from the South Coast Labour Council and Fire Brigade Employees' Union will attend to support police in voicing their disapproval at the changes.
The rally is designed to pressure crossbenchers and the Opposition into blocking the bill.
Police Association Wollongong official Bob Minns said the union had been frustrated by a lack of consultation and urged a change of heart from the O'Farrell government.
"Our goal is to get the Government to reconsider, to come back into negotiations for a proper death and disability scheme totally different to what they've proposed to us, which has just slashed our rights without a doubt," he said.
Earlier this month Police Minister Mike Gallacher announced changes to the death and disability scheme which would slash compensation payouts for officers seriously injured on the job.
Injured officers would stay on full salary for six months, but the amount would be gradually reduced to encourage them to undergo rehabilitation and return to work.
For officers who suffer a physical injury, payments would drop from $1,398,701 over five years to $974,743. However, for injuries such as post-traumatic stress disorder, total payments would be slashed from $569,292 to $76,786.
A spokesman for Mr Gallacher said the changes were necessary to ensure the scheme remained sustainable into the future.
"We're intent on ensuring police not only have a scheme for the future, but also to ensure as many police as possible can get back to work," he said.
Fire Brigade Employees' Union state president Darin Sullivan said firefighters were keen to support their emergency service colleagues at today's rally. He said there were fears any change to the police scheme could also have repercussions for them.
Negotiations between Qantas and two unions representing ground crew and long-haul pilots have collapsed, leaving the sides to face binding arbitration before the industrial relations umpire.
The Transport Workers Union, whose members include baggage handlers, ended talks with Qantas this afternoon, shortly after negotiations with the long-haul pilots’ union collapsed.
The TWU’s general counsel, Michael Burns, said the talks collapsed because the two sides could not reach agreement on job-security demands such as the number of contractors Qantas was wanting to use.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Binding arbitration
The matters in dispute will now go to binding arbitration, although the pilots’ union and the TWU will discuss with Qantas negotiators over the next few days those areas on which agreement is more likely.
Richard Woodward, the vice-president of the Australian and International Pilots Association, said negotiations between the airline and the pilots' union had ended this afternoon after the two sides failed to agree over the terms for efficiency gains of up to 20 per cent sought by the company, such as pilot rostering.
Mr Woodward said Qantas had no interest in extending the negotiations for another 21 days, which meant that the dispute would now be resolved by Fair Work Australia.
For an extension to be granted, both Qantas and the union had to be in agreement.
"The talks have now broken down. This is about negotiating in good faith. Qantas is not willing to compromise," Mr Woodward said.
"We are very disappointed. We started in August last year with an intention of getting a deal done. But all along Qantas has been less than exemplary in these negotiations. They have taken a very hard-headed attitude to negotiations and have not compromised."
Mr Woodward warned that binding arbitration would drag on for months because of the "complex nature of the contract", and the union was likely to call on experts to discuss issues such as pilot fatigue.
Qantas was due to begin talks with the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association at 3pm.
Qantas 'did not terminate talks'
Qantas’s chief executive, Alan Joyce, said his preferred option had been to resolve the dispute with the pilots’ union and the TWU through negotiations but it was ‘‘now time to let Fair Work Australia bring the matter to a close’’.
Mr Joyce said Qantas did not terminate the negotiations but both sides had concluded that an agreement could not be reached.
Qantas had made a ‘‘generous offer’’ to the TWU, which included reasonable increases in pay and conditions, and protecting the jobs of existing employees, he said.
He also said that the federal government had indicated it would vigorously defend the decision by Fair Work to terminate the industrial action three weeks ago, in the event that the pilots’ union and the TWU purused legal action.
‘‘We are right behind the government on this,’’ he said.
Dragging on for months
Mr Woodward warned that binding arbitration would drag on for months because of the ‘‘complex nature of the contract’’, and the union was likely to call on experts to discuss issues such as pilot fatigue.
The pilots union will also pursue legal action against Fair Work’s decision on October 31 to terminate its protected industrial action with Qantas.
The first directions hearing in the Federal Court is scheduled for December 1.
The TWU will wait until a meeting of its hierachy on Thursday before deciding whether to also mount a legal challenge of Fair Work’s termination of the dispute three weeks ago.
After Qantas said on October 29 that it would ground its domestic and international fleet and lock out staff within days, the Gillard government intervened by seeking a termination of the airline’s long-running industrial dispute with the three unions.
Fair Work subsequently terminated the dispute, giving Qantas and the unions until today to reach a settlement or have the workplace umpire impose binding arbitration.
mosullivan@smh.com.au
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-talks-with-unions-collapse-20111121-1nq...
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) staff are likely to take industrial action on November 30th after Special Minister of State Gary Gray refused to sign-off on an agreement staff had negotiated with BOM management.
Minister Gray's decision has angered BOM staff who had negotiated in good faith and believed that the agreement offered fair recognition of the work they do with effective pay rises of 10.15-10.6 per cent over three years.
CPSU National Secretary Nadine Flood said Minster Gray's decision was staggering and showed disrespect for BOM staff.
"After seven months of negotiations the BOM finally offered an agreement that recognised the work that the skilled and dedicated staff at the Bureau do. Gary Gray has now decided to tear that up and send the parties back to negotiations," Ms Flood said.
"We are baffled by this decision, which has been based on trivial objections to conditions which have been allowed in other public sector agreements.
The changes demanded by the Special Minister of State mean that 75 employees already earn less than average weekly earnings will have to forego $800 per year. Mr Gray has also objected to provisions which would give staff up to 20 days of Carers Leave per year, limiting it to 18 days.
"This is a ridiculous level of petty micro-management from the Special Minister which does nothing to encourage management and staff to negotiate in good faith," said Ms Flood.
Ms Flood said that staff were now considering a return to protected industrial action.
"Bureau staff provide essential services to Australians but Gary Gray doesn't seem to recognise our dedication, professionalism and skills.
"Taking industrial action is a last resort, but we are not prepared to accept Minister Gray's interference. We know members of the public, emergency services and industry appreciate the important work that Bureau staff do," Ms Flood said.
Staff rejected the first agreement offered by BOM management with 83 per cent voting against. After staff took protected industrial action the BOM made a second offer which was accepted by staff.
As well as providing short and long range weather forecasting, the Bureau's 1700 staff:
• work with emergency services through weather emergencies such as fire, floods and cyclones
• provide services to the aviation, maritime and agriculture industries
• collect and analyse climate data; and
• provide a huge amount of information in real time on the Bureau website, one of the most accessed Australian websites.
For comment
Nadine Flood 0407 731 330
Alistair Waters 0417 547 407
Julia Gillard will not receive a great deal of thanks from within her own left faction of the Labor Party for her proposal to drop the ban on selling uranium to India, but as Albert Einstein once said 'what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right'.
Whatever the Greens and the left of the Labor Party might think, it is right to sell uranium to India even though it hasn't signed (couldn't sign) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - right for any number of reasons.
Take the pragmatic reasons: We can make money; the mining lobby (which doesn't have the Prime Minister as its pin-up girl at the moment) will be pleased; jobs will be created; we have plenty of uranium and if we didn't sell it to India someone else would.
Advertisement
Let's take it from the humanitarian side. Around 40 per cent of India's population (that's close to 500 million people) have access to electricity for 12 hours or less a day. The need for nearly half a billion consumers to be brought into the 20th century, let alone the 21st, is not going to be met by sticking up a few windmills or laying down some photovoltaic cells.
It's either going to be from nuclear energy or a string of heavily polluting coal-fired power stations. What would be your choice Mr Brown?
India is also a rapidly industrialising country. It is doing so because it wants to lift more of its population out of the $2-a-day poverty trap. It is right and proper that it should be doing this, but industry needs electricity, plenty of it - another box to be ticked for nuclear power.
And finally there is the simple fact that Australia is a democracy, India is the world's largest democracy and we should be doing more to develop relations which have been sadly neglected over the past two decades while we have been paying court to authoritarian China.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty has continually been put forward as the stumbling block by the anti-sales lobby. Leave alone the fact that there will be strict and verifiable rules in place to ensure that Australia's uranium will go nowhere near a bomb factory, the mantra is that India has defied the treaty and must be punished for it.
But as I hinted above, it hasn't been a case of India not signing, it can't sign without giving up its nuclear weapons arsenal – even though the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia (then the Soviet Union), France and China are proud signatories while their arsenals bristle with nukes.
Advertisement
The reason is a date – 1970 – the year that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into being. The five countries mentioned already had nuclear weapons and certainly weren't going to give them up, so the framers of the treaty accepted the inevitable and wrote them in as 'Nuclear Weapons States'.
However, India did not explode its first nuclear device until four years afterwards and so was excluded from signing along with (later) Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, the latter having signed originally, before leaving to develop its own bomb.
It is certainly unfortunate that Pakistan felt it had to develop its own nuclear punch to copy India, especially as it is a considerably less stable nation with terrorist groups existing almost side-by-side with its storage silos. That is a separate issue. But the threat that India keenly feels today comes not from Pakistan, but from the east and nuclear-equipped China.
A few weeks ago I was at a meeting of the Australian Institute of International Affairs to hear an address by the Former Indian Foreign Secretary, Lalit Mansingh. He reminded us that China and India had fought a short war in 1962 and since then their borders had been in dispute.
While they had agreed to normalise relations in all other areas, leaving the border issue to a working group of technocrats, Mr Mansingh said that 15 meetings had not resulted in "an inch of progress".
"I am afraid we are at the stage where we feel that China is not interested in resolving the border issue. In fact, the Chinese are making more and more outrageous claims on Indian territory," he said.
This included producing a map that showed the entire Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh renamed as 'Southern Tibet', a clear indication of China's designs on the area, the diplomat said.
A further issue was what India believed was China's long range plan to dam the Brahmaputra River which flows into India from Tibet.
"If this becomes a reality it would be catastrophic for India's north-eastern region; beyond that the entire nation of Bangladesh would be threatened," he said.
Add the growing Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean, and it is not hard to realise why the Government in New Delhi is concerned.
There is little doubt that China sees its future if not as a global power than certainly a regional one, extending its influence over all of Asia. If the US ever decided to withdraw from the region (thankfully that is unlikely, at least in the medium term, after President Obama's visit to Australia) then India would be the only serious rival to those ambitions.
It would also be a clash of cultures and ideologies – China would want to see its own brand of authoritarian centralism triumph over India's democratic federalism. The sabres would be rattling in earnest.
As was the case during many years of US-Soviet rivalry, the threat of nuclear war kept both sides in check. The same can apply to a future power contest between the Asian giants.
India needs nuclear weapons equality with China. In the long run that will preserve peace in the region – perhaps an uneasy peace – but still better than the alternative.
And Australia needs to do its bit to support its democratic friend as it works to bring a greater degree of prosperity and economic freedom across the sub-continent – not always easy in a tumultuous, pluralistic society.
Uranium sales are one small step along that path. Ms Gillard was right to suggest it and her Government should waste no time in implementing it.
Darin Sullivan
President
1-7 Belmore St | Surry Hills | NSW | 2010
P 02 9218 3444 | M 0422436044 | W fbeu.net
Dapto Fire Stn | "C" Platoon | P 0242 611233
Posted by John, November 19th, 2011 - under Saturday's socialist speak out.
enpassant.com.au
Obama has been and gone and the Australian sycophancy parties wet themselves. Actually, that is being unfair to sycophants.
US imperialism is establishing a beachhead in Darwin for its containment policy against China, a beachhead far enough away from China’s missiles for any accuracy. Both Labor and the Liberals – the parties of the one percent – support this because it is in the interests of Australian capitalism, although mining capital might be a little worried.
Nurses continue their magnificent fight for better wages and conditions in Victoria and despite threats of fines and jail re still going strong. A mass meeting on Monday will determine the direction of the struggle. More action can win them real pay increases (something in the order of what the Victorian government paid their thugs, the cops, would be appropriate) and defend nurse/patient ratios.
The crisis in European capitalism and hence for world capitalism continues, with the IMF and German and French leaders imposing unelected governments on Italy and Greece.
Their task is to do the bidding of French and German capitalism and impose austerity measures on Italian and Greek workers. They are destroying the economy to save it.
It may not work as global finance capital circles French markets too, perhaps starting the same destabilising processes for French capitalism as it has done for Greek and Italian capitalism.
A PROPOSAL by the police union for an alternative method of overhauling the Police Death and Disability Scheme is being considered by the state government in an attempt to break a deadlock over the issue.
The NSW Police Association strongly opposes changes contained in a bill due to be voted on in the NSW upper house this week which would cut compensation payouts to injured police to control the scheme's spiralling costs.
Total payments for police with injuries such as post traumatic stress disorder or depression would be cut from $569,292 to $76,786.
Advertisement: Story continues belowPayments to officers who suffer a physical injury would fall from $1,398,701 over five years under the existing scheme to $974,743.
However, it is unclear if the government has the numbers to pass the bill in the upper house. A rally outside Parliament will be held tomorrow in opposition to the changes. Several thousand off-duty police are expected to attend.
Last week the association lodged an application for a new death and disability award with the Industrial Relations Commission under which there would be no change to death and total and permanent disability entitlements.
Those suffering a partial permanent disability would be eligible for 80 per cent of their salary for seven years if injured on duty or two years if injured off duty.
The current system of maintaining the wages of injured police while they are on sick leave but still employed by the force would also be retained.
A spokesman for the government said the costs of the association's proposal were being calculated but the government would not withdraw its bill.
Police Death and Disability protection must remain. Front line emergency services deserve protection for risking lives on a daily basis.
Barry O'Farrell and the NSW Lib's need to get their grubby hands off NSW frontline services, and their conditions.
THE O'Farrell government has been accused of cutting police numbers to achieve budget savings following its decision to abandon the former government's policy of keeping police numbers above the official number funded by Treasury each year.
The former government kept actual police numbers above the official level authorised by Treasury as a buffer against fluctuations in numbers through the year as a result of attrition and police graduations from the Goulburn academy.
The shadow treasurer, Michael Daley, the former police minister, has accused the O'Farrell government of cutting police numbers to save money.
Advertisement: Story continues below
''For the last eight years under Labor, we funded extra police positions to make sure police numbers stayed over strength and at record highs,'' Mr Daley said.
''Barry O'Farrell has flagged he will be saving money by cutting police numbers.''
The opposition police spokesman, Nathan Rees, said a fall in police numbers would result in a rise in crime.
''Inevitably it means when police are sick or on leave or seconded, there are not as many police on the street as there should be,'' he said.
The Police Minister, Mike Gallacher, told a budget estimates committee of Parliament last month that ''the boom-bust days and the false economies of Labor are over''. He said police would be brought on line every four months to coincide with police graduations until ''a record 16,356 officers'' were employed by June next year.
The NSW Police Association secretary, Peter Remfrey, said police numbers routinely fell between police recruitment periods, and the former government's policy ensured actual numbers never fell below the authorised benchmark number.
''This new government is going back to the days when, between graduation classes, police numbers fell significantly below strength,'' he said. ''That will impact on front-line services.''
Mr Remfrey said an extra 1500 officers were needed to bring numbers up to the same level as most other states and to keep up with expected population growth in NSW of 1.3 per cent each year.
''The decision to allow numbers to fall below authorised strength will make the problem more acute,'' he said. ''The net effect of lower numbers will be higher crime rates and delays in response times.''
The Greens MP David Shoebridge said the government's decision to stagger graduation from the academy ''makes sense''.
''It will give a smoother flow of graduates into the police and keep numbers more stable during the year,'' he said.
Mr Gallacher said the budget included $214.4 million in funding over four years to recruit an additional 550 police.
"This will take the authorised strength of the police force to a record 16,356 officers by June 2014,'' he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/change-to-police-numbers-prompts-fear-of-crime-rise...
