Mental health report and recommendations that the Abbott Government didn't want you to see until it had worked out how to pass the buck to the states

Australian Health Minister Sussan Ley has had the four-volume National Review of Mental Health Programmes and Services since 1 December 2014.

Despite the report being leaked to Crikey, she insisted on 15 April 2015 that; there was no sense in releasing the report before the Government had formulated a response.

On 19 April Crikey Insider sent out access links to all four volumes to its readers.

The Abbott Government has now released the full report which can be read at leisure on the Mental Health Commission website.

The report makes 25 recommendations:

Summary of recommendations

1. Set clear roles and accountabilities to shape a person-centred mental health system

Rec 1. Agree the Commonwealth’s role in mental health is through national leadership

and regional integration, including integrated primary and mental health care.

Rec 2. Develop, agree and implement a National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention

Plan with states and territories, in collaboration with people with lived

experience, their families and support people.

Rec 3. Urgently clarify the eligibility criteria for access to the National Disability

Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for people with disability arising from mental illness

and ensure the provision of current funding into the NDIS allows for a significant

Tier 2 system of community supports.

2. Agree and implement national targets and local organisational performance measures

Rec 4. Adopt a small number of important, ambitious and achievable national targets

to guide policy decisions and directions in mental health and suicide prevention.

Rec 5. Make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health a national priority and

agree an additional COAG Closing the Gap target specifically for mental health.

Rec 6. Tie receipt of ongoing Commonwealth funding for government, NGO and

privately provided services to demonstrated performance, and use of a single

care plan and eHealth record for those with complex needs.

3. Shift funding priorities from hospitals and income support to community and primary health care services

Rec 7. Reallocate a minimum of $1 billion in Commonwealth acute hospital funding in

the forward estimates over the five years from 2017–18 into more community based

psychosocial, primary and community mental health services.

Rec 8. Extend the scope of Primary Health Networks (renamed Primary and Mental

Health Networks – PMHNs) as the key regional architecture for equitable

planning and purchasing of mental health programmes, services and integrated

care pathways.

Rec 9. Bundle-up programmes and boost the role and capacity of NGOs and other

service providers to provide more comprehensive, integrated and higher-level

mental health services and support for people, their families and supporters.

Rec 10. Improve service equity for rural and remote communities through place-based

models of care.

4. Empower and support self-care and implement a new model of stepped care across Australia

Rec 11. Promote easy access to self-help options to help people, their families and

communities to support themselves and each other, and improve ease of

navigation for stepping through the mental health system.

Rec 12. Strengthen the central role of GPs in mental health care through incentives for

use of evidence-based practice guidelines, changes to the Medicare Benefits

Schedule and staged implementation of Medical Homes for Mental Health.

Rec 13. Enhance access to the Better Access programme for those who need it most

through changed eligibility and payment arrangements and a more equitable

geographical distribution of psychological services.

Rec 14. Introduce incentives to include pharmacists as key members of the mental

health care team.

5. Promote the wellbeing and mental health of the Australian community, beginning with a healthy start to life

Rec 15. Build resilience and targeted interventions for families with children, both

collectively and with those with emerging behavioural issues, distress and

mental health difficulties.

Rec 16. Identify, develop and implement a national framework to support families and

communities in the prevention of trauma from maltreatment during infancy and

early childhood, and to support those impacted by childhood trauma.

Rec 17. Use evidence, evaluation and incentives to reduce stigma, build capacity and

respond to the diversity of needs of different population groups.

6. Expand dedicated mental health and social and emotional wellbeing teams for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Rec 18. Establish mental health and social and emotional wellbeing teams in Indigenous

Primary Health Care Organisations (including Aboriginal Community-Controlled

Services), linked to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specialist mental health

services.

7. Reduce suicides and suicide attempts by 50 per cent over the next decade

Rec 19. Establish 12 regions across Australia as the first wave for nationwide

introduction of sustainable, comprehensive, whole-of-community approaches to

suicide prevention.

8. Build workforce and research capacity to support systems change

Rec 20. Improve research capacity and impact by doubling the share of existing and

future allocations of research funding for mental health over the next five years,

with a priority on supporting strategic research that responds to policy

directions and community needs.

Rec 21. Improve supply, productivity and access for mental health nurses and the

mental health peer workforce.

Rec 22. Improve education and training of the mental health and associated workforce

to deploy evidence-based treatment.

Rec 23. Require evidence-based approaches on mental health and wellbeing to be

adopted in early childhood worker and teacher training and continuing

professional development.

9. Improve access to services and support through innovative technologies

Rec 24. Improve emergency access to the right telephone and internet-based forms of

crisis support and link crisis support services to ongoing online and offline forms

of information/education, monitoring and clinical intervention.

Rec 25. Implement cost-effective second and third generation e-mental health solutions

that build sustained self-help, link to biometric monitoring and provide direct clinical
support strategies or enhance the effectiveness of local services.

It took some time for Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki to understand that the 2015 Intergenerational Report was always a politically partisan document created by the Abbott Government

Screen shot from www.challengeofchange.gov.au

On 5 March 2015 Abbott Government released its 2015 Intergenerational Report

“Dr. Karl” begins to voice doubts about the report in The Canberra Times on 14 April 2015:

The man appearing on television screens across the country promoting the Abbott government's Intergenerational Report - science broadcaster Karl Kruszelnicki - has hardened his stance against the document, describing it as "flawed" and admitting to concerns that it was "fiddled with" by the government.

Dr Kruszelnicki, widely known as Dr Karl, has previously revealed that he had not read the full report before he agreed to front the taxpayer-funded campaign, which is expected to cost millions.

The Intergenerational Report - a snapshot of Australia's economy and society in 40 years - was criticised by Labor as a "highly political document" for, among other things, downgrading climate change from its own chapter in 2010 to three-and-a-half pages in 2015.

"As far as I can see, it's a flawed report," Dr Kruszelnicki told Fairfax Media.

He singled out the reduced focus on climate change in this year's report for criticism. "In no way am I endorsing the government's stance on climate change. I think it is incredibly short-sighted," he said. 

Dr Kruszelnicki - who has appeared in advertisements for the report running prominently on commercial television, news websites and social media - has also tweeted comments criticising the government for cutting funding to the CSIRO. The report emphasises the value of scientific research and innovation. 

Dr Kruszelnicki said: "The only reason I agreed to do it [promote the report] is because I was told that it would be independent, bipartisan and non-political.

"If it turns out to have been fiddled with or subject to political interference from one side of politics I would deeply regret playing any part in it whatsoever."

Dr Kruszelnicki said he agreed to front the campaign after reading extracts on the ageing of the population and the changing nature of work.

He said the independence of the document is now unclear.

Unfortunately at that stage he still appears to believe that the report was created by the Australian Treasury and public servants. Hence, the idea that it may have been “fiddled with” once it left their hands.

The Abbott Government did not have to fiddle with the report – the entire document was assembled at the direction of government ministers.

Thirteen days after the report’s release the Deputy Secretary, Fiscal Group, from the Dept. of Treasury made it clear to the Senate Select Committee Into The Abbott Government’s Budget Cuts that it was not a treasury document:

Mr Ray : The document is the government's document. We work with the government to prepare it. Generally, this is the government's document, not ours.

By 15 April Dr. Karl had become blunter in his assessment of the situation when quoted by ABC News:

Dr Kruszelnicki blames himself for trusting the Government. He turned to Aesop's Fables to explain himself.

"The scorpion says to the frog, 'can you take me across the flooded river?' And the frog says, 'No, you'll stab me and kill me.'," he said.

"And the scorpion says, 'No, I won't do that because I'll drown myself." And the frog says, 'Yes, you'll drown.' So the frog says, 'hop on my back', takes him half way across the river and then the scorpion stabs him.

"And the frog says, 'Hey, you stabbed me, I'm going to die! And so are you! Why'd you do that? Are you crazy?' And the scorpion said, 'I can't help it. It's my nature.'

"It was my fault for not realising the nature of the beast that I was involved with.

"I really thought that it would be an independent, bipartisan, non-political document."

However, Dr Kruszelnicki said he had not asked for the ad campaign to stop.

Finally that night, Dr. Karl must have realised that his participation in government advertising was an issue with the potential to damage his own reputation and, this was the result:

Unlike the good doctor, The Guardian had the measure of this intergenerational report early and on 9 March 2015 pointed out its glaringly obvious partisan nature:

Every intergenerational report is only as good as the assumptions on which the predictions are based – especially those pertaining to demographics. And while some of the predictions about the ageing population and the implications that will have on employment participation and economic growth are worth considering, the assumptions about government spending over the next 40 years are pretty much a farrago of idiocy.

For no good reason whatsoever, Hockey has decided for the first time to include in the report projection based on policies of the former government. But he takes as the ALP’s “previous policy” that represented in the 2013-14 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (Myefo) – a document produced by the Abbott government and which saw the 2013-14 deficit increase by $10.26bn due to “policy decisions” taken by the Abbott government.

The 2013-14 Myefo was itself designed to make it appear the ALP had blown the budget, and thus using that as the starting point to predict budget deficits over the next 40 years is a fairly dodgy exercise.

Public statement by NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption concerning the High Court decision of 15 April 2015

Found at @political_alert 

Their master's voice has spoken. Where to now for tax reform under Abbott & Co?

On 30 March 2015 the Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey released a tax reform discussion paper titled Re:think, which is supposed to mark the start of a conversation about how we bring a tax system built before the 1950s into the new century.

Presumably this is to be a step towards the 'lower, simpler, fairer' revenue raising system Prime Minister Tony Abbott was banging on about during the 2013 election campaign.

The problem for the Abbott Government is that the propaganda power behind Abbott's 'throne', the ubiquitous far-right think tank pressure group the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), is increasingly disenchanted with the federal government's approach to both taxation and superannuation.

So where to now for tax reform in the face of the slump in iron ore prices and company tax receipts that the prime minister and treasurer complain about.

Well, we know that Abbott has ruled out changes to company tax, intends to leave the superannuation loopholes in place for the rorting rich and will go ahead with tax cuts for small business in the face of that projected falling government revenue.

Capital gains tax breaks and negative gearing on investment properties also appear to be exempt from review.

Hockey is now promising no new taxes at all when he talks to the media, despite recently announcing the proposed 'Google' and 'Netflix' taxes.

He is also signalling no significant alteration of dividend imputation or any indexing of income tax thresholds to tackle bracket creep.

This is a mixed bag for the very rich and comfortably well-off.

They will not like the federal government abandoning its promises to cut the company tax rate and reduce 'bracket creep'.

However,  Abbott & Co are obviously not going to take tax perks away from those same very rich and comfortably well-off Australian citizens and would have a weather eye out for the irritable mood of its right-wing backers.

 So that leaves it with limited options for cost savings in the 2015-16 Budget.

All of which indicates more bad news may be coming for vulnerable sections of society, because those sections are where Abbott in particular likes to hunt.

BACKGROUND

IPA in The Drum, excerpt, 7 April 2014:

This Small Business Fetish Has Gone Too Far

As part of its back to basics campaign, the Abbott Government has telegraphed a small business tax package for the 2015 budget.

The plan, as far as we know, is that small business will get a tax cut of about 1.5 per cent. Big business will be left paying the standard rate of 30 per cent.

The Coalition has long had a romantic attachment to small business as a sort of moral heart of Australian private enterprise, but this policy is the worst sort of small business fetishism.

It threatens to further undermine an already complicated corporate tax system, confuses the sources of economic growth, and will distract policymakers from the much more fundamental task of opening protected areas of the economy up to competition.

Let's take these one at a time.

It beggars belief that while the political class is banging on about the convoluted the tax code, "unfair" tax concessions, and clever corporate tax minimisation, the Government is planning to increase the complexity of the corporate tax system.

How long before we see the first exposé in Fairfax business pages about large corporates rearranging themselves to take advantage of the concessional small business rates?

The proposed small business tax cut would make the Australian corporate tax system explicitly progressive. Just as we pay a higher rate of income tax according to our wealth, firms would pay a higher rate of corporate tax depending on their size. The United States has a progressive corporate tax. Ours is flat - 30 per cent no matter what.

Now, in practice, firms don't pay the same 30 per cent rate. As my Institute of Public Affairs colleague Sinclair Davidson has documented, all those deductions, offsets and credits mean the effective tax rate - that is, the amount of tax paid - hovers about 25 per cent. On top of this, small businesses tend to have much more variable profitability, so they tend to pay less than big business already.

Even with this caveat in mind, progressive corporate taxes are a terrible idea.

IPA in the Australian Financial Review, excerpt, 13 April 2015:

Moral Panic Overlooks Real Company Tax Problem

The corporate tax profit shifting debate is a classic example of moral panic. First, it's incredibly complicated. How many Australians could explain how company tax is calculated, let alone what business practices a "double Irish Dutch sandwich" refers to?

Second, it's driven by hyperbolic and simplistic reports of companies paying little to no tax. These stories pivot on even more complicated scandals, such as "Lux Leaks", and the technicalities of foreign tax systems.

And third, it's wildly overstated. The best current estimates of how much corporate tax is shifted across borders is in the realm of 2 per cent to 4 per cent of total corporate tax.

It's true that earlier estimates in the 1990s were much more than that. It was those high estimates that got the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development interested in the issue. But the firm- and affiliate-level evidence is better now. It's pointless to scrutinise a moral panic for the clarity of its claims. But the corporate tax debate is missing the point.

As a society we don't value firms for the money the government extracts from them. We value firms because they produce goods and offer services that make us richer, our lives easier, more convenient and more enjoyable, and our standards of living higher.

We ought to design our tax system to encourage foreign firms operating and doing business on Australian shores, bringing investment and jobs. Any attempt to tackle profit shifting that raises uncertainty or lowers Australia's investment climate would be a disaster.

The corporate tax is not a good tax. As a recent Treasury paper pointed out, it is one of the most inefficient taxes levied by Australian governments. The burden of the corporate tax is scattered and obscure.

IPA, media release, April 2015:

'Google Tax' will damage Australia's investment reputation

"The government's proposed 'Google tax' is nothing more than a tax grab and will damage Australia's investment reputation," says Chris Berg, Senior Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs.

Treasurer Joe Hockey announced yesterday that the government has drafted legislation to go after companies accused of "profit shifting" across international borders to reduce their taxes.

"Companies should pay tax for economic activity in the countries in which that activity occurs. However to follow the United Kingdom's lead and introduce a Diverted Profits Tax would be to damage the integrity of our corporate tax system for little revenue benefit," says Mr Berg.

Mr Berg and Professor Sinclair Davidson put a submission into the Senate Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance in February 2015.

"Institute of Public Affairs research has found that the profit shifting problem has been vastly overstated," says Mr Berg.

"There is little evidence to suggest the existing system is broken. Large firms are responsible for the vast bulk of Australia's corporate tax revenue. And past inaccurate Treasury forecasts of future corporate tax revenue are due to changing commodity prices, not corporate tax avoidance."

"Joe Hockey has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. If the government wants to get the budget back into shape it needs to focus on the size of government, not penalise successful companies for investing in Australia," says Mr Berg.

Mr Berg and Professor Davidson's submission is available at http://ipa.org.au/portal/uploads/2-feb-15-Submission_to_the_Senate_Inquiry_into_Corporate_Avoidance.pdf

IPA, excerpt from media release, 30 March 2015:

Tax reform must deliver tax cuts: IPA

The government's Tax Discussion Paper released today fails to address the need to reduce the size of government in Australia, says the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

"Australia does not need new or higher taxes. The Abbott government should immediately rule out the idea of a bank deposits tax, and reverse its previous tax increases," says Dr Mikayla Novak, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

"The Tax Discussion Paper rests upon the false assumption that Australia is a low taxing country."

"But superannuation contributions, health insurance premiums, and workers' compensation premiums effectively act as taxes, since non payment of these obligations carry tax penalties," says Dr Novak.

IPA research shows that if these payments are added to the OECD tax statistics, the Australian tax to GDP ratio increases from 27.3 per cent to 34.3 per cent in 2012, above the OECD average of 33.7 per cent.

"There's no doubt that Australia would benefit from tax reform. Urgent problems that need fixing include the threat of bracket creep which is exacerbated by a steeply progressive income tax system. The compliance costs borne by tax complexity also needs to be substantially reduced," says Dr Novak.

"Australia needs to radically reduce and simplify the overall burden of its taxation regime, to unleash entrepreneurship, innovation, and investment for growth and prosperity."

"The best way forward is to very substantially reduce government spending, helping to provide room for tax cuts right across the board," says Dr Novak.

Institute of Public Affairs in The Canberra Times, excerpt, 6 March 2015:

Tinkering with the tax treatment of superannuation when people are forced to invest in a compulsory super regime bodes ill

Since the Keating government, the Commonwealth has forced people to forgo higher salaries for the sake of contributing to super funds that cannot be accessed until later in life.

Given the inconveniences of this financial policy paternalism, not to mention endless superannuation policy tinkering, tax biases against long-run savings patterns, and the existence of welfare programs, there are disincentives for individuals to save even more for retirement, which would seem to justify at least some sort of concessional treatment for super.

The rates of tax applicable to super contributions and earnings serve as a role model for the lower, flatter general income tax regime that Australia should aspire to, but, in the final analysis, the concessions would not garner such political discord if we abandoned compulsory superannuation altogether.

To do so would likely increase take‑home pay for workers, ease financial repression experienced by lower income earners, reduce skewness in asset holdings such as housing, help deflate a boated financial sector, and treat Australians as adults who can confidently come to their own trade-offs between consumption and savings.

Ending compulsory superannuation would be a much more durable reform than a shameless revenue grab aimed at tax‑captive superannuants.

IPA, January 2015:

No to the GST attack

Following recent direct and indirect tax increases, there has been speculation that the Abbott government is considering extending the GST to low value imports of $1,000 or less.

Putting a GST on low value imports is unlikely to revive Australian retailing in the face of intense online shopping competition, given the significant price differentials for many popular consumer products.

There are several important drivers of high retail costs in Australia, including a highly regulated labour market, severe land use restrictions, and trading hour conditions, which are not being addressed by governments.

Available estimates suggest that the administrative costs of ending the GST exemption threshold would greatly exceed actual revenues collected, violating a basic principle of tax policy if implemented.

If the GST low value import exemption is abolished, there can be no assurances that governments will spend the additional revenue in ways that give good value to taxpayers.

The Abbott government should rule out the anti consumer and anti taxpayer proposal to extend the GST to low value imports.

IPA, excerpt from media release, December 2014:

Government should reject call for higher taxes on Australians: IPA

The Abbott government should publicly reject the OECD's recommendation to slug Australians with higher taxes, according to free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

"The latest OECD economic survey of Australia explicitly calls for Australians to bear an even heavier tax load," says IPA Senior Research Fellow Dr Mikayla Novak.

"This call for higher taxes to bring Australia more in line with the OECD average is misleading. IPA analysis has clearly demonstrated that Australia is not a low taxing country."

"The IPA has shown our 2012 tax-to-GDP ratio of 33.5 per cent (including superannuation and health insurance contributions) is now virtually level with the OECD average of 33.7 per cent."

"The tax recommendations, such as raising the GST to 15 per cent, higher land taxes, road user charges, and withholding future income tax cuts through a stabilisation fund, are an invitation for economic disaster if implemented."

"OECD calls for higher Australian taxes are precisely the wrong policy prescription for our budget overspending problems, and must be rejected by government in favour of more vigorous expenditure savings."

"If the government is to change Australian taxes, they should make our overall tax burden lower," says Dr Novak.

Main stream media in self-congratulatory mode

Main stream media is currently in self-congratulatory mode. 

The Daily Examiner 14 April 2015:

Who had the power to help reduce street violence by 40% in Australia's biggest city? Who made Queensland's Government aware of the need to protect local jobs and forced them to backtrack on allowing 100% fly-in, fly-out workforces? And who is on the cusp of significant changes to domestic violence legislation that will better protect women?

The answer? The nation's newspapers, whose influence in our society is being highlighted in a $5 million marketing campaign.

APN News & Media (parent company of this newspaper), Fairfax Media, News Corp Australia and West Australian Newspapers (Seven West Media) have combined to promote the "Influential by Nature" campaign.

It will highlight achievements that few other media are able to match; like a Sydney Morning Herald campaign that reduced drunken violence by 40%, an Australian Regional Media campaign spearheaded by the Mackay Daily Mercury, Rockhampton Morning Bulletin and Gladstone Observer that reversed a 100% FIFO stance by the Queensland Government. And the current campaign involving this paper that will likely result in new domestic violence initiatives.

APN chief executive Michael Miller, fronting the campaign for the newspaper and website publishers, said readers and advertisers needed reminding that one media was having more impact on their patch than others……

There is no denying that ethical news reporting often gives newspaper readers their first information on a social or political issue.

However, this thinly disguised marketing ploy "Influential by Nature" ignores the decline of that which it is promoting.

The barely re-worked media releases presented as news gathered by journalists, the advertorials passing as articles, the growing number of spelling and grammar errors which turn paragraphs into guessing games for the reader and, the fact that modern newspapers are now more often followers rather than leaders when it comes to social and political 
issues.

Who guards the guards in Abbott's Australia?

On 25 February 2015 the Abbott Government presented a bill to the House of Representatives titled Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015.

This bill seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 to allow a private company under contract and its immigration detention centre management team to use reasonable force against any person or thing an authorised employee reasonably believes is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of any person or to maintain the good order, peace or security of an immigration detention facility.

The Abbott Government has given itself a ‘get out of gaol free’ card if any such use of force results in serious injury to or death of an asylum seeker being held in detention:

197BF  Bar on proceedings relating to immigration detention facilities

             (1)  No proceedings may be instituted or continued in any court against the Commonwealth in relation to an exercise of power under

                   section 197BA if the power was exercised in good faith.

             (2)  This section has effect despite anything else in this Act or any other law.

             (3)  Nothing in this section is intended to affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution.

             (4)  In this section:

                   Commonwealth includes:

                     (a)  an officer of the Commonwealth; and

                     (b)  any other person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth.

The Explanatory Memorandum authorised by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, appears to extend this immunity from prosecution to include an authorised employee of the private company.

His explanation to Parliament on 25 February 2015 concerning the need for this bill included this statement:

In the absence of legislation, officers and staff of the detention services provider rely on common-law powers, as conferred on ordinary citizens, to exercise reasonable force when it is necessary to protect themselves and others from harm or threat of harm. The extent of this authority is, however, limited. Clearly, using reasonable force to manage issues of physical safety, good order, peace and security in an immigration detention facility is a matter for parliament to decide, not the common law.

On the other hand the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considers that this bill engages and limits a number of rights, including the right to life; the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the right to humane treatment in detention; and the right to freedom of assembly and worries that in relation to meeting human rights obligations under international law there may be inadequate oversight and control of private detention facilities by the Australian government.

The Australian Human Rights Commission submitted 9 recommendations to the Committee, including recommendations that: a) the Committee seek clarification from the Government as to whether it intends to authorise employees of contracted detention service providers to use lethal force and, if so, what controls and limits will be put in place to ensure that the right to life is adequately protected; b) private contractors use excessive force, both the contractors and the Commonwealth should be legally accountable; and c) new provisions be added after s 197BA(5) dealing with the limitations on the use of force in relation to children.

Further concerns were articulated in The Guardian on 16 April 2015:

The president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, said the bar on proceedings would make it “virtually impossible” to bring forward an action, because of the difficulty of demonstrating bad faith in legal proceedings.

“Senior courts have ... explained the very high threshold that you must prove to demonstrate bad faith. It’s very hard to show a subjective intent of bad faith of a serving officer acting in the course of their employment,” Triggs said.

She said the language in the bill surrounding the scope of the powers “need to be significantly tightened up.”

Triggs added that if the powers were to be included into the Migration Act then the limits to the exercise of the power should also be clearly spelt out.

Gabrielle Appleby, associate professor at UNSW, said “the individuals authorised under this bill are not department officers, they are contractors”.

Appleby raised concerns about the training requirements for guards, which are not expressly set out in the bill and will instead be left up to the minister. The explanatory memorandum suggests the standards will be a certificate II in security operations, which are a base level training requirement for security operations.

“The determination by the minister is not a disallowable instrument. This means it’s not subject to parliamentary scrutiny,” she said.

While the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre issued a media release on 2 April 2015 which stated in part:

“These proposed laws will give officers in detention centres more power to use force than are granted to prison officers,” CEO Kon Karapanagiotidis said today. “They also introduce a subjective test where officers themselves get to decide if violence is warranted. When they do use excessive force, they will effectively be immune from legal action except in the rarest of circumstances. This virtually gives them the green light to use force without fear of repercussions. “There is no reasonable basis for granting broad, sweeping powers to authorised officers to use force indiscriminately. These laws are unnecessary and they are dangerous. “It is another example of the Government’s ongoing push for unchecked power when it comes to their treatment of asylum seekers.”

                                                                                                                                

There is legitimate cause for concern with regard to this bill, as excessive use of force is already an issue in detention centres.

The Age 24 February 2015:

...a Fairfax Media investigation that revealed three reported attacks on detainees housed at the centre in December and January alone, and internal concerns among the workforce about a growing culture of brutality.

Confidential documents from within private security firm Serco, which runs the centre on behalf of the Australian government, detail incidents including a middle-aged Chinese woman allegedly being kicked in the stomach by a guard and a Sri Lankan man being punched in the face.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has launched an inquiry into a third case in which several officers allegedly harmed a detainee who was handcuffed behind his back and held down on his stomach for 45 minutes. The Turkish national said he struggled to breathe and was denied repeated requests for water.

Fairfax Media this month revealed Serco sacked two of its guards after internal reviews into violent clashes at Maribyrnong.

Serco officers said the spate of attacks reflected a disturbing "prison camp" culture coming from hard-line managers, who were sanctioning the use of brutal force.

On Tuesday, the Australian Immigration Department confirmed new allegations raised against Serco guards were being "taken seriously and escalated through appropriate channels"......

Dozens of complaints have been lodged by inmates at the Maribyrnong centre in recent years, mostly about staff harassment and bullying. But insiders say physical assaults have become regular occurrences since Serco transferred a number of ex-corrections managers out of the prison system into the detention centre late last year.

One said detainees were being "literally bashed" and "viciously assaulted", while another described how senior staff were condoning the use of excessive force on volatile detainees......

The provisions of the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015 have been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2015.

Destroy the Joint is counting dead women - Part Four

Destroy The Joint

Since 1 January 2015 thirty-one women have died in violent incidents. That equates to two women killed each week so far this year.

Destroy The Joint keeps a register of these deaths here.

On 7 May 2015 there is a general election in the U.K. Are you eligible to vote?

North Coast Voices received this email from the Leader of the Green Party of England & Wales on 14 March 2015.

__________________________

Greetings from London, where we Greens are in the final weeks of our biggest-ever national election campaign.

Did you know that all Australian adults currently in the UK are eligible to vote in British elections?

It’s true. So are most British citizens living in Australia. The UK elections on May 7 are the most important in a generation — and a Green vote has never been more powerful.

Find out if you can vote in the UK election today.

British politics is broken. 3.5 million children live in poverty but the old parties all support huge cuts to public services. The Conservative government here is slashing clean energy and expanding fracking across the country — just like Tony Abbott.

But people here are standing up. Nearly 50,000 people have joined the Green parties of the UK in the last year alone. There is a hunger for change and it’s showing in the polls. Predictions show that if we can turn out every Green supporter on May 7, we will help decide who forms the next government.  

That’s why we need you. Our key seats will come down to a handful of votes — eligible overseas voters could decide this election for the Greens.

If you're an Australian in the UK or a British citizen in Australia, register to vote today.

Just like in Australia, the Greens are the only party keeping multinational companies honest about the tax they (don’t) pay. We’re for keeping healthcare in public hands and providing good homes for everyone.

I was the only party leader to mention climate change in the election debates last month.

For the good of the planet, keeping a Green voice in the UK Parliament has never been more important. That’s why we need everyone next month.

Please, register to vote in the UK election today - and vote Green on May 7 to change politics forever.

Yours,

Natalie Bennett
Leader, Green Party of England and Wales

PS As an Australian myself, I really appreciate your support in this. Know any Australians in the UK at the moment — or British citizens living in Australia? Please forward this email to them to get the word out. We can change politics, but it’s going to take all of us.

__________________________

Voting in a UK General Election

In a UK parliamentary general election, registered voters in every area of the country vote for an MP to represent them in the House of Commons. There are 650 geographical areas - these are called constituencies.

You can vote in a UK parliamentary general election if you’re registered to vote and:

 * aged 18 or over on polling day

 * a UK citizen, Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic

 * not legally excluded from voting (eg because you’re in prison)

You can’t vote in a UK parliamentary general election if you are:

 * under 18

 * a member of the House of Lords

 * a European Union citizen (and not also a UK, Irish or Commonwealth citizen)

 * in prison (apart from remand prisoners)