Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Call to investigate police after tent embassy protest
Indigenous groups are calling for an independent investigation into the "violent" conduct of police officers during last week's tent embassy protest.
The NSW Aboriginal Land Council asked the Human Rights Commission to investigate as new video footage emerged today depicting federal police officers yelling, swearing and using physical force after Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott were rushed from The Lobby restaurant in Canberra last week.
"It's now also clear from new video footage ... that there are some serious questions that need to be addressed about the conduct of officers, particularly after the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader had been removed from the demonstration," Land Council chief executive Geoff Scott said in a statement.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Mr Scott said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda - whose position was created following the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody and a national inquiry into racist violence - was the appropriate person for the job.
"Firstly, there is a long and unfortunate history in this country of police investigations into police actions falling short of the sort of transparency and probity the public demands," he said.
"Secondly, it's only through an independent investigation that we will be able to rule a line under this incident, and move on to talking about the issues that really matter.
"Aboriginal people want to talk about many issues, including economic development, sovereignty, land rights and treaty. These may be uncomfortable issues for the Australian people, but they are issues that must be resolved, sooner rather than later."
Images of the protest on Australia Day and during celebrations for the 40th anniversary of the tent embassy were broadcast around the world last week after security staff whisked Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott from the restaurant where an awards ceremony was being held.
About 200 protesters marched to the restaurant believing Mr Abbott wanted the tent embassy shut down.
A member of Ms Gillard's staff, Tony Hodges, resigned on Friday after it was found that he had passed on information about Mr Abbott's whereabouts to someone who alerted tent embassy supporters.
The Coalition's legal affairs spokesman George Brandis has written to the Australian Federal Police asking it to investigate the events leading to the protest.
Federal police Commissioner Tony Negus said the matter had been referred to the crimes operations special references portfolio for evaluation.
But one of the tent embassy founders, Michael Anderson, said the police actions on the day warranted investigation.
"I was quite shocked at the behaviour of some police," Mr Anderson said. "As far as I was concerned, all they had to do after the Prime Minister's vehicle left was disband and everyone else would have as well.
"Instead they linked arms, unholstered their weapons and began confronting protesters. It was an act of incitement on their part," he said.
"I believe if anybody is going to be charged, they need to look at the conduct of several police officers.
"[One officer] can be seen in footage that has now emerged attacking at least two different protesters, none of whom were aggressive towards him. He also uses foul language, including using the c-word at a cameraman and telling media to f--- off. That is not the actions of a professional police officer.
"Indeed Aboriginal people are arrested for that sort of conduct every single day."
Comment was being sought from Mr Gooda and the federal police.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-investigate-police-after-tent-embassy-...
The National Riot Mismanagement Squad
The National Riot Mismanagement Squad
By Ben Eltham
Tags: tent embassy riot media distortion federal politics ben eltham
As the media continues to distort the tent embassy protest, the behaviour of Gillard's office is under scrutiny. It's another media debacle for the embattled PM, writes Ben Eltham
It hasn’t taken long for the myth of the "violent" tent embassy protest to take hold.
It was a relatively minor protest that took place on Australia Day outside Canberra restaurant, The Lobby, near Parliament House. Even so, the dramatic television pictures and the syntax of nearly every journalist subsequently covering the incident, have worked to establish a false consensus that the events outside The Lobby, were "violent" and a "riot".
Christian Kerr’s feature in The Australian on the events leading up to and following The Lobby protest is an excellent example. His article begins with the following paragraph, which uses a variation of the word "violence" twice:
"Australia Day this year was marred by violence and clouded by intrigue that has cost Julia Gillard one of her staff, threatens others and has created a violent and unwanted distraction at the start of the political year."
Elsewhere in The Australian, an article is headlined "Riot won’t affect constitutional reform to recognise indigenous, says Pat Dodson". This is despite the fact that Dodson didn’t use the word "riot", and that he offered a nuanced defence of the actions of protesters on Australia Day, arguing that while he condemns "bad manners and unnecessarily aggressive behaviour," he also "will always defend people’s rights to assert their political position and try to look to the heart of why people feel so oppressed that they feel violent confrontation is the only recourse."
As we argued here on Friday, it’s far from obvious that the events of Australia Day really were violent in the first place. There were no arrests on the day. There still haven’t been any charges laid, and it now looks as though there won’t be. Nor have any injuries been reported by any guests at The Lobby. The Lobby itself does not appear to have sustained any obvious damage, at least as far as we can ascertain. New Matilda contacted The Lobby today and asked them if any damage occurred during the events on Australia Day. We were told they won’t be commenting on that.
Is a protest in which no-one was arrested, no-one was injured and no property was damaged really a "riot"?
New Matilda spoke to National Indigenous Times reporter Gerry Georgatos this morning, who was at The Lobby restaurant protest. (He can be clearly identified in some of the video footage wearing a red NIT T-shirt.)
Georgatos says that the protest was emotional, but non-violent. "There was no riot, there was no violence, there was chanting, there was some outrage." Georgatos describes the now-notorious "banging" on the glass of the restaurant as "more like tapping".
"The glass was never going to be broken", he argues. In fact, he says that the Australia Day medals ceremony had already concluded by the time the protesters arrived. "The ceremony wasn’t even interrupted," he said. Georgatos saw the detachment of security staff exit the restaurant in flying wedge formation, dragging the Prime Minister with them. He confirms the widely reported observation that there were in fact only a couple of protesters outside that door. "The Prime Minister could have simply walked out," he tells us. The footage of the police frantically waving their hands and yelling "get back" was in fact evidence of their over-reaction, as the only people in front of the exiting column were media and Michael Anderson himself. "The flying wedge was waving their hands at no-one," he said.
Further, the only violence that actually occurred was directed at protesters, by police and security staff. "A lady got smacked in the face, she did nothing, one hot-headed police officer had to be pulled in and removed by his own superior," Georgatos said.
The National Indigenous Times will be carrying a major story about the Australia Day events tomorrow, in which it will reveal, via a "reliable source" inside the Gillard Government, that "Julia Gillard knew" about the decision to tell tent embassy protesters about Tony Abbott’s comments, and to encourage them to come down to The Lobby to protest. "It was a confrontation that was generated by the minders," Georgatos claims.
The role of the Prime Minister’s office in the events that transpired on Australia Day certainly merits interest, if only for the disquieting spectacle it presents of media mismanagement. One Gillard staffer, Tony Hodges, has already resigned over the affair.
It now appears that Hodges, with the knowledge of at least some of his superiors in Gillard’s office, rang a number of Labor allies in the wake of Tony Abbott’s comments about the tent embassy in a doorstop interview on Australia Day morning. One of the people he rang was Unions ACT Secretary Kim Sattler. The most plausible explanation for what then occurred is that Sattler rang tent embassy protest leader Barbara Shaw, telling her about Abbott’s remarks and letting her know that Abbott would be at The Lobby that afternoon.
Sattler has changed her story on exactly where she sat in the chain of communication that lead to the tent embassy protesters being called, but it seems fairly clear that she was the link to Shaw and the other protesters.
Like a lot of matters that interest the Canberra press gallery, this is an issue that ordinary punters won’t be overly concerned about. Was there a cover up? Did the Prime Minister know? It’s a matter of largely insider interest. We know that the Prime Minister’s office played at least some role in the Australia Day events.
The political problem for Julia Gillard is all too familiar. Labor has got the optics wrong, again. Having the Prime Minster dragged away by security staff is not a particularly good look. Neither is having staffers tip off protesters about the location of the Opposition Leader, so they can protest against him. As happens so often when politicians and their staffers attempt to get clever in the way they manage public affairs, the attempt has blown up in the Government’s face.
And, as usual with this government, the damage is mainly self-inflicted.
The Government didn’t need to politicise an Australia Day ceremony in an attempt to embarrass Tony Abbott. It’s not as though this government’s record on Indigenous affairs is that great. This is the Labor government that continues to implement income management in remote Indigenous communities, remember, in contradiction to the advice it received from its own inquiry on the issue. If the Government wanted to attack Tony Abbott for the comments he made about the tent embassy, it could have done so in the normal way: by making a statement, or issuing a media release.
On the other hand, the reaction by the Opposition has been just as silly. The Coalition’s George Brandis has written to the Australian Federal Police demanding an investigation over the matter. They also plan to move a motion of no-confidence when Parliament returns. Both are essentially short-term ad opportunistic tactics aimed at harassing the Government and keeping the negative media coverage up, rather than addressing any of the core issues at the heart of the tent embassy protests.
And that’s the real tragedy of the events outside The Lobby on Australia Day. Instead of focussing public debate on the substantive issues of Indigenous disadvantage and the dismal history of dispossession that has marked Australian history — events which began with the arrival of the British on 26 January 1788, but which continued well into recent living memory — the debate has descended into an maze of meaningless tactical tit-for-tat.
It’s an indication of how our political system, and the media that covers it, continually fail to grasp the bigger picture when it comes to the issues that confront our nation.
» In defence of flag burning | via: En Passant
In defence of flag burning
This is a link to me on radio station 2UE in Sydney this morning defending flag burning and the need for a treaty for 15 minutes. Does this one (third time lucky touch wood and my thanks to reader dl) work? It is the second audio down on the page.
http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/smearing-tony-abbott-has-backfired/20120...
Look for:
David Oldfield speaks with activist John Passant on the issues that the Aboriginal people are wanting addressed. He says it is time to sit down and negotiate with elected representatives.
PRESS PLAY
#BarryOfarrell backflip on ban of standard unleaded in NSW | The Australian
O'Farrell backflip on ban of standard unleaded in NSW
BY: IMRE SALUSINSZKY, NSW POLITICAL REPORTER From:
The Australian January 31, 2012
MOTORISTS in NSW will not be forced to choose between ethanol-blended petrol or paying more at the bowser after a backflip last night by the O'Farrell government.
State cabinet decided to dump a plan, inherited from Labor, that would have banned standard unleaded petrol from July 1, leaving motorists to choose between premium unleaded or petrol containing 10 per cent ethanol, a biofuel derived from crops. The owners of 750,000 cars unsuited to ethanol would have had no choice but to switch to premium, paying about an extra 15 cents per litre.
The backflip comes after anger from motorists and petrol station operators, along with a cabinet leak that revealed opposition to the plan by bureaucrats and the national competition watchdog.
Angry Queensland teachers boycott Education Department's learning audits | The Courier-Mail
QUEENSLAND'S teaching and learning audits have been suspended by the Education Department after teachers decided to boycott them yesterday because the results were published in The Courier-Mail.
Principals joined teachers yesterday in saying they felt betrayed and angry at the publication of results, after the department gave assurances the information was confidential.
The Courier-Mail published a statewide school-by-school list of teaching and learning audit results last Saturday.
Under the audits, state schools were benchmarked against world's best practice in eight teaching and learning areas, including effective teaching practices, an expert teaching team and curriculum delivery.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/angry-teachers-boycott-audits/s...
A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s play | Article | The Punch
In the moments after Novak Djokovic crumpled to the ground, fists clenched and screaming to no one in particular, my first thought was that this was the greatest tennis match in history. I wasn’t alone.
Oh, how do you expect me to go on a proper shopping spree with a measly million bucks? Pic: Getty Images.
But my thoughts quickly turned to why the women’s game doesn’t produce epics like that. This is not to say that the women’s tennis is of poorer quality, or can’t produce incredible matches. It’s doesn’t mean women are weaker and can’t play gripping tennis. The best female tennis players in the world train just as hard and are as dedicated to their sport as any men. But their matches just don’t last as long.
Kim Clijsters’ three set win over Li Na in the fourth round was one of the best games of the last year. The shot-making and tension rivalled almost any match in the men’s draw. Yet as tightly contested as that match was, it still lasted only two hours and 23 minutes. The first two sets of the men’s final alone went for longer.
After matches like the one we witnessed in the men’s final, where two rivals battled each other to a standstill for six hours, it’s hard not to get caught up in the drama of it all. But what’s easy to overlook is that the Serb will be paid the exact same amount as Belarusian Victoria Azarenka, winner of the women’s singles title.
Along with the title of Australian Open champion they both receive the same $2.3 million dollar purse. Nadal and Djokovic’s final lasted five hours 52 minutes, Sharapova and Azarenka’s went for just under one and a half. There’s something wrong here.
Maria Sharapova receiving the same prize money as Rafael Nadal is almost a travesty. To think that a man who ran until his body nearly gave out at 2 o’clock in the morning will be rewarded with the same $1.15 million cheque as a former world number one who could only manage to win three games should make anyone cringe.
The Australian Open prides itself on the fact that it’s the richest Grand Slam, that its prize money is unrivalled in the sport and that the women’s tournament and the men’s tournament have equal prize money. Yet why should that final point be something we should hang our hats on.
The idea that everyone, regardless of gender, race or any other defining feature, should receive equal pay for equal isn’t up for debate. But to claim that the women’s tournament is equal in work to the men’s is easily dismissed.
A women’s match can’t last longer than three sets. A men’s match can’t be any shorter. Yet they’re both treated as requiring equal reward for effort. Certainly, most matches aren’t six hour epics. But just a quick glance at the 2012 tournament shows how far apart the workload was in the two draws.
Djokovic’s seven matches at Melbourne Park totalled 20 hours and 51 minutes, while runner-up Nadal was out there even longer. The Spaniard spent an incredible 22 hours and 26 minutes baking on Rod Laver Arena. Compare that to Azarenka’s 10 hours 24 minutes and Sharapova’s 10 hours 45 minutes and you can see just how much more work the men have to do over the two weeks.
The easiest way to solve this problem would be to just extend women’s Grand Slam matches to five sets. The matches still probably wouldn’t last as long but both Champions would have to win the same number of sets to claim the trophy.
Unfortunately this would create a new problem – women’s tennis isn’t as deep as the men’s game. The top contenders barely get troubled before the fourth round. The early rounds of the women’s tournament are already filled with enough one sided affairs to put even the most ardent fan to sleep.
This year there were 40 sets in the first round of the women’s tournament where one player won one or zero games. In the men’s tournament there were 41, but far more sets were played. Another 6-love smashing on a hapless teenager isn’t exactly going to create fan interest and it’s certainly not going to get the TV networks clamouring for a piece of the pie.
The solution? Simple. Women’s matches should be five sets, but the tournament size should be cut. The field should be reduced to 96 entrants, with the top 32 seeds all given a bye into the second round. You can even leave the prize money equal. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the status quo.
It may mean a few less Aussies get a chance to test themselves in a Grand Slam at a young age but it would mean better games earlier and for longer. Isn’t that what we all want?
Twitter: @markgottliebfox
NUP, I DON'T AGREE: Nicole Pratt argues the opposite on Fox Sports
http://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/majors/stalwart-nicole-pratt-calls-for-ten...
Monday, January 30, 2012
The camera does sometimes lie | The Observer #ALP
Australian prime minister Julia Gillard is taken by police to a waiting car during a heated protest at an Australia Day awards ceremony. Photograph: The Sydney Morning Herald/Fairfax Media via Getty Images
If you watch the clip of Australian prime minister Julia Gillard being bundled away from Aboriginal rights protesters in Canberra at a ceremony for Australia Day, you could be forgiven for assuming that a bomb had gone off or that the building was collapsing.
In truth, a couple of hundred protesters, who favour the term "Invasion Day" heard that the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, was present and they were angry at a remark he'd made earlier, about how the Aboriginal Tent Assembly should "move on". They were chanting things such as "shame" and "racist", but nothing was thrown – no punches, not even an egg.
Nevertheless, Ms Gillard was bundled away so quickly that she stumbled, losing a shoe, and, at one point, appeared to be cradled by a bodyguard. The scene evoked a movie, with photographs resembling stills of Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston in The Bodyguard. With her stockinged foot, crushed against her security man, Gillard looked a poor, pathetic, helpless little Sheila. The online forums erupted in mockery: to paraphrase the famous advertising campaign, right now, who would give a Castlemaine XXXX for her chances of re-election?
Ultimately, this episode was a non-event; the protesters even gave Gillard her shoe back. So why was one left with a niggling feeling that some terrible damage had been wreaked? That, brief non-event though this was, it had produced enough vivid imagery, and subliminal messages, to be a boon to Gillard's political enemies – and anybody out there with an interest in undermining powerful women?
How the world loves a reductive visual take on women in power. Remember Margaret Thatcher leaving Downing Street for the final time "in tears"? Except this didn't happen. To me, in tears means someone who is crying uncontrollably, into sodden hankies – the works. Thatcher's eyes glistened and there was one small tear, maybe a couple. Still, this shot, of her in the back of the car pops up frequently, perhaps less as evidence of Thatcher's innate humanity and more her disappointing femininity. The Iron Lady successfully recast as a big old crybaby.
With Hillary Clinton, some put her success in the 2008 New Hampshire primaries down to her showing her "feminine" side, with some strategic eye-misting. Finally, everyone rejoiced, here was the "real Hillary"! Really? I'd have thought that the real Hillary was not The Crying Lady, but the political fireball who wasn't going to let being female, and being married to a serial shagger, get in the way of her long-held ambitions. When Condoleezza Rice refused to lose self-control in front of the cameras, she was branded a frigid robot.
This is not, I hope, to concoct specious links between such examples and Ms Gillard. Take it, rather, as an attempt to illustrate just how difficult it can be for all politicians, 'especially female ones, when visual images race out of their control. Indeed, this is what felt unsettling about Canberra. In a wider sense, it's good that the world was reminded, at least in passing, of the Aboriginal point of view. However, it was also a gift for those who enjoy seeing powerful women cut down to size.
In the end, it didn't matter that not much happened, or that Gillard's bodyguards probably overreacted. What mattered was the footage of the female PM stumbling along, shoeless, apparently cowering, being "saved" by a male. It doesn't take a genius or a paranoiac to deduce how that played to the macho hordes. In many ways, it was a female take on the Neil Kinnock falling into the sea money shot – footage that fundamentally meant nothing, but could be exploited forever more as "proof" of the subject's inherent unsuitability.
Time will tell whether the Canberra footage keeps resurfacing during future election campaigns. My bet is that, irrelevant though it is, Gillard won't have seen the last of the footage.
via: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/29/barbara-ellen-julia-gilla...
Thinkers - Tim Flannery - The power index | #carbontax #carbonprice #cp
Chief Climate Commissioner
Age: 56
Born in: He grew up in Sandringham, VIC.
Foes: Andrew Bolt | Ray Hadley | Alan Jones
Flannery on
FORMER LIFE
Flannery has degrees in arts and geology and a PhD in palaeontologyTim Flannery has perhaps the most unenviable job in the country: explaining to the Australian public why they should pay for pollution before the rest of the world.
It means he's got influence, as anyone with the ear of government should. But it has also made him some powerful enemies. And they're not afraid to hit him with a tsunami of tongue-lashings, criticising his credentials, methods and predictions.
"Tim is right at the heart of the climate change debate," prominent writer, academic and former ALP staffer Tim Soutphommasane tells The Power Index.
"That he's such a target of the News Limited papers and talkback radio shock jocks testifies to his stature: he is a scalp that those opposing the carbon tax want to claim."
As head of the Gillard government's newly-created independent Climate Commission, it's no surprise Flannery is spat with venom from foes in the media. To them, he is public enemy number one: they disagree with his reading of the science; they're opposed to his advocacy for taxing the economy.
Most notably, it's the conservative columnists, in lockstep with talkback tsars like Ray Hadley and Alan Jones, who are the quickest to feed on anything that can be used to discredit Flannery's work.
Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and others, pitchforks in hand, regularly deride him as an "alarmist" or a "fear monger", while fellow keyboard culture warriors Tim Blair and Piers Akerman laughingly refer to him as a "professor of warmenology", "rich Labor luvvie" and one of Julia Gillard's "claque of handsomely-paid shills".
But it's not just the frothing tabloid media that has a problem with him, Flannery also has his critics in the more measured scientific community as well.
While many praise his skills as a communicator (he's a prize-winning author of books like The Future Eaters and The Weather Makers), they say his good work is often unraveled by making daunting forecasts which are yet to be proven.
Stated claims that Perth could be the 21st century's "first ghost metropolis" and that sea levels could rise by "eight storeys" are regularly dredged up to damage his credibility.
"He does occasionally make mistakes," says Melbourne University climatologist David Karoly, who works with Flannery at the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. "And so some of his statements on climate change science are not completely correct.
"But that's a relatively small number ... he is still a respected figure in climate change science, who is tackling a very difficult task."
Flannery also attracts heat for talking outside his area of expertise. While the Akubra-wearing naturalist may be a polymath, with degrees in arts and geology and a doctorate in palaeontology, one thing he is not is a climate scientist.
Still, as Karoly tells The Power Index, Flannery knows his stuff and is an effective "translator" of the climate science advice he has received. And, according to childhood friend and naturalist Bob McDonald, criticism from the cheap seats is unlikely to bother him anyway.
"Tim's answer to [opponents] could be to say 'well then how the fuck are you qualified?', but he doesn't. He just lets it go over his head," he says.
But that doesn't mean invectives go unnoticed. When The Power Index arrives for an interview in the lobby of a Melbourne hotel, Flannery is reading a copy of The Australian. It's an almost masochistic choice for someone who has felt the full force of the paper.
"I just find it a very useful insight into right-wing thinking in Australia," Flannery tells The Power Index when sitting around the corner on a park bench in Treasury Gardens. "I never buy it, but I will read it."
Minus his trademark Akubra and khaki get-up, the bald and bearded Flannery is miles away from the bumbling tree-hugging caricature his enemies often portray him as. He's in an open-necked white shirt with a leather jacket slung over one shoulder, giving off the casual air of an academic walking through the quad to get a coffee.
And as the interview progresses, it doesn't take long for him to fall into his consuming passion as a naturalist. On a couple of occasions he interrupts our discussion and identifies a family of wood ducks waddling through the park.
But when The Power Index cites the regular attacks from some in the media, Flannery's casual mood darkens ever so slightly.
"A little bit?" he chimes in half-jokingly. "That's an understatement. It's like watching footy, as soon as the team starts playing the man rather than the ball you know they're on a really bad losing streak ... and we are winning, we've had some big wins the past 12 months."
An example he gives is last month's climate talks in Durban. Flannery says the commitment that came out of the forum -- nearly 190 nations including the US and China agreed to form a pact to cut emissions by 2015 -- was encouraging.
"I was much more pessimistic than that," he says. "I don't think people realise quite how rapid progress has been over the past three years on dealing with the issue of climate change. People will look back and say that was extraordinary."
Still, he knows he faces an uphill battle to convince the community action is needed. The climate debate has become increasingly bitter in the past few years, particularly with the introduction of the Gillard government's carbon price. The opposition, lobby groups and sections of the media have used that policy to paint the federal government, along with Flannery, as destroyers of jobs and the economy.
"I've seen it first hand where you have a community of coal miners who have always had the view that theirs is a very proud and honourable profession," he says. "And you come in and say, 'actually what you're digging up here is destroying our children's futures'. For them it is deeply confronting."
On dealing with those who have the most to lose from action on climate change, Flannery admits his side of the debate has not been sufficiently empathetic.
"I think that's why we get so much misunderstanding and contention, we need to think through the impacts," he says, before adding: "It doesn't mean you pull back from what you're saying or believe, [but] great leadership in this area is one that is empathic and not combative."
Raised in Sandringham, in Melbourne's south-east, Flannery says seeing things like Red Bluff cliffs being used as a rubbish tip galvanised what would become his modern crusade.
He studied arts at Latrobe University before moving on to do a masters in geology at Monash University in the 1980s. After that he completed a PhD in palaeontology at UNSW, before going on to hold a series of academic roles, including working as director of the South Australian Museum.
He's written reams of published work and counts broadcaster Sir David Attenborough as his biggest influence.
"He was pretty wild," remembers Bob McDonald, who used to go fossil hunting with Flannery in Beaumaris. "He could be ruthless in what he did. But he has this hyper-intelligence that he's still got. He had this most unbelievable ability to focus ... he could talk about getting drunk with mates or about an epic trip one minute and then really complex biology the other."
So how would the man himself like to be remembered?
"I was in a cemetery in London last year, just trying to get over some jetlag having a look at the headstones. It was a military cemetery, and this one gravestone cracked me up, it just said 'he did his best'," Flannery says, holding back a trademark giggle.
"First of all I thought 'I hope they never put that on my gravestone', but then I thought perhaps it's actually appropriate ... as long as it's not boring."
Tom Cowie Monday, 30 January 2012
Older men on average income targets of work discrimination
MALE workers on average salaries are the biggest victims of age discrimination, a new study shows.
More than one-third of workers aged 50 and over who earn about $70,000 reported having experienced age-related discrimination, the survey of 500 workers revealed.
This was a much higher rate than reported by low-paid or high-paid workers.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The survey, for the Financial Services Council, which represents financial planners, found three in 10 of the surveyed workers aged 50 and over had suffered age discrimination.
The study's author, Nicholas Wright, of Westfield Wright, said the problem of age discrimination was most stark among those in the "middle" of the Australian workforce, particularly white-collar men.
By far the most common form of age discrimination was to be sacked or made redundant before others, the study found.
Inflexible employer attitudes that saw white collar men as "full-time or nothing" contributed to the problems of unfair treatment and early retrenchment of older workers, the study says.
"If a 54-year-old male accountant requested to work three days a week it would probably be denied," Mr Wright said. On the other hand, the study found some older men were unwilling to accept a drop in pay or status even as they expressed the desire for more flexible arrangements.
The study, Attitudes to Older Workers, also reports on interviews with 24 human resource managers and recruiters in small, medium and large businesses.
Their responses revealed that since the global financial crisis older workers had become more exposed because of cost. "Rather than keep older workers on or retrain them it is often far cheaper to simply retrench them," the report says.
Also contributing to age discrimination was a "cult of youth" among managers and executives who were now mainly aged 30-50 and preferred to deal with people the same age or younger.
"Employer representatives … argued that older workers need to accept the reality that the days of a 'job for life' in one's 50s and 60s are over - and embrace new possibilities in order to extend their working life," the study says.
Mr Wright said business and government needed to consider ways that older workers could transition to a part-time role, as mentors or "elder statesmen".
Figures released last week from the Bureau of Statistics revealed 18 per cent of unemployed people aged 45 and over said the main reason they had difficulty finding work was because employers considered them too old.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/older-men-on-average-income-targets-of-work-di...
Personal first hand account of events that led to Gillard and Abbott’s dramatic “escape” and subsequent clash between police and demonstrators from the Aboriginal Tent Embassy | Fieldnotes & Footnotes
On the morning of the 26th of January hundreds of people gathered at the Australian National University for a welcome, music, dancing and talks before embarking on an organized march up to Parliament House and around and back to the Aboriginal Tent Embassy near Old Parliament House. The march was fantastic and we arrived at the Tent Embassy in the highest of spirits.
Some time after the march we were milling about with some people listening to speakers etc., when word spread that Tony Abbott had been reported as saying that the Tent Embassy is no longer needed, that people should just “move on”. Not only this – but that he himself – right now – was no more than 50 meters away at the Porkbarrel café.
We brisk-walked over to the café. In the main the feeling was that we should tell Abbott what we thought of his comments. There was also a feeling of outrage and disbelief – that he would be so insensitive and disrespectful to say such a thing and then think it peaceably dandy and fine to dine and quaff champagne at the closest possible venue to the Aboriginal Tent Embassy at the very moment they are celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Tent Embassy and reasserting their people’s right or claim to sovereignty. It seemed almost unimaginable.
At this stage many people (including myself) were not aware that Gillard was also there.
When we reached the café we could barely believe our eyes – the café walls were double-glazed clear-as-clear-day glass. We could see absolutely everything that was going on inside and the venue itself was tiny – it was a tiny little fishbowl and we gathered around to see. And what did we’ith see? There before our eyes was not only Tony Abbott but Tony Abbott with the Honorable PM Julia Gillard, quaffing champagne and schmoozing. They were no more than five meters away and divided only by glass.
The café had three glass side-walls and we gathered around two of them. There were two doors to the café (neither of which were locked as far as we know). One of these doors was on the side where no one was gathered (until later in the piece).
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Only a maximum wage can end the great pay robbery | The Guardian AusUnions
The successful bank robber no longer covers his face and leaps over the counter with a sawn-off shotgun. He arrives in a chauffeur-driven car, glides into the lift then saunters into an office at the top of the building. No one stops him. No one, even when the scale of the heist is revealed, issues a warrant for his arrest. The modern robber obtains prior approval from the institution he is fleecing.
The income of corporate executives, which the business secretary Vince Cable has just failed to address, is a form of institutionalised theft, arranged by a kleptocratic class for the benefit of its members. The wealth that was once spread more evenly among the staff of a company, or distributed as lower prices or higher taxes, is now siphoned off by people who have neither earned nor generated it.
Over the past 10 years, chief executives' pay has risen nine times faster than that of the median earner. Some bosses (British Gas, Xstrata and Barclays for example) are now being paid over 1,000 times the national median wage. The share of national income captured by the top 0.1% rose from 1.3% in 1979 to 6.5% by 2007.
These rewards bear no relationship to risk. The bosses of big companies, though they call themselves risk-takers, are 13 times less likely to be sacked than the lowest paid workers. Even if they lose their jobs and never work again, they will have invested so much and secured such generous pensions and severance packages that they'll live in luxury for the rest of their lives. The risks are carried by other people.
The problem of executive pay is characterised by Cable and many others as a gap between reward and performance. But it runs deeper than that, for three reasons. As the writer Dan Pink has shown, it's not just that there is currently no visible link between performance and pay; but high pay actually reduces performance. Material rewards incentivise simple mechanistic jobs: working on an assembly line, for example. But they lead to the poorer execution of tasks which require problem-solving and cognitive skills. As studies for the US Federal Reserve and other such bolsheviks show, cash incentives narrow people's focus and restrict the range of their thinking. By contrast, intrinsic motivators — such as a sense of autonomy, of enhancing your skills and pursuing a higher purpose — tend to improve performance.
Even the 0.1% concede that money is not what drives them. Bernie Ecclestone says: "I doubt if any successful business person works for money … money is a by-product of success. It's not the main aim." Jeroen van der Veer, formerly the chief executive of Shell, recalls, "if I had been paid 50% more, I would not have done it better. If I had been paid 50% less, then I would not have done it worse". High pay is both counterproductive and unnecessary.
The second reason is that, as the psychologist Daniel Kahneman has shown, performance in the financial sector is random, and the belief of traders and fund managers that they are using skill to beat the market is a cognitive illusion. A link between pay and results is a reward for blind luck.
Most importantly, the wider consequences of grotesque inequality bear no relationship to entitlement. Obscene rewards for success are as socially corrosive as obscene rewards for failure. They reduce social mobility, enhance plutocratic power and allow the elite to inflict astonishing levels of damage on the environment. They create resentment and reduce the motivation of other workers, who see the greedy bosses as the personification of the company.
Cable has announced four main policies: more transparency, a requirement that companies should "report" on boardroom diversity, a mechanism for clawing back pay settlements not justified by the company's performance, and granting shareholders binding powers to block excessive rewards. They are likely to be almost useless – or worse. Pay transparency, while of general interest, can create the perverse result that executives discover how much their rivals are getting, and use the information to demand more. The clawback mechanism will be inserted into the corporate governance code. This is voluntary, and its existing provisions are widely ignored.
Shareholder power is likely to be illusory. As Prem Sikka has shown, the proportion of stock owned by individuals fell from 47% in 1969 to 10% in 2008, while the percentage in foreign hands has risen from 7% to 42%. Why should oil sheikhs care about social justice in the UK? And most traders hold shares too briefly to take an interest in the inner workings of a company. As Rob Taylor, formerly the chief executive of Kleinwort Benson, points out, if shareholders don't like the way a company is run, they don't hang around to change it; they sell up and move on.
Labour's policies seem designed to sound tough but change little. Like Cable, its spokesman Chuka Umunna talks of transparency and simplicity (which are both worthy aims) but not of holding down pay. Labour has based its policy on the findings of the High Pay Commission, which have been widely hailed as revolutionary. I've read the commission's final report, and can find no justification for this description. Its recommendations are, to be frank, pathetic. With the possible exception of employee representation on pay committees, the 12 measures it proposes are likely to make only a marginal difference. Nowhere does it suggest anything resembling the obvious means of capping executive pay: namely, er, capping executive pay.
So what should be done? The UK government imposes a minimum wage, and even the neoliberal coalition appears to accept that this is a necessary intervention in the market. So why should it not impose a maximum wage?
I'm not talking about ratios or relative earnings. Various bodies have proposed that there should be a fixed ratio of the top earnings within a company to either the median or lowest salaries. But as a report on this issue by the New Economics Foundation shows, the first measurement quickly becomes complex and opaque, the second creates an incentive to contract out the lowest paid work. I'm talking about an absolute maximum, applied nationwide.
Let's say £500,000 a year, a figure that includes bonuses, share options, pensions and benefits. It will rise with inflation, but no faster than that. If you want to make more, you can invest in a risky venture of your own or someone else's. If you want to make more money as a salaried worker – in other words while other people carry the risks – you can go abroad, and good riddance to you. Another country, incautious enough to set no cap, can deal with the consequences of your destructive greed.
The feeble measures proposed by the government will do nothing to prevent the great pay robbery. If Vince Cable intended to limit executive pay, he would limit it. But he knows who his masters are, and the policies he has announced are intended to create only a semblance of action.
A fully referenced version of this article can be found at www.monbiot.com
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Brisbane's great strike remembered
One of the most provocative strikes in Brisbane's history took place in the middle of the city exactly 100 years ago today, prompting a re-enactment at Ferny Grove.
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbanes-great-strike-remembered-...
Australia Day Honours for Station Officer Camilleri - Fire and Rescue NSW #FRNSW
-->
Australia Day Honours for Station Officer Camilleri
27th January 2012
Fire & Rescue NSW (FRNSW) Commissioner Greg Mullins today congratulated Werri Beach resident, Station Officer Anthony Camilleri, on being named in this year’s Australia Day Honours.
Station Officer Anthony Camilleri was one of three FRNSW officers awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal, one of the highest honours an Australian firefighter can receive.
Commissioner Mullins said that Station Officer Camilleri had been an asset to FRNSW since joining 25 years ago. He is currently a Station Commander at Wollongong Fire Station.
“Station Officer Camilleri is an experienced and committed officer who has given FRNSW and the community more than two decades of outstanding service.
“He has acquired significant technical expertise in building collapse rescue operations and has demonstrated a unique ability to teach other FRNSW personnel about specialist rescue incidents. He has been a major influence in rescue training techniques across NSW.
“In 2009, in company with two other FRNSW firefighters, he rode a bicycle 4,000 kilometres across Australia from Perth to Wollongong, through the Nullabor Desert to raise over $15,000.00 for Camp Quality.
“Station Officer Camilleri is widely respected within and outside FRNSW for his dedication and enthusiasm in serving the community and I am delighted that he is being honoured in this way.”
- Retained recruitment
- Services
- Publications
- Media releases
- Fire safety forms
- Fire safety for business
- Smoke alarms
- Factsheets
- Recovery - After the fire
- Community Fire Units
- Find a fire station
Floods and storms information
For information about floods and storms - visit www.ses.nsw.gov.au or call the general information hotline on 1800 227 228For floods and storms emergency help, call the SES emergency line on 132 500
Congrats to my mate Tony....
Friday, January 27, 2012
SITREP No. 4/2012 | FBEU
SITREP No. 4/2012
January 27, 2012
Inside in this issue:
FBEU rule changes adopted
Retained Phase 2 Training and Basic Life Support
Movement of Hazmat Van from Lithgow to Katoomba banned
FBEU Rule Changes adopted
In SITREPs 49/2011 and 50/2011, members were notified of changes to the Union’s Rules adopted by the State Committee of Management. A request for a plebiscite upon the decision of the State Committee of Management, signed by at least one fortieth of the financial members of the Union, was not received by 20 January 2012. Consequently the amendments, subject to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and the Regulations, came into operation on that date.
As at 20 January 2012, the Union’s financial membership stood at 6,319, meaning 157 signatures were required for a plebiscite. A total of 64 signatures requesting a plebiscite on changes to Rule 14 (Meetings of State Committee of Management), Rule 25 (Candidates) and Rule 51 (Sub-Branches) were received. A further 59 signatures were received on a form that failed to specify which rule changes were the subject of a request for a plebiscite, and a further 13 signatures were received after close of business on 20 January, giving a total of 136 signatures.
The new Rules include a number of modest but effective reforms to the democratic operation of our Union. Please don’t hesitate to call either myself at the Union office, or your local State Committee representative, for more information.
Retained Phase 2 Training and Basic Life Support
The Union has written to the Department regarding the attachment of Basic Life Support Training to the two day Phase 2 Training Program, thus making the initial training program for Retained Firefighters four days in duration. State Committee this week endorsed the proposal on the basis that:
a) the initiative is likely to result in employee related cost savings, including but not limited to savings arising out of reduced travel costs and reduced overtime worked by instructors on the weekends, which the Union shall include in upcoming Award negotiations; and
b) the Department and Union shall develop an agreed method for measuring any savings generated out of this initiative; and
c) the four day Phase Two training shall be reviewed over the next 12 months;
and that discussions regarding point b), any associated implementation matters and the review process should commence as soon as possible with the view of reaching an agreement prior to March 2012, which is when the new program is due to commence.
Movement of Hazmat Van from Lithgow to Katoomba banned
Also at last Wednesday’s meeting, State Committee banned the movement of the HAZMAT van from Lithgow to Katoomba fire station until such time that the Department liaises with the FBEU and addresses the concerns of members at Lithgow station, and that it is recognised that the move is contrary to current Departmental policy of not having dual qualification stations, for example, rescue/HAZMAT at the one station.
Jim Casey
State Secretary
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice #Auspol
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.
"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.
Controversy ahead
The findings combine three hot-button topics.
"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."
Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]
"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."
Brains and bias
Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]
In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.
Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)
As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.
People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.
"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.
A study of averages
Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.
"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.
Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.
"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."
Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.
"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."
In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]
Simple viewpoints
Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.
The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.
"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."
Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.
"There may be cognitive limits in the ability to take the perspective of others, particularly foreigners," Hodson said. "Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.
via:http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html
Newman has bad Australia Day in #QLD « Ambit Gambit
The chances that Labor might hold Ashgrove at the next election just rose after Campbell Newman’s Australia Day performance in the electorate.
While he handled the predictable photo-op with incumbent Kate Jones appropriately, that seems to be where it stopped, at least on the basis of those segments run by the Channel 7 news this evening.
The mistakes were huge and will echo through the campaign.
Newman promised to pour money into the electorate saying words to the effect that there is a big advantage in having the premier as your member.
While I am sure that there are many electors making just those calculations no-one likes to think that someone else thinks they can buy them, which is the message that Newman was pushing.
At the same time it says that other Queenslanders will be second class under a Newman administration and that while he might be talking-up fiscal responsibility he is prepared to spend whatever it takes.
This will play into perceptions that he is reckless, and has put Brisbane in a situation of untenable debt – a theme which appears in my qualitative research – and undermines his critique of the Labor administration as being financially irresponsible.
So in one fell move he has insulted electors, raised issues of propriety, undermined his own attack on the government and given Labor the television footage to package it all in a neat effective attack ad. Not bad for a few minutes work.
But it gets worse – he undermined his own CanDo brand.
He was asked whether he would doorknock this afternoon. It’s Australia Day, and a holiday, so he could have begged-off with some reasonable excuse, but his response was that it was “a bit warm this afternoon”.
Newman made his name as CanDo Campbell, the energiser bunny of Queensland politics. He contrasted himself to the grey, dour and lackadaisical incumbent Tim Quinn.
Residents would ring up with a pothole problem, Campbell would turn-up with his council team and some hot mix to fix it. When City Hall was contacted for comment they at least once said that Campbell wasn’t allowed to do this because it was in breach of health and safety laws. That summed it all up.
So did the footage this afternoon where Campbell looked a bit like a fat cat all done up in a suit and off home to have a beer with his cronies while his opponent was shown in frock and hat, sweat on brow, knocking on doors in her electorate. Another attack ad.
Newman may have been ambushed on the door knocking issue, and it’s always possible that Kate Jones finished her door knocking just after the cameras left, but he has no excuse for the last error. That was to suggest that Premier Anna Bligh should pay her own ticket for attending Cyclone Yasi commemorations.
It allowed Bligh to draw attention to Newman’s unorthodox position as an opposition leader without a seat – another negative in the qual.
On top of the other gaffes it also looked unreasonable. Newman needs to look like a future premier, not just another whinger.
I think most electors would regard the attendance of the premier at a public function as part of the office, even in an election campaign. That is one of the spoils of office.
The fact that Campbell has to pay for himself is just how the cookie crumbles. The complaint may tend to play into an argument that Newman is taking on airs and taking electors for granted, a necessary plank of the campaign that Labor needs to wage which will centre on making Newman, rather than Bligh, the issue.
If he wants to complain about anything he should keep complaining about the use of government advertising. There is fertile ground there as most people resent government advertising to start with, and there is wide support for the proposition that Bligh should have gone into caretaker mode immediately.
Not a good Australia Day for Newman.
Volunteer organisations warn of #OHS burden - ABC Newcastle NSW
Organisations which rely heavily on volunteers are warning they will have to have cut back on services because of changes to health and safety laws around the nation.
Under the law changes, volunteers are considered as workers and organisations say it will cost them more money.
Latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show a staggering 6.4 million people do unpaid work.
Some volunteers deliver meals to the sick and the elderly. Others supervise scout camps or work as marshals at community events like Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras.
But according to health and safety expert Ken Phillips, this is about to change.
"Everyone is now exposed in a way that they have not been exposed in the past and the expectations on them now are to have the full resources around occupational health and safety (OHS) that you would expect of a government department, BHP, Coles Myer et cetera, et cetera," he said.
The new laws redefine volunteers as workers for health and safety purposes, which means they now have a duty to do what is reasonably practicable to prevent injury.
Breaches to those laws can attract large fines with volunteers facing penalties of up to $300,000.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Castro says US Republican presidential race is competition of ‘idiocy and ignorance’ - The Washington Post
Text Size PrintE-mailReprints
By Associated Press, Thursday, January 26, 2:40 AM
HAVANA — Fidel Castro lambasted the Republican presidential race as the greatest competition of “idiocy and ignorance” the world has ever seen in a column published Wednesday, and also took shots at the news media and foreign governments for seizing on the death of a Cuban prisoner to demand greater respect for human rights.
Castro’s comments came in a long opinion piece carried by official media two days after Republican presidential hopefuls at a debate in Florida presented mostly hard-line stances on what to do about the Communist-run island, and even speculated as to what would happen to the 85-year-old revolutionary leader’s soul when he dies.
PM dragged away after being trapped by protesters #Ausmedia # Auspol
Gillard dragged from protest
Prime Minister and Opposition Leader dragged to safety after angry protest in Canberra.
Autoplay OnOffVideo feedbackVideo settings
The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, had to be extracted from a restaurant near Parliament House as angry protesters banged on the glass.
Supporters of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra picketed the Lobby restaurant over comments by Mr Abbott this morning that the tent embassy should close.
As many as 200 gathered in front of the restaurant, banging on its glass walls and yelling "shame" and "racist".
Advertisement: Story continues below
Julia Gillard is dragged away from the protest by her security officers. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm---dragged-away-after-being-trapped-by--prot...
Perisher fire station debate becomes heated @fbeu - Summit Sun
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Four more join ranks at fire #FRNSW Station @FBEU VIA: Central Western Daily
Four more join ranks at fire station
BY TRACEY PRISK
25 Jan, 2012 04:00 AM
FIRE and Rescue NSW confirmed four new retained firefighters will join Orange Fire Station by the middle of this year.
Regional West 2 acting zone commander, superintendent Selwyn Mathias said five people had already completed various stages of the recruitment process, having all passed the interview stage.
While there are only four positions available, an extra person has been selected as a back up, should one of the others fail a component of the recruitment process.
Superintendent Mathias said the retained firefighters would help supplement the numbers of permanent firefighters and ensure the station’s second truck was always available and had a mandatory crew of four.
“Prior to Christmas (there were times) the pump didn’t respond because it didn’t have the number of firefighters needed,” he said.
He confirmed the Orange Fire Station was then forced to call upon other fire crews to help service their callouts.
Superintendent Mathias said the decision to increase the number of retained firefighters came as a direct response to these personnel shortages, which occurred in the lead-up to Christmas.
The new recruits will raise the number of retained firefighters in Orange from 18 to 22.
Orange station's extra fire power @FBEU | Central Western Daily #FRNSW
Orange station's extra fire power
BY NADINE MORTON
25 Jan, 2012 04:00 AM
UNDERSTAFFING issues that plagued Orange Fire Station during 2011 have been resolved.
Fire and Rescue NSW confirmed four new retained firefighters would join the Orange station by the middle of the year.
The appointment comes after the Fire Brigade Employees Union revealed Orange’s second fire truck was regularly unable to respond to calls due to a staff shortage.
The union stated the truck was “off line” up to 70 times in one month.
“The station didn’t have the minimum number of retained [firefighters] the department said they could have,” the union’s country sub branch secretary Tim Anderson said.
Mr Anderson said the shortage of firefighters on a second truck had safety implications for firefighters and the community, with help then having to come from Molong, Blayney or Bathurst.
He said the changes in staffing numbers allowed for permanent firefighters to be called in for emergencies and the station’s second truck to be staffed.
The Orange Fire Station is staffed by a combination of permanent staff and retained firefighters, who are on-call for the fire service while working other jobs.
“Give credit where credits due, they have responded,” Mr Anderson said of Fire and Rescue NSW.
Mr Anderson said member for Orange Andrew Gee and pressure from the media late last year forced the changes.
“Ironically the policy was changed within a week of that media [pressure],” he said.
“It’s a great win for firefighters and the community of Orange.”
nadine.morton@ruralpre ss.com
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
#Toyota cuts 350 Altona jobs
All the job losses will be forced redundancies, covering blue and white collar workers involved across the company's manufacturing activities.
More than 3300 workers gathered at the Altona plant in a highly orchestrated company-wide briefing, to hear Toyota Australia president Max Yasuda announce the job cuts.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Camry production at Toyota's Altona assembly line.
It is the latest blow to the car industry, which is increasingly reliant on government handouts for survival, caught with outmoded classes of cars as consumers increasingly opt for small cars and SUVs ahead of locally build big sedans.
Earlier today, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union was still in the dark over job-loss plans.
Toyota had reneged on its commitment in the enterprise bargaining agreement signed last month to consult with the union ahead of any job cuts, said Ian Jones, the federal secretary of the union's vehicle building division.
"It's extraordinary that there procedures in the agreement laid out for how you handle these things, and Toyota is simply not following any of them," Mr Jones said.
He said voluntary redundancy terms included four weeks pay in lieu of notice and three weeks pay for every year of service. If insufficient workers elected to take the packages, and the company tried to force redundancies, then the union would push for a much more generous package for workers forced to quit, Mr Jones said.
"It will be far more substantial if we have to renegotiate," he said.Last year, Toyota Australia produced about 94,000 cars, exporting about 60,000 of them mainly to the Middle East and 13 other smaller overseas markets.
But those figures are almost 40 per cent shy of the company's peak output of almost 149,000 cars in 2007.
The Altona assembly line is the heart of Toyota's operations, employing, until the cuts, 3350 people in assembly, painting, parts and logistics.
The company employs 4700 overall, including in their corporate head office in Port Melbourne, warehousing, sales and marketing in Sydney and regional offices in all states that liaise between the company and its 211 dealers nationwide.
Despite the cuts, Toyota spokesman Glenn Campbell said the company was in for a busy year, with the introduction of the latest-generation petrol-electric Hybrid Camry in late February or March, and a refreshed Aurion six-cylinder in April and a new engine plant to produce four cylinder engines due to be completed by year's end.
The parent company's decision to commit to a new $300 million engine plant designed to produce 100,000 engines a year was a "very positive sign for manufacturing, as the cycle for engine investment is every 10 years".
Until the new factory is operational, engines would continue to be crated from Japan.
Poll: Does the car industry in Australia have a future?
Good life for some as down time creeps up thanks to #AusUnions | News.com.au
FOR the average Aussie, it seems time really is on our side.
Guilty workers craving more quality hours with kids, a growth in part-time and casual jobs, and retiring Baby Boomers are contributing to an increasing life of leisure, analysts say.
The average Australian now has 78.1 hours a week for shopping, entertainment, eating out, sport and other popular pursuits, the Herald Sun reported.
That's an extra 1.7 hours a week compared with 11 years ago.
This is tipped to rise to 78.4 hours a week - or 11.2 hours a day - by 2025.
Almost a quarter of our down time is being wiled away in front of computers due to the rapid growth of the internet and social media, according to business forecaster IBISWorld.
Senior analyst Naren Sivasailam said stressed workers worried about their health or being away from children too much were freeing up more time at home.
"While we do want to work, we also want to spend time with families ... and spend that meaningfully," Mr Sivasailam said.
Leisure hours would continue to rise as more people paid others to do domestic chores, he said.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/down-time-creeps-up-on-aussies/story-e6frfm1i...
