Posts Tagged ‘accountable government’

Tony Abbott’s $100 Million Broken Promise on Westmead Hostpital

The Abbott Government has broken its promise not to cut hospital funding by slashing funding for Westmead Hospital by $100 million.

Treasurer Joe Hockey also slashed $12 million in funding for St George Hospital, $10 million in funding for Nepean Hospital and $6 million for a new MRI at Mount Druitt Hospital.

The $100m for Westmead Hospital was funding the first stage of redeveloping Westmead Hospital. The total redevelopment would include

a new six or seven story ‘stack’ to consolidate the complex and critical care unit;

  • an expansion of outpatient and ambulatory care;
  • refurbishment of existing infrastructure; and
  • the repositioning of the front of the hospital.

Tony Abbott’s broken promise will hurt families who rely on Westmead Hospital and the critical services it provides.

Before the election, Tony Abbott promised not to cut hospital funding – now he has cut $100 million from Westmead Hospital and other hospitals in Sydney.

These health initiatives were axed by the Abbott Government on Tuesday:

In yesterday’s MYEFO, the Abbott Government confirms the funding cut on page 104.

COMMUNITY OUTRAGE AT O’FARRELL DECISION TO DUMP RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT KEMPS CREEK

At a public meeting in Penrith last night, Western Sydney residents have expressed alarm at Barry O’Farrell’s decision to dump 5000 tonnes of radioactive waste at Kemps Creek – a stunning breach of his promise before the 2011 election.

“Barry O’Farrell is ploughing ahead with taking radioactive dirt from Hunters Hill and dumping it on the people of Western Sydney,” Shadow Environment Minister Luke Foley said today.

This is a broken promise of epic proportions.  Mr O’Farrell assured the community that this transfer would never happen – yet tonight he dispatched his bureaucrats as the fall guys for his broken promise.

  • “To dump it in Western Sydney is stupid, it’s a threat, and it’s not the way any government ought to be behaving.” Barry O’Farrell, October 2010

Last month, the O’Farrell Government issued its Final Environmental Assessment for the waste transfer – confirming local residents’ worst fears:

  • “During the proposed Remediation Works, there exists the potential for some groups of people to receive an increase in radiation exposure.” (page 124, 8.1 Radiological Hazards)
  •  ”The half-lives of the radionuclides present in the impacted soils at the site are long, and radioactivity may not attenuate for hundreds of years. As a consequence, any waste management solution would need to be effective in the very long term.” (page 148)
  •  ”In the short term there would be some environmental impacts which would require mitigation [including] …risk of ingestion/exposure to contaminated material containing radioactive tailings and chemical compounds.” (page 233)

“The Premier’s own experts have confirmed that this soil is so toxic it will need to be monitored for radioactive decay until at least the 24th century AD.  Mr O’Farrell is condemning the people of Western Sydney to 300 years of risk from radioactive material sitting within metres from streets and homes. This decision says it all about Barry O’Farrell’s real attitude to Western Sydney.”

Penrith Labor councillor Prue Car said: “Barry O’Farrell is putting the local community last. The Government can hold public meetings until it is blue in the face – the blunt truth is Mr O’Farrell misled us.
“If this soil isn’t dangerous why not keep it in Hunters Hill?  ”If it is dangerous – none of us in Western Sydney want a bar of it.”

 

O’Farrell Government’s Attacks and Cuts

Since taking office in March 2011, Barry O’Farrell and his Government have made a number of cuts to funding, jobs, workers’ rights and services. Here is an overview of what the workers of NSW have endured thus far.


Attacks on Workers’ Rights

Taken Control of IRC and Frozen Wages

-                   The Government passed the Industrial Relations (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Act 2011. Consequently the Government has given itself complete power to determine wage increases (or not) and conditions for public sector staff through Regulations which do not have to pass any votes in the Parliament.

-                   The Industrial Relations Commission has had its power to arbitrate wage disputes removed.

-                   So far, the Government has frozen wage increases for public sector workers at 2.5%. Whilst the O’Farrell Government has claimed this will not leave public sector workers worse off, the University of Sydney’s Workplace Research Centre found that a nurse would be $12, 232 worse off and a teacher $14, 580 worse off each year had the O’Farrell policy been applied over the past decade.

Attacked Injured Workers

-                   Government amendments to the Workers Compensation Act saw significant cuts to the support and compensation provided to injured workers.

-                   The cuts to Workers Compensation means weekly payments will cease after 2.5 years and medical costs will stop being paid after 3.5 years for most injured workers.

-                   Additionally, workers will have almost non-existent coverage for accidents on their way to or from work.

-                   No lump sum payments can be made for pain and suffering, regardless of the severity of the injury.

-                   Changes to weekly benefits, medical costs and duration of payments are to apply as soon as possible to existing claims.

-                   The O’Farrell government attributed the needs for the cuts to a ‘deficit’ in WorkCover. The cuts have shifted the blame of the ‘deficit’ onto injured workers, with the Government hoping for a reduction in insurance premiums for employers.

 

Stripped Police of their Death and Disability Protection

-                   The Government’s Police Amendment (Death and Disability) Act 2011 severely cut the support and rehabilitation provided to police who are injured on the job, as well as support for families of police officers killed at work.

Attacked Workers’ Rights to Fairly Bargain Collectively

-                   Currently before Parliament is the Government’s Industrial Relations Amendment (Dispute Orders) Bill 2012. If this Bill is passed, it will increase fines for taking industrial action from $10,000 a day to $110,000 a day.

-                   It is also important to remember as mentioned above that unions no longer have the right to independent arbitration over wages and conditions and unlike the Federal industrial relations system have no legal right to strike through protected action.

No Consultation around Significant Industrial Changes

-                   By way of example The Technical and Further Education Commission Amendment (Staff Employment) Act 2011 saw 13,000 TAFE teachers transferred to the Federal industrial relations system where they now fall under the Fair Work Act

-                   No consultations with unions or teachers were attempted prior to the introduction and subsequent passing of this Act.

-                   Similarly, Government abolished the Transport Appeals Board with no discussion with unions.

Forcing Retail Workers to Work on Public Holidays

-                   The Retail Trading Amendment Bill 2012 presented by the O’Farrell Government will allow all retailers to trade on Boxing Day and Easter Sunday which will see employees being forced to work on what should be a day for families.

-                   The Bill will also lead to backroom staff and staff of retail businesses working on Christmas Day and Good Friday.

 No Support for Equal Pay

-                   The most recent State budget has not allocated any funding to equal pay for social and community sector workers in line with the recent Fair Work findings.

-                   There are 30,000 community and public sector workers in NSW. Without NSW funding these workers will not receive the awarded increases in full which range from 19 – 41 per cent.

-                   Prior to the election O’Farrell promised social and community sector workers a fair and equitable pay rise.

Slashing Public Sector Entitlements

-                   The O’Farrell Government has applied to the NSW Industrial Relations Commission to change 98 different Public Sector Awards and enact massive cuts to entitlements and benefit.

-                   Some of the cuts include: slashing annual leave loading, cutting penalty rates for shift workers, removal of additional sick leave entitlements and parental leave.

Spotlight back on PPPs as BrisConnections falters

by Flavio Menezes

News that BrisConnections, which operate Brisbane’s Airport Link M7, has suspended trade on the ASX as it continues to talk with its debtors is likely to again lead to a debate about the role of Public-Private-Partnerships – or PPPs – in providing government infrastructure.

PPPs have been criticised in the wake of several high profile failures including Sydney’s cross-city tunnel, Brisbane’s Clem 7 tunnel and the consortium building the Ararat prison in Victoria, as well as the high cost to the public of PPPs undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s.

Supporters will argue that the PPP model works because ratepayers will be protected if the company that built and operated the tunnel fails.

Both sides are mistaken. Economic research suggests that PPPs can deliver better outcomes than traditional procurement but often governments choose PPPs for the wrong reasons and fail to take key steps to ensure their success.

Under public procurement, the government finances the construction phase of the infrastructure, tendering the construction to private parties. The operation and maintenance of the infrastructure also may be contracted to private parties.

Under a PPP, a government tenders a “bundle” consisting of financing, construction and operation to private parties. The contract is usually for a fixed period at the end of which the asset reverts back to the government.

An important advantage of PPPs is the potential efficiency gains from bundling the construction and operations/maintenance.

When bundling occurs, the winning firm minimises the total of construction and maintenance/operating costs. So design and construction are undertaken in a way to minimise the total cost of the project over its lifetime.

Another potential advantage from the involvement of private financing under a PPP is in avoiding the construction of politically motivated white elephants. Private parties will find it difficult to obtain financing for a project that is not commercially sound. Arguably, the PPP failures reported above could be related to the particular structure of those PPPs rather than the underlying economics of the projects.

There are also, however, wrong reasons for selecting PPPs over traditional procurement. For example, governments may favour PPPs over public tendering to alleviate its budget constraints. This argument is clearly wrong when PPPs involve direct government transfers, such as minimum income guarantees or other types of payments. It is also wrong to the extent that the PPP project is financed by user fees — a revenue stream which the government gives for the duration of the PPP contract.

Governments can be also attracted to PPPs because they perceive this model shifts the demand risk from the government to the private parties. This argument for choosing PPPs is erroneous for several reasons. Firstly, the private parties bearing demand risk do so in exchange for a risk premium. To the extent that they cannot influence demand, the government may be the best party to hold the risk. Secondly, the upshot of the financial difficulties with projects such as the M7 Airportlink is that it will be very difficult to find investors willing to finance similar ventures in the future.

Third, in a number of cases in Australia and overseas, governments have bailed out failed projects, for example, by renegotiating payments or taking equity stakes. In such cases governments ended up bearing at least some of the demand risk.

There are ways in which PPP tenders can be modified to allocate risk appropriately. For example, research developed over the past decade suggests a tender process that allocates risks appropriately. The key idea is to run a least-present value of revenue tender. The winner of the tender is the firm that has submitted the lowest required revenue (expressed in present value terms). The innovation of this process is that the duration of the concession is variable.

The contract only expires when the winner of the tender recovers the amount of revenue bid. This type of tender allocates the demand risk to the government, reducing financing costs and ensuring that the benefits of PPPs over public tender are realised. This approach has been successfully tested in Chile.

In the past decade, we have learned a lot about what works and what does not in PPPs. To avoid previous mistakes with PPPs, governments need to ensure that there is a robust process for evaluating PPPs. Moreover, closer attention needs to be paid in the design of PPP tenders and contracts, as suggested by both economic theory and international practice.

Flavio Menezes is a Professor of Economics and currently the Head of the School of Economics at the University of Queensland.

A longer version of this article is at Australian Policy Online.

Corby by-election: British Tories all talk on wind power

by Adam Corner

There are few cardinal sins in politics – but campaigning on behalf of your opponent has to be one of them. So when news broke this week that the British Conservative Party MP Chris Heaton Harris had boasted on camera of providing resources and support to an opposition anti-wind farm candidate in order to “cause some hassle”, it was widely expected that the axe would fall.

But instead, as the story developed, it transpired that this was a trail that led to the very centre of the Conservative Party.

In the end, the manouverings came to naught – Labour won the by-election easily, the first time it has taken a seat from the Tories in a by-election since just before Tony Blair’s seismic 1997 general election victory.

Heaton-Harris was caught in an undercover sting by the environmental campaign group Greenpeace. He was bragging that he had backed the anti-wind farm election campaign of the blogger and self-publicist James Delingpole, a far-right commentator whose pantomime-villain outbursts are typically treated as undeserving of serious engagement. Among the climate-sceptic elements of the Conservative Party, however, Delingpole appears to have carved out a role for himself as the mouthpiece for views that they dare not air in public.

Delingpole stood down as a candidate in the Corby by-election several weeks ago, prior to the video emerging. But not before the energy minister, John Hayes, gave an interview declaring that “enough was enough” for on shore wind. This was seemingly in direct contrast to official government policy, which favours a range of renewable technologies as part of an increasingly low-carbon energy mix.

And in potentially even more serious developments, a second Greenpeace film appeared to show the Chancellor, George Osborne, implicated in a plot to withdraw government support for onshore wind. This is despite its huge value to the British economy as a fully operational low-carbon technology.

When David Cameron boldly proclaimed that his would be the “greenest government ever”, following his election in 2010, he must have known the boast would come back to haunt him. And, although the UK is (currently) a world leader in terms of legally binding carbon reduction targets, some members of the Conservative Party look like they are doing everything they can to ensure these targets are unlikely to be met.

The Conservative central command would like to paint anti-wind zealots like Heaton-Harris as existing on the lunatic fringe of the party. But increasingly, it is looking like the MPs who represent the rural constituencies where wind turbines are typically sited are having a disproportionate effect on the Conservative Party. Although there has been no formal shift in energy policy, the “mood music” around the environment on the British right is worrying.

To be clear: opposing the siting of a wind farm cannot be equated with climate change scepticism. But the willingness of Conservative party representatives to promote and publicise the views of hardline anti-environmentalists like James Delingpole does not send out a good signal. And opposing on-shore wind without suggesting an alternative policy for reducing levels of carbon dioxide is tantamount to dismissing the risks that climate change poses.

The relationship between climate change scepticism and political ideology has been documented repeatedly and consistently in the US, the UK and Australia. But how to address it is an altogether trickier question.

There is a proud tradition of conservation and respect for the natural environment in the history of British Conservatism. But the “conserve” part of conservatism currently seems to apply only to the hyper-local, with debate focusing on the aesthetics of wind-farms instead of the value of clean, green energy for the whole of the UK.

Ultimately, the Conservative Party will lose its hard-fought status as an (allegedly) moderate, modern, compassionate, centre-right group if it associates itself with the extreme views of individuals like Delingpole. If the Conservatives don’t want wind farms across the UK, their challenge is to identify and implement another set of policies that will allow Britain’s carbon targets to be achieved – with the consent of the electorate.

Despite the noises coming from climate-sceptic Conservative MPs, wind farms – and renewable technologies in general – are very popular with the public. They are certainly more popular than nuclear power or fossil fuels.

Few credible energy future scenarios see no role for on-shore wind. If the Conservatives have evidence to the contrary, they should speak up. If not, they need to find a way of convincing their voters that climate change is the biggest threat to the environment that they supposedly want to conserve so much – not the wind turbines that can provide clean, abundant energy for the future.

Adam Corner is  a Research Associate in the Understanding Risk research group at Cardiff University.

This article was first published at www.theconversation.edu.au

 


Connect now

Subscribe

Subscribe to LAWCRIMEPOLITICS.COM

Email address:

Search

Progressing the Social Democratic Agenda