By the National Reporting Team's Alison Branley and Norman Hermant 1 September 2014

Photo: BasicsCard users are finding ways around the system's rules. (ABC News, file photo)

Map: Shepparton 3630

Welfare recipients are spending money quarantined for essentials on banned items and bartering groceries for cash and alcohol, an ABC investigation has found.

Under place-based income management, selected welfare recipients in Playford, South Australia, Shepparton,Victoria, Logan and Rockhampton in Queensland, and Bankstown, New South Wales, have 50 to 70 per cent of their benefits quarantined for essentials.

The scheme is typically administered using the BasicsCard, a card that can only be used at approved retailers.

Cigarettes, alcohol, pornography or gambling are banned purchases.

However, the ABC has learned that people who have been forced onto the BasicsCard are frequently finding ways around regulations, adding weight to suggestions that the scheme is an expensive failure.

Income management was initially introduced to the Northern Territory during the intervention, but it has expanded in recent years, including to the eastern states in 2012 for the place-based trial.

BasicCard users in place-based trial

• Bankstown (167)
• Shepparton (348)
• Playford (588)
• Rockhampton (467)
• Logan (949)

The Government initially projected 5,000 people would be included in the eastern states scheme.

Two years on, 2,519 people are on the program. The Government has said the 5,000 figure was never a target or a cap.

In Bankstown, where the Public Service Union have been running work bans, there are only 167 people participating in the scheme.

About one-in-five participants volunteered for the program; the rest were either referred by child protection workers or deemed vulnerable by Centrelink.

Inexperienced cashiers selling cigarettes to BasicsCard holders

BasicsCard users in Shepparton showed the ABC how easily they could get around the rules, as banned purchases are at the discretion of cashiers.

Retail cashiers are often young and inexperienced, and one Shepparton local, Teegan Gartrell, had receipts showing she had purchased cigarettes with her BasicsCard.

"You'd be amazed at how many people know where to go to buy cigarettes on the BasicsCard," she said.

Reports into the scheme have conceded that the Government can not tell people what to buy with their BasicsCard.

Photo: Teegan Gartrell showed the ABC receipts for cigarettes purchased with her BasicsCard. (ABC News)

"[Department of Human Services (DSS)] data could show that money was spent in an approved store, but could not show the actual purchases such as fresh food, school clothing or educational items," one noted.

The scheme has also been criticised because it prevents card holders from shopping at retailers of their choice, including discount stores such as Aldi.

A DSS spokeswoman said Aldi did not offer BasicsCard because they could not meet set criteria.

"Specifically, they are not able to prohibit the sale of alcohol to BasicsCard holders," she said.

The ABC asked Woolworths if their computer systems red-flag banned goods such as cigarettes or alcohol.

A spokeswoman said it came down to staff discretion.

"Staff in these stores receive specific training relating to the use of BasicCards,'' she said.

Questions also remain about uses of the BasicsCard at places like newsagents, where gambling, pornography and cigarettes are all available.

Scheme criticised as expensive and misdirected

There were few participants in the scheme until early 2014, when the Government forced people on certain youth welfare payments to have their income managed.

This was despite initial suggestions that income management was aimed to force families on welfare to provide essentials for children.

A Department of Social Services (DSS) spokeswoman said the scheme was also for those deemed vulnerable and young people who have been unemployed for a long time.

"While children and families are certainly a priority, income management aims to provide assistance more broadly," the spokeswoman said.

[The BasicsCard] is way too expensive and in some places it costs as much to administer as the income it hands out.

Andrew Forrest

For each participant, the scheme costs between $4,500 and $7,700 to administer.

The existing 23,000 income management recipients in and outside the Northern Territory make more than 46,000 calls a week to Centrelink to change their arrangements.

In a statement, a DSS spokeswoman said income management helped people better care for their families and themselves.

"Many families have said that income management has taken the stress out of managing household budgets, helped them keep utilities connected and assisted in clearing debts," she said.

Mining magnate Andrew Forrest looked at income management as part of his welfare review for the Government.

He said, while income management had merits in some cases, the BasicsCard has not worked.

"[Income management] is a very specific solution for very specific communities," he said.

"[The BasicsCard] is way too expensive and in some places it costs as much to administer as the income it hands out."

BasicsCard users swapping groceries for grog

Addiction experts in Playford, South Australia, said they know of income management participants bartering BasicsCards goods for alcohol and cash.

Andris Banders from the South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services said addicts will always find a way.

"This doesn't deal with addiction in any way. If I've got $200 in my pocket and you take $100 out, that doesn't mean that my addiction is going to halve at all," Mr Banders said.

"I'm still going to need that grog, or that drug, or whatever it is – I'm still going to have to get it in some way."

In Shepparton, a man known as Malcolm told the ABC he would simply steal alcohol if he was placed on the income management.

"You gotta have what you gotta have," he said.

Mr Forrest, who has proposed his own high tech Healthy Welfare Card that works like a debit card, said the BasicsCard has not solved the problem of addiction.

"This wasn't going to resolve grief and tragedy inflicted across entire vulnerable communities across Australia where they fall prey to drug dealers and alcohol," he said.

"You hear stories from mothers weeping that their children will commit suicide if they don't get money to get their ganja (marijuana) or their cases of cheap wine or beer.

"You don't need to restrict drugs and alcohol to people who have no track record of having any issues with drugs and alcohol."

Cashier told card user steak was 'too expensive'

Anecdotal reports also suggest BasicsCard users face stigma and discrimination.

Pas Forgione, who runs a campaign against income management in Playford, said that, in one case, a cashier asked a young person why they were buying steak, "because it was too expensive".

Another young man trying to buy a video game in Target was told to put it back.

Mr Forgione said there were also special highly branded BasicsCard kiosks for people to view their balances, which humiliated users.

"The vast majority of Centrelink clients manage their money responsibly," Mr Forgione said.

"In Playford, what we've seen is that the people being put on income management are perfectly adept at managing their finances."

A DSS spokeswoman said a number of reports and evaluations over the next 12 months would decide the future of the scheme.

More on this story

• Indigenous leaders Nova Peris and Noel Pearson at odds over income management
• Andrew Forrest defends radical welfare overhaul proposal
• Tony Abbott rules out expansion of income management measures
• Welfare review recommends payments be condensed

BasicsCard users buying banned cigarettes with welfare, bartering groceries for alcohol and cash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Greg Jericho Wednesday 27 August 2014

Photo: The Government's confused and overblown rhetoric on the budget didn't help the sales pitch. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

There is still time for the Government to frame the budget discussion around the medium to long-term rather than the present "emergency" rhetoric it has used, writes Greg Jericho.

It's August and yet the May budget is still in play. In a practical sense this isn't much of an issue - the supply bills have passed so there are no concerns about the Government running out of money in the next few months ala 1975.

But it has led to some rather tangled footwork from the Government over the past couple of weeks to explain what is going on.

The budget message couldn't even stay straight for one week. Last Monday, for example, we had Trade Minster Andrew Robb suggesting the current Senate shenanigans over budget measures would "affect the perception of sovereign risk in Australia". By Wednesday, however, Treasury released figures showing most of the savings measures over the next four years have already been legislated - so no crisis at all, apparently.

The problem of course was the long lead-up to the budget was filled with budget emergency talk, and then when it was delivered it was found that the emergency really only was to arrive after the next election.

Selling a budget is hard enough without doing it by lying. The budget was never in such a state that massive cuts needed to occur now. What was always the issue was the structural deficit - and that was also going to be a medium to long-term issue.

And that is what was mostly addressed with the 2014-15 budget. Some of the cuts, such as those to schools, are put off so far into the future they didn't even register in the budget papers. Others, like changes to the aged pension, don't kick in for three years and come after an election during which time who knows what may be promised.

Unfortunately for Joe Hockey he used the Costello 1996 rhetoric, forgetting that in 1996 Australia's GDP was growing by about 4 per cent per annum; by contrast Australia's GDP is now running at slightly below the long-term trend rate of 3.2 per cent, and is expected to fall below that rate when the June quarter figures are released next week.

Cutting severely now would have been idiotic. As the RBA governor, Glenn Stevens, told the House economics committee last week, "the economy does not really warrant draconian fiscal tightening right now".

Governor Stevens went on to suggest that the issue was in the medium to long term, noting:

In the medium term ... we as a community have decided we want to do some very big, very costly and very good things in the public space, but we have not actually taken the decisions that secure the funding for those things, so far as I can see. That is not catastrophic today, but it is going to be a medium-term issue if we do not address it.

He argued that if we put it off for years, "we would get away with that for a while, but then we will find that the day will come and it will be much harder."

He noted the cost of putting it off is that "you do get really draconian measures almost forced on you".

Governor Stevens' line was so logical that even the Government realised they should start using it. Thus on Monday, Barnaby Joyce told ABC's AM program:

We either accept that we've got a debt problem and we've got to turn it around or we basically say 'no, this is only a small melanoma on our arm and if we just wait long enough, it'll go away'. No, as a financial melanoma, it will kill you.

As ever with Joyce, however, his line that "it will kill you" over-egged the situation, as did his suggestion that if we don't start consolidating the budget now "in five or 10 or 15 years time, the chickens will come home to roost and we'll be closing down hospitals, we won't have an ABC, we won't be able to defend ourselves because we will have run out of money".

The Australian Government is not about to run out of money. At worst our debt will rise, credit agencies may downgrade our rating and the interest rate we pay on our debt rises. This is not something to welcome, but given this Government got into trouble selling the budget due to language that it couldn't back up, Joyce might be best to rein it in a bit.

The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) late last week also assisted the Government by releasing its report on projections of government spending over the medium term.

It showed that the Government's measures did reduce spending, but that spending in areas like aged care, pension and higher education would continue to rise in real terms - just by not as much.

The report found that the program with the biggest growth from 2012-13 to 2024-25 was the Government's paid parental leave scheme:

Embed: Annual Real Growth in Government Expenditure

But mostly that is because it comes off a very low base, and because the much more costly NDIS is not counted (because there wasn't one in 2012-13).

But in the years till 2024-25, the NDIS comes second only to GST transfer payments to the states in terms of share of total growth in government spending:

Embed: Share of total growth of government expenditure to 2024-25

Just 3 per cent of the growth in Government spending to 2024-25 is accounted for by the PPL - the same amount as is expected to come from increased spending on Disability Support Pensions (DSP).

With regards DSP, the PBO report shows the impact of the proposed tightening of eligibility is negligible. While the growth in DSP spending will be less due to measures in the May budget, the decline is overwhelmingly due to changing the indexation to CPI rather than the current indexing by the highest of CPI, male total average weekly earnings, or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Cost of Living index.

Embed: Annual Growth in Disability Support Pension Expenditure

Regardless of the budget measures, the PBO notes from 2017-18 there will be an increase in the growth of spending on the DSP - purely because this is when the eligibility age for the Age Pension begins to increase from 65 years to 67 years. This is expected to see an "increase in the flow of people to the DSP within this age cohort".

As I noted in March the trend increase in DSP numbers is not so much due to bludgers on welfare, as it is the ageing population.

Similarly with aged pensions spending growth will be less, such that by 2024-25 the PBO expects government expenditure on the Age Pension to be $67.9 billion as opposed to $74.8 billion were the indexation not changed.

Embed: Annual growth in aged pension expenditure

Of course because the report only looks at budget decisions, it doesn't look at the impact on the budget of other areas of aged spending such as the growth in tax concession on superannuation.

The report suggests government spending in the medium term does need to be constrained, otherwise a greater increase in taxation would be required. It argues that the risks ahead, however, "reinforce the need for fiscal consolidation in order to establish a fiscal buffer against the possibility of adverse economic shocks".

And certainly that is prudent and wise. But the PBO only looks at the impact of the measures on spending in total terms - it doesn't make any judgement on which households will shoulder most of the burden of these cuts, nor whether similar - or more efficient or equitable - savings could have been made through other measures.

There is always more than one way to cut a budget. The Government's confused and overblown rhetoric on the urgency and reasons for the cuts it made has seen voters judge the budget harshly rather than perhaps in the light that either the PBO or the RBA governor might view it.

There is still time for the Government to frame the discussion around the medium to long-term rather than the present "emergency" rhetoric it has used.

But that still doesn't address the fairness aspect; for that it needs more that the PBO and the RBA's help - it needs new policies.

Greg Jericho writes weekly for The Drum. His blog can be found here. View his full profile here.

There's still time to talk their way out of it - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Daniel Hurst, political correspondent

theguardian.com, Tuesday 26 August 2014

Bill Shorten regains lead over Tony Abbott in poll that also shows strong backing for the government’s security package

The poll was conducted a day after Bill Shorten revealed he was the Labor figure questioned by police over a sexual assault allegation. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Federal parliament resumes on Tuesday for the spring sittings with Labor maintaining a lead over the Coalition of 51% to 49% on a two-party-preferred basis, according to the latest Newspoll.

The Newspoll, published in the Australian on Tuesday, paints a mixed picture of the political landscape after the five-week winter recess.

Labor’s two-party preferred lead has reduced since the previous poll as a result of changes in the primary votes of the Greens and minor parties, but the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, has recorded a boost to his approval rating and regained a narrow lead over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister.

The poll also shows strong backing for an element of the government’s security package.

About 77% of respondents expressed their support when told the government was considering new laws for travellers returning from a country involved in civil war, such as Iraq or Syria, requiring them to prove they had not been in contact with any terrorist groups. About 18% said they were not in favour of the mooted change.

The telephone poll of 1,170 people between Friday and Sunday showed the Coalition and Labor’s primary votes were steady since the poll a fortnight earlier. First-preference support for the Coalition remained at 40% and Labor’s primary vote remained at 34%.

Support for the Greens dropped two points to 11%. Support for others, including the Palmer United party and other minor parties and independents, increased by two points to 15%.

Based on the preference flows at the September 2013 election, these figures would translate to a two-party vote of Labor 51% and Coalition 49%. In the previous poll Labor’s lead was 52-48%.

The Australian said it was the government’s best two-party result since before the unpopular budget was handed down in May.

Satisfaction with the way Shorten was doing his job as opposition leader rose three points since the previous poll to 39% and dissatisfaction dropped four points to 40%, producing a net approval rating of minus one.

Satisfaction with Abbott’s work as prime minister remained steady at 36% and dissatisfaction rose one point to 55%, a net approval score of minus 19.

Asked who would make a better prime minister, 40% of respondents nominated Shorten and 39% preferred Abbott. In the previous poll Abbott held a lead of 41% to 37%.

The survey period began on Friday, a day after Shorten made a public statement revealing he was the senior Labor figure questioned by Victoria Police over a historical sexual assault allegation, for which there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

The winter parliamentary recess was dominated by the government’s efforts to secure crossbench support for contentious budget measures, with Labor continuing to oppose key proposals on the grounds of unfairness.

The government accused Labor of irresponsibility but attempted last week to allay any sense of budget “crisis”, saying most spending measures had passed parliament in the appropriations bills as is normal.

The poll has a stated margin of sampling error of three points.

Labor maintains slim lead over Coalition in latest Newspoll | World news | theguardian.com

By Paula Matthewson  Monday 25 August 2014

Photo: Tony Abbott needs to neutralise Clive Palmer and PUP, who are stealing the Coalition's base. (Getty/AAP)

Instead of making empty threats in an attempt to arrest its ill-fated budget, the Government could negotiate with Labor to see some measures passed while also neutralising the Palmer problem, writes Paula Matthewson.

It's hard not to get the sense the Abbott Government's budget strategy is spiralling out of control.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann insisted repeatedly yesterday in a television interview that he and his colleagues were "working in an orderly and methodical fashion" to implement the budget. Yet one only had to listen closely to pick up the quiet keen of panic underlying his rushed and automated responses to see that even Cormann does not believe his own lines.

The Minister's weekend television appearance was in stark contrast to his interventions last week, when he had to mop up after Treasurer Joe Hockey's unfortunate comment about poor people not driving cars.

Cormann was assured and confident at the time, dismissing Labor's clunky allusions to the budget having more reboots than a Macintosh or Commodore 64.

He wrested back control of the budget debate, pointing out that "no government in recent political history had passed all of its budget measures through both houses of Parliament by the end of August", and that "a number of the measures that are the subject of the most intensive post-budget debate are not due to take effect for some time", which left ample time to keep engaging with the Senate crossbenchers.

This was necessary because voters not only think of the budget as unfair, they perceive the Government as having lost control of its implementation.

Coalition strategists would see the latter as far more troubling because the Government can ride through, or if necessary change, a tough budget but it is much harder to cast off the burden of perceived incompetence. Just ask members of the former Gillard government.

And yet yesterday, just one week later, Cormann had been reduced to the same gibbering mess as his Government colleagues, rapidly reeling off numbers, acronyms and other econo-babble and attacking Labor instead of reminding voters what "orderly and methodical" is supposed to look like:

If we stay on a spending growth trajectory that takes us to 26.5 per cent of the share of GDP, when tax revenue on average over the last 20 years was 22.4 per cent of the share of GDP and you don't want to balance the books by reducing spending, then the only alternative to balance the books is to increase taxes.

The Finance Minister may be correct, but such an "explanation" would have caused most voters' eyes to glaze over rather than win Cormann any new-found support or respect.

Cormann's interview was an unfortunate conclusion to the five-week parliamentary break in which the Government was meant to consult and ideally negotiate with the crossbench on the more contentious elements of the budget.

Instead of doing this in a low-key fashion, the Government chose to accompany the negotiations with ham-fisted threats in the media, deploying an artillery of dud firecrackers in an attempt to soften-up the belligerent Senators.

Hockey's threat to re-introduce legislation on asset recycling/privatisation as an appropriation bill, only gave Clive Palmer a free kick with a headline on being prepared to block supply.

Education Minister Christopher Pyne's "speculation" that he may have to cut university research funding if the Government's reforms to university fees are not accepted, will have gone down as well with Senators as his comment that university students are being asked to pay an additional 10 per cent of their course cost, not "donate their left kidney".

And now tax increases are being threatened as the way of repairing the budget, which in itself is nonsensical and empty: if the Government can't get any of its existing tough measures passed, how does it intend to get tax hikes through the same intransigent Senate? It's certainly not the policy an unpopular Government would take to the next election either.

Very little seems to have been gained from all this tough talk. Palmer said a week ago that his Senators would not support the GP co-payment or the changes to university fees, although he has been known in the recent past to simply change his mind when presented with more information. It would seem this variability is the constant upon which the Government is depending.

Judging from the previous sitting of the new Senate, Palmer will deliver in spades his very own brand of parliamentary unpredictability and its attendant drama. His political viability and that of his party depends upon it.

And yet, there is another path that Abbott could take to dispel the sense of chaos that pervades the budget and his Government.

Instead of making empty threats in an attempt to arrest its ill-fated budget, the Government could make better use of its time working out which is the greater threat to its political survival. Labor may compete with the Coalition for the swinging vote, but Palmer and PUP are stealing the Coalition's base.

On this measure, Labor is clearly the lesser evil and ironically the means by which Abbott could regain control of his careening budget.

By negotiating with Labor, the Prime Minister could secure Senate passage of mutually agreeable legislation. This would of course require some eating of humble pie and incorporation perhaps of uncomfortable changes into Government policies. It would also give the main opposition parties some brownie points in the eyes of voters.

But such an approach would completely neutralise Palmer. It would negate his balance of power position and relegate his media stunts to irrelevancy. Most importantly it would rob the renegade MP of the kudos and increased support he gets every time he makes life difficult for Abbott.

Paula Matthewson is a freelance communications adviser and corporate writer. She was media advisor to John Howard in the early 1990s. View her full profile here.

Leash the PUP and deal direct with Labor - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By social affairs correspondent Norman Hermant

Monday 25 August 2014

Photo: The Assyrian Resource Centre says the 4,000 special humanitarian visas are not enough to cope with the number of refugees fleeing Iraq. (ABC News)

Related Story: Australia to offer visas to Iraqi Christians and Yazidis

Related Story: Yazidis plead for assistance as Australia prepares aid drop

Map: Fairfield 2165

As hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians and Yazidi refugees flee Islamic State (IS) militants, family members living in Australia are hoping to secure special humanitarian visas for their loved ones.

But groups representing the communities say the 4,000 places freed up by the Government are far too few.

In a bare apartment in western Sydney, the distinctive sound of Kurdish drifts out into the top floor hallway.

A Yazidi man is on his daily video call with his wife, now a refugee in Turkey.

Brim, not his real name, is an Australian citizen and has been here more than two decades. But as a follower of the minority Yazidi faith, he still fears for his safety.

Brim's wife and stepdaughter fled northern Iraq two weeks ago, barely escaping the latest advance of IS militants.

They have joined the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Yazidi refugees.

They are now in central Turkey, struggling for the very basics.

"There are 32 persons in two rooms - 32 persons, imagine. It's like cat, or like mouse. They surviving like that," Brim said.

There are many other stories of suffering.

I know that Australia cannot take the 125,000 refugees that are currently registered with United Nations. But we still need assistance.

Carmen Lazar, Assyrian Resource Centre

At a community resource centre in Fairfield, in Sydney's west, the hallways are jammed with the families of Iraqi Christians – Assyrians – looking for help.

They wait for their turn to meet with volunteers who can help process immigration applications.

Almost everyone has a tale of family members desperate to escape to Australia.

Admoun Anwiya is hoping to get a visa for his brother, who he says was wounded by IS militants in Mosul.

"My brother, he's a doctor and he's a specialist," he said.

"And [Islamic State] attack him in his surgery and shoot him in his head ... only because he's a Christian."

4,000 visas does not meet demand: Assyrian Resource Centre

Many at the Assyrian Resource Centre say even the well-established Christian community in Baghdad is under siege.

Ilvin Warda says her sister's family are now virtual prisoners in their home.

"Every day I will cry," she said.

"At night they phone me, 'save our Christians'. I don't know how I [can] help them."

The Government says it has freed up 4,000 places for special humanitarian visas - many for applicants from Iraq and Syria - but those are not new.

They come from the already existing quota of 13,750, reduced from 20,000 this year.

Carmen Lazar of the Assyrian Resource Centre says while her community appreciates everything the Australian Government has done in the past, this time it is not enough.

Photo: Ilvin Warda says her sister's family are now virtual prisoners in their home. (ABC News)

"I know that Australia cannot take the 125,000 refugees that are currently registered with United Nations," she said.

"But we still need assistance. Four thousand - we need more than that."

As for families with already existing visa applications, like Brim's, the Department of Immigration says there are no plans to speed up the process for refugees fleeing the IS.

His wife's application for a spousal visa has now been shifted to the Australian embassy in Turkey because she has fled Iraq.

Brim has been told it could still be a year until they learn whether she can come to Australia.

In the meantime, he can barely hold back his tears as he talks about reports of the IS raping and even selling women.

"They come to catch them, and they selling them. They selling them," he said.

"Oh my god. We are in [the] 21st century. They [are] selling women. Oh my god, what kind of culture, what kind of human[s] are they?"

Iraqi Christians, Yazidi refugees fleeing Islamic State for Australia may miss out on visas - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Sunday 24 August 2014

Video: Finance Minister Mathias Cormann joins Insiders (Insiders)

Photo: Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says there is no rush to address the "budget emergency". (AAP: Alan Porritt, file)

Related Story: Federal elective surgery funding 'a drop in the ocean'

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said the Government will be forced to increase taxes if the Senate blocks its proposed spending cuts.

According to figures released by the Government, Labor and the Greens are opposing $20 billion worth of savings measures.

Senior Government ministers are negotiating with cross-bench Senators to secure support for key measures including the $7 GP co-payment, fuel excise increase and higher education changes.

Senator Cormann said those structural savings are needed to bring the budget back under control.

"If we stay on a spending growth trajectory that takes us to 26.5 per cent of the share of GDP, when tax revenue on average over the last 20 years was 22.4 per cent of the share of GDP and you don't want to balance the books by reducing spending, then the only alternative to balance the books is to increase taxes," Senator Cormann said.

This week, Senator Cormann said there was still ample time to pass key budget measures, given that they are not due to take effect immediately.

But the Opposition said the comments are at odds with the Government's previous warnings of a "budget emergency".

Senator Cormann told the ABC's Insiders program the Government is "working in an orderly and methodical fashion" to implement its planned measures.

"As we work through the implementation of the budget, inevitably there is going to be noise, a level of conversation seeking to scrutinise the decisions the Government has made and why and that is appropriate," he said.

"About half of all of our budget measures have gone through.

"Indeed, our biggest saving ... the reduction in the funding growth in foreign aid to the tune of $7.6 billion over forward estimates – that went through."

Senator Cormann said spending and debt growth does need to be addressed, but in an orderly fashion.

"There is no rush to deal with specific structural reforms, which do not apply until July 1, 2015 [or] early 2016," he said.

"It's always been thus, that in relation to structural, medium term reforms, that you deal with them sequentially and in a prioritised fashion in the Senate."

Meanwhile, Education Minister Christopher Pyne said he is confident at least some of the Government's controversial higher education proposals will pass, as he continues negotiations with cross-bench senators.

Mr Pyne will this week introduce a bill to deregulate university fees, and reduce course funding by around 20 per cent. Labor, the Greens and the Palmer United Party say they are opposed to the measures.

But Mr Pyne said he is determined to find savings and notes cutting research grants would not require legislation.

"The worst case scenario is cuts without reform and I think the university sector gets that," he said.

Coalition needs to be more sensible, moderate: Government MP

The defence of budget measures by senior ministers comes as debate continues within the Government's ranks on some key points of the budget "repair plan".

Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald, who opposes the fuel tax increase and the GP co-payment, said the Government needs to adopt a more sensible and moderate approach to some of the measures.

He told ABC Weekend Breakfast the Government needs to have another look at its paid parental leave scheme until the budget bottom line improves.

"I have this view, that [in] being perfectly pure in the budget, fixing the budget up and [will mean we become] so unpopular in doing it that Labor will come back," he said.

"Labor will have no qualms about racking up a $600 billion debt again. So it seems to me that we need to be a little bit more sensible and a little bit more moderate."

Senator Macdonald said it was a tough budget to introduce.

"There is a few issues on the side people have concerns about," he said.

"Things like the paid parental leave, like the co-payment, the fuel excise. These are measures which I think need more thought. That doesn't mean to say the whole budget strategy is being put in jeopardy."

More on this story

• GP co-payment: Children and vulnerable groups exempt from paying extra in AMA's alternative plan
• Treasurer Joe Hockey 'really genuinely sorry' for hurt caused by 'poor people don't drive' comments
• Treasurer Joe Hockey wanted heavier budget cuts, book reveals
• Joe Hockey warns interest rates will rise if budget cuts and tax hikes not passed by Senate

Budget negotiations: Higher taxes may be forced if Senate stand-off continues, Mathias Cormann says - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Jenna Price August 18, 2014

 

"Ineffectual strategists": Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann. Photo: Andrew Meares

For months and months, federal government ministers have been banging on about a budget emergency.

Every time Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann open their mouths you can hear those dull slogans dreamt up by ineffectual  strategists.

Debt and deficit disaster.

Budget emergency.

We know that’s what politicians do when they’ve run out of their own ideas. If they had any in the first place.

Of course, now we all know that there is neither a debt and deficit disaster nor a budget emergency. Except for the one of the government’s own making, borne of pigheaded attachment to the trough and icy disdain for the Australian people.

Now, in fact, by the hand of the Abbott government, we have a full-scale budget emergency, 11 months into the new government’s term.

Even one of their own number, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, has called on her colleagues to make peace with others, to negotiate, to collaborate. She says it’s time. Sadly, if you’ve heard Mathias Cormann on the radio now – he’s using a new little slogan. An adjustment here and an adjustment there.

Adjustments. Like the ones you have from your health professional. Just a little click and push and everything will be right.

Nick Xenophon, independent senator for South Australia, is having none of that. His view of the budget?

“It needs a general anaesthetic and radical surgery . . . a mini budget is the only way to overcome what is intractable opposition.”

Xenophon has been an independent politician for 16 years and in all that time, including six at a federal level, he’s seen politicians blunder.

“I’m surprised as to what a mess they have made of it . . . there are too many own goals.”

Let’s not go over the Prime Minister for Cutting Corners or the Minister for Rich People Who Drive Cars. The Minister for Bigotry. The Minister for Ensuring Girls stick to Teaching and Nursing. The Minister for Science in the Fifties. The Minister for Ensuring Climate Change. The Minister for White Christian Migrants (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

Let’s just look at what the budget, as planned by the Abbott ministry, will do if it gets through.

First, even the tight response from Treasury tells us that we will all lose money. I don’t mind so much – I’m earning a comfortable middle-class income and so is my spouse. My children, at the minute, are independent. So if I lose $517 a year, I doubt I’ll notice.

But, regressively, those who earn less, will be hurt more. Lower-income families will lose $844 a year. That’s one family meal a week. Let’s see Abbott, Hockey and co make that kind of adjustment.

And when the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling took a long hard look at the budget, the news was even worse. It showed that 1.25 million low- and middle-income families with children will be $3000 a year worse off (but, as with all things Abbott, the rich stay richer, because of the impact of the removal of the carbon tax – if consumers actually do get some kind of price cut).

Ben Phillips, principal research fellow at NATSEM, based at the University of Canberra, says that given more time he could also have modelled the impact of removing access to the dole for thousands of young Australians.

“So, in reality, the numbers will be worse than that . . . what we modelled was a best-case scenario.”

Again, those who are independent of government influence have the most incisive criticisms  – this from “Sharing the Budget pain”, a budget response paper by Peter Whiteford and Daniel Nethery, from ANU’s Crawford School of Economics.

“We find that people on benefits do the heaviest lifting. An unemployed 23-year-old loses $47 per week or 18 per cent of their disposable income. An unemployed lone parent with one 8-year-old child loses $54 per week or 12 per cent. Lone parents earning around two-thirds of the average wage lose between 5.6 to 7 per cent of their disposable income. A single-income couple with two school-age children and average earnings loses $82 per week or 6 per cent of their disposable income.”

And the hard work of the Australia Institute underscores who gets punished. Its research shows that the co-payment will discourage the sick from going to the doctor. Pensioners will be hit to the tune of $1.9 billion. Apprentices will see government loans replacing government assistance. We’ll spend $10 billion a year on defence (where there is no real threat) but cut climate change programs.

The winner is business. But where will its customers be? Businesses can’t exist without consumers and consumers will be hurt, are already hurting.

I asked Nick Xenophon which government policies he thought were most likely to be scrapped after negotiations.

He said the Medicare co-payment, the changes to access to unemployment benefits, university fee deregulations, changes to the automotive transformation scheme which he believes would severely affect jobs, increasing the age pension.

He added others. And I asked him whether he thought a reshuffle would help.

“It’s a lemon. If you are still selling a lemon, a new salesman won’t help.”

Adjustments? Surgery. I’d say this budget needs euthanasia. To put us all out of our misery.

Joe Hockey's budget is beyond salvation

By ABC's Jonathan Green

Posted Thursday 21 August 2014

Photo: What's the reality behind Tony Abbott's Team Australia? (AAP: Dan Peled)

The Prime Minister's concept of Team Australia seems so simple: the Australian way, you're for it or you're against it. The Australian reality though? Well that's a more complex thing altogether. Jonathan Green does the adding up.

In 2012, Australia's nominal GDP was $1501 billion.

On August 20, 2014 at 01:19:51 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia was projected to be: 23,570,738.

For all Australians, GDP per capita in 2012 was $63,680.

At the time of the 2011 Census, the median age for Australians was 37.

About 83 per cent of people think they're in the middle four deciles of the income distribution.

About 40 per cent of Australians are, in fact, the middle.

Among full-time workers, the median wage was $57,400 in August 2011.

Median income in North Sydney ($2111) was more than twice as high as the median income on the NSW Central Coast ($1003).

A single person living alone, who took home $43,000 in 2012 after income tax, had a material standard of living higher than 50 per cent of the population, and lower than 50 per cent of the population.

In 2011-12 about 2.6 million (11.8 per cent) Australians lived under the poverty line.

About 11.5 per cent of all Australian children under 25 years and 11.8 per cent of children under 15 were living in poverty.

Between 2000-01 and 2011-12 the poverty line (equalised disposable income) increased from $209 per week to $368 per week.

53 per cent of people in poverty belong to families without anyone in the labour force.

A family with at least one university level qualification is less than half as likely to experience poverty as the rest of the population.

A family with a post-graduate qualification has a child poverty rate of only 3.3 per cent. A family with a trade qualification has a poverty rate of 11.7 per cent.

Half of families with an education level lower than year 10 experience poverty.

On any given night, 1 in 200 Australians are homeless.

There are 3624 people in Australian immigration detention facilities, and 3007 people in community detention in Australia.

168 people have been in detention for more than two years.

In the 2011 Census, there were 5.3 million migrants in Australia, so one in four (26 per cent) Australian residents was born overseas.

The oldest median ages were for people born in Italy (68 years), Germany (62 years), and the United Kingdom (54 years).

Affiliation to Christianity among all Australians is in decline, from 96 per cent in 1911 to 61 per cent in 2011.

There has been an increase for those identifying with Pentecostal Christian groups from 1.0 per cent of the population in 2001 to 1.1 per cent in 2011.

Between 2001 and 2011, the number of people reporting a non-Christian faith increased considerably, from about 0.9 million to 1.5 million, accounting for 7.2 per cent of the total population in 2011.

"No religion" is on the increase, from 15 per cent in 2001 to 22 per cent in 2011.

28 per cent of people aged 15-34 reported they had no religious affiliation.

In 2011, 81 per cent of Australians aged five years and over spoke only English at home.

2 per cent of Australians spoke no English.

67 per cent of recent arrivals spoke a language other than English at home.

There are 281,578 Muslim Australians.

36 per cent of all Muslims in Australia were born here.

Almost 50 per cent of Australian Muslims are aged 24 and under.

Half of all Tasmanians aged 15 to 74 are functionally illiterate.

About 620,000 Australians aged 15 to 74 have literacy skills at below level one on a five point literacy scale.

Just under half a million Australian women reported that they had experienced physical or sexual violence or sexual assault in the past 12 months.

26.2 per cent of adults living in households below the 50 per cent poverty line are from a non-English speaking country.

Total direct Indigenous expenditure by government is $25.4 billion, 5.6 per cent of total direct government expenditure.

At June 30, 2013 there were 30,775 prisoners (sentenced and un-sentenced) in Australian prisons.

8430 prisoners identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, 27 per cent of the total prisoner population.

Almost half of Aboriginal men and more than a third of women die before they turn 45.

Three million Australians have mental and behavioural conditions.

60.3 per cent of men, and 66.6 per cent of women aged 18 years and over have a waist circumference that put them at an increased risk of developing chronic disease.

More than 3.1 million Australians over 18 have high blood pressure.

In the 12 months to June 2010, Australian households spent an average of $1236 each week on goods and services, an increase of 38 per cent since 2003-04.

In the 2013 election, 5,841,399 Australians voted for the Coalition parties.

709,055 voted for the Palmer United Party.

There were 15,932,799 eligible voters in the 2013 election, and 12,915,222 formal votes.

24 per cent of Australians think that in some circumstances a non-democratic government can be preferable.

Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.

Team Australia: the reality of the figures - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By ABC's Quentin Dempster Friday 22 August 2014

Photo: Tim Owen was once the Liberal Party's great coup, but no more. (ABC Nick Gerber)

The ICAC is delving ever deeper into the Liberal Party as the tangled web of deception becomes clearer and the careers of MPs are shredded, writes Quentin Dempster.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive" - Sir Walter Scott.

Follow the money.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in New South Wales is following a money trail of prohibited donations deep into the Liberal Party.

On Wednesday, August 6 a mild-mannered solicitor Hugh Thomson, the former campaign manager of the Liberal Tim Owen 2011 campaign for the state seat of Newcastle "rolled over".

That is to say he accepted an inducement from the ICAC that he would not be recommended for prosecution for any criminality unless he gave false evidence. Thomson signed a 70-page statement with accompanying documentary evidence - emails, text messages, bank statements showings electronic fund transfers, cash transactions and tax invoices from entities supplying services to the Owen campaign.

The ICAC alleges routing of cheques from an entity under the control of businessman Nathan Tinkler (Boardwalk Resources). Boardwalk Resources was a property developer prohibited by the NSW Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act from donating to any NSW registered political party.

In 2010, to the amazement of the Liberal Party, the prospect of actually winning Newcastle, a then historically safe Labor seat, became more real. Tim Owen, former deputy commander of Australian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, was willing to stand for the seat.

With a candidate of Owen's stature a victory against the Labor incumbent Jodi McKay, a former TV journalist, could be realised. The NSW ALP was on the nose with voters. While some would vote for the Greens in protest at the ALP's exposure as an endemically corrupt culture, the bulk of Labor's traditional supporters were going to vote Liberal in a punitive swing across the polity.

To the resentment of the Liberals, in 2009 then Labor premier Nathan Rees had famously banned donations from property developers after what became known as the "dirty, sexy, money" scandal  in Wollongong.

"Not another cent," Rees had intoned dramatically, "and we'll put that ban into law". In Wollongong the Labor-dominated city council was exposed as easily manipulated by a "table of knowledge" (plastic table and chairs outside a beachside kebab shop), regular informal meetings between corrupt property developers and council officers where the facetious agenda was to "advance Wollongong into tomorrow".

From 2008 when this scandal hit Labor's NSW, voter intention polling started to plummet.

Evidence so far to ICAC has indicated that business started to direct its funding support to the Liberal and National parties in an increasing momentum from 2009, including from property developers.

The ICAC's current Spicer inquiry into the solicitation, receipt and non-disclosure of prohibited donations arose from the earlier Operation Credo, in which a private entity Australian Water Holdings (once headed by former Liberal Party state president and treasurer Arthur Sinodinos) was shown to have donated money to a Liberal Party central coast slush fund EightByFive.

That inquiry resulted in the standing aside from the parliamentary Liberal Party and resignation from Cabinet of Chris Hartcher (Terrigal). Mr Hartcher once jokingly described himself as the "godfather" of central coast Liberals. Also implicated were Hartcher recruits-turned MPs Darren Webber (Wyong) and Chris Spence (The Entrance).

In Operation Spicer the money trail has exposed and now destroyed the political careers of Tim Owen (Newcastle) and Andrew Cornwell (Charlestown). They resigned from parliament after admitting their own misconduct - Owen through giving false evidence about what he did with $10,000 in cash he received from property developer Jeff McCloy (until recently the lord mayor of Newcastle); and Cornwell through his acceptance of an inflated price from a Rex Newell painting from property developer Hilton Grugeon and other cash.

The destruction of these two cleanskins has devastated the Coalition Government of young Premier Mike Baird. Baird had become the premier of NSW in April after the sensational resignation of the Liberal's election-winning leader, Barry O'Farrell.

O'Farrell fell on his sword when he was confronted with his own fountain-pen signed thank you note and forced to admit that he had accepted an undeclared $3000 bottle of Grange Hermitage from then AWH chief executive and Liberal fundraiser Nicholas di Girolamo.

AWH was lobbying the Government for a public-private partnership to eventually take over the services and billion dollar cash flow of the public utility Sydney Water in the metropolitan north west.

Baird, a competent and personable character, was seen as the Liberal Party's best hope to keep the show on the road and a more saleable leader than "Robbo", Labor's shaved-headed former trade union boss.

Where does this now go? Mike Gallacher, an Upper House Liberal, resigned as Police Minister in the Baird Cabinet after he was implicated in the slush funding operation from property developers. He will be one of ICAC's next major witnesses. He denies impropriety.

Exactly what was the nature of Gallacher's relationship with Nathan Tinkler? Did he solicit a substantial donation from Tinkler's Boardwalk Resources? What knowledge, if any, did he have of Boardwalk Resources' cheques being routed via the federal Liberal Party's Free Enterprise Foundation and re-directed back to NSW in contravention of NSW law and Liberal Party federal policy?

Geoffrey Watson SC, the ICAC counsel assisting, has said: "...during 2010 and 2011 members of the Liberal Party of NSW used the Free Enterprise Foundation as a means of washing and re-channelling donations made by prohibited donors. We said this was done for the purpose of avoiding the impact of the Election Funding Act and that the purpose was to disguise the true source of the money."

The ICAC will be examining most or all of the members of the Liberal Party's state finance executive.

So what started as the exposure of the corrupt culture of the Australian Labor Party now extends to an investigation into the collective integrity of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Primarily it is about the Liberal Party's tangled web of deception - covering up prohibited money.

A multimedia version of this piece appears on the ABC's new tablet app The Brief, which can be downloaded here.

Quentin Dempster presents 7.30 NSW on ABC TV. View his full profile here.

Following the money down the ballot hole - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political reporter Anna Henderson

Friday 22 August 2014, 2:30pm

Photo: Scott Morrison told the hearing that the former Labor government should be questioned about its policies. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

Related Story: Immigration accused of covering up children's mental health issues

Related Story: Call to sack Immigration staff after 'cover-up' allegations

Related Story: Psychiatrist says detention treatment akin to torture

The Immigration Minister and the head of the Human Rights Commission have clashed over whether the Christmas Island detention centre is a prison.

Minister Scott Morrison and other key departmental officials have appeared before a Human Rights Commission inquiry into child detention in Canberra.

Commission president Gillian Triggs told the inquiry she saw little difference between locked detention and a prison.

"I have been a practising lawyer since I was 22 years old and I have been to many prisons. I know a prison when I see it," she said.

Mr Morrison questioned the comparison.

"You've been in prisons, so you are telling me that the Phosphate Hill compound on Christmas Island is the same as Long Bay jail?" he asked.

"I'm not saying they are equivalent," Ms Triggs responded.

Mr Morrison then shut down the line of questioning, saying: "We can move on, Madam President."

Morrison described 'moral burden' of policy decisions

Earlier Mr Morrison told the inquiry into child detention he could not allow his feelings as a father to get in the way of delivering the Government's tough offshore processing policy.

"As a parent of two young children, the emotional challenges of working in this policy portfolio are just as real and just as great as they would be for any other parent in my position," he said.

"But sentiment cannot be indulged at the expense of effective policy; that is, saving lives and ending the chaos and tragedy that was occurring, that many thought could never be turned around.

"That is my duty. There were always going to be costs. There is no decision that I, or any of my predecessors, take as a minister in this area that is not free of moral burden.

"Our decisions affect people's lives. It is a heavy responsibility that no minister carries lightly, regardless of their political affiliation."

Talking about offshore processing, he said "the Government is not going to allow a set of policies to be weakened that would see [an] Australian staring into the face of child corpse in the water again".

"The voiceless in this debate are the ones that are at the bottom of the ocean and who are in camps all around the world, [who] I am very pleased are now getting places under our program," he said.

Morrison asked: 'Do ends justify the means?'

In an exchange with Mr Morrison, Counsel assisting the Commissioner Naomi Sharp said the average length of time a child was held in immigration detention had increased substantially since the Coalition was elected.

"Is it your assertion that the long-term detention of children who are subject to the offshore processing regime is the price we need to pay for stopping the boats?" she asked.

Mr Morrison said more children were being released from detention under the Coalition.

"It is not my intention to have people there longer term, and I think I have made that clear in the course of this hearing," he said.

"It is my intention that should be as shorter period as is possible."

Asked "have the means gone too far to justify the ends?", he replied: "I saw too many children die in the sea not to pursue the policies I am pursuing."

Call for Labor figures to explain previous government's policy

In his opening remarks, Mr Morrison maintained that Labor's policies led to the high number of children in detention, and said the former government should also be questioned at the inquiry.

"This is an inquiry into children in detention as you have stated. However it could be more accurately described as an inquiry into children Labor put in detention," he said.

Should children be in detention?

In March ABC Fact Check investigated the legal responsibility Australia has for asylum seeker children under its care.

 

Ms Triggs said she would take Mr Morrison's suggestion about including Labor in the inquiry on board.

She called on Mr Morrison to produce evidence to prove the link between child detention and stopping asylum seeker boats.

"What is your evidence that holding children for now more than a year has an effect on stopping boats?" she said.

"What's the connection between using patrol boats and military force to stop boats and detaining children for very long periods, unprecedentedly long periods?"

Mr Morrison maintained the policy has worked to deter asylum seekers from trying to reach Australia.

"Frankly madam president, the results speak for themselves," he said.

"We are getting the results we said we would get."

But he questioned the suggestion Operation Sovereign Borders has a military focus.

"The Australian Government is not using military force in the way that you have outlined it. Operation Sovereign Borders is a civil operation," he said.

Commission previously heard of children health issue cover-up

The commission is investigating the impact of detention on the health, wellbeing and development of children.

It has already heard explosive allegations from a former director of mental health services at detention centre service provider International Health and Mental Services (IHMS).

Psychiatrist Peter Young claimed the Immigration Department tried to cover-up the scale of mental illness among child asylum seekers by asking for figures documenting the problems to be withdrawn.

Earlier this week Mr Morrison announced plans to move hundreds of children from detention centres and community detention onto bridging visas by the end of the year.

The changes would apply to children under 10 and their families on the Australian mainland.

But Labor has criticised the Coalition for refusing to extend the policy to children being held on Nauru and Christmas Island.

Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young says the timing of the Mr Morrison's announcement ahead of today's hearing is not a coincidence.

"He needs to explain why children are being made to suffer, why their childhoods are being destroyed and what actions he will take given the damning evidence that's come out in the inquiry already," she said.

The Government says there are 876 children in detention centres, a reduction of more than 500 since the last election.

Mr Morrison's office says at the end of July there were 1,547 children in the community detention program.

Scott Morrison clashes with Human Rights Commission head who compared child detention on Christmas Island to prison - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Oliver Milman theguardian.com, Thursday 21 August 2014

Refugee advocates are challenging the legality of the month-long detention of 157 asylum seekers on a customs vessel in June

George Newhouse said the UN and other human rights organisations were ‘following the case very closely’. Photograph: Paul Miller/AAP

The United Nations may become involved in the case of the Tamil asylum seekers who were detained on an Australian customs boat, with a court hearing to take place in Canberra in October.

A brief high court directions hearing in Melbourne on Thursday resulted in Justice Kenneth Hayne setting a date of 14 October and 15 October for the full court case.

Refugee advocates are challenging the legality of the month-long detention of 157 Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers on the vessel in June.

Legal action was originally launched to prevent the asylum seekers being returned to Sri Lanka. However, the Australian government moved the people to a detention centre in Western Australia and then on to Nauru.

Organisations that want to support the challenge to the right to detain the asylum seekers have until 2 September to do so.

The legal team representing the asylum seekers indicated that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Australian Human Rights Commission were looking to intervene in the case.

In July the UNHCR expressed “profound concern” over reports the asylum seekers were being sent back to Sri Lanka. It later emerged the group was intercepted after leaving Pondicherry in India.

The 157 people, including 50 children, then spent about 22 hours a day in windowless rooms on an Australian customs boat.

George Newhouse, a lawyer for the asylum seekers, said the UN and other human rights organisations were “following the case very closely”.

“What Australia does on the high seas does affect international law and the approach of other countries,” he said. “It’s likely we’ll see intervention from human rights organisations both here and internationally.

“It would be highly unusual for the United Nations to intervene in a high court case in Australia. It shows the high level of concern internationally over Australia’s treatment of vulnerable men, women and children. This is a very serious case where 157 people were effectively abducted on the high seas and that’s not the behaviour the United Nations wants to see.

“This case is about the legality of holding people prisoner like this and, furthermore, the legality of putting them on little red lifeboats and pushing them off to a third country.”

Newhouse said it was important to have clarification from the court about any limits to the government’s powers on the high seas.

“There are important and untested questions at the heart of the case which, given the government’s policy of boat turn backs, may well have broader implications,” he said.

The asylum seekers may seek financial compensation from the Australian government due to their detention, but any claim would run separately from the current high court challenge.

The legal team also expressed concern about the manner in which the asylum seekers were transferred to Nauru.

The Human Rights Law Centre has spoken directly to a number of the asylum seekers. Its director of legal advocacy, Daniel Webb, said he was deeply concerned about the group’s wellbeing and the circumstances in which they were forcibly and secretively transferred offshore.

“They were together eating a meal, then suddenly they were rounded up, split into three groups and taken to separate locations. Once there, they were told they were going to Nauru and asked to sign forms. Many of them were crying and pleading to speak with their lawyers. Their requests were refused and they were told they were going to Nauru whether they liked it or not,” Webb said.

Webb said the ordeal had taken its toll on all members of the group but expressed particular concern for the children.

“There are 50 children in this group who have endured a truly wretched few months. First they were detained at sea. Then they were secretly and forcibly taken away to Nauru. Now they’re languishing in detention on a remote Pacific island in conditions the UN has described as inhumane and unsuitable for children. So obviously we’re extremely concerned about their wellbeing.”

Tamil asylum-seeker court case may see UN intervene | World news | theguardian.com

Oliver Laughland theguardian.com, Tuesday 19 August 2014

Guardian Australia Exclusive:
• Emails reveal strategies used by immigration department to send back asylum seekers
• Syrian asylum seekers on Manus Island and Nauru being returned to face certain harm, say human rights experts

Asylum seekers housed in Delta compound on Manus Island detention centre. Photograph: Eoin Blackwell/AAP

The lengths to which the Australian immigration department has gone to facilitate the repatriation of traumatised Syrian asylum seekers detained in offshore detention centres has been extensively revealed in departmental emails obtained under freedom of information laws.

Human rights experts have criticised the actions, saying Australia was doing the “unthinkable” by endeavouring to return Syrians.

The emails support reports from Guardian Australia in March, showing that Syrians detained offshore told Australian immigration department officials they would be killed if they returned to Syria, but the department facilitated plans for their repatriation nonetheless. This included sharing asylum-seeker identity documents with the Syrian consulate in Australia, booking flights via Jordan, and endeavouring to issue an “ultimatum” to force them into a decision on repatriation, despite a number of them being severely mentally ill.

At no point in any of the disclosed emails is conflict in Syria, which has seen more than 100,000 people die and 2.56 million refugees flee the civil war, discussed. And at no point are concerns about the asylum seekers’ safety back in Syria articulated.

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), tasked with facilitating asylum-seeker returns in offshore detention, does not facilitate repatriation to Syria because it is too dangerous.

The Australian immigration minister, Scott Morrison, has formally recognised the “humanitarian crisis” in Syria and marked 4,400 resettlement places within Australia’s annual allowance for Syrians and Iraqis fleeing persecution. Morrison has been accused of hypocrisy by politicians and human rights advocates following the email disclosures.

Syrians on Manus Island ‘were quite adamant that I would be sending them home to their death’

In one departmental email dated 20 January, Katrina Neuss, the immigration department’s operations lead on Manus Island, wrote about a recent meeting with Syrian asylum seekers:

“I was very open and frank with the transferees [asylum seekers], I described the options that they have and I was clear that they would not be settled in Australia or a third country. I did say that if they chose to return home the department would work to get them home safely, with no guarantee of any time frames. The transferees were visibly upset and quite anxious, they were quite adamant that I would be sending them home to their death.”

Neuss appeared to be responding to a request emailed by a departmental assistant secretary, Tim Ricketts, four days earlier, in which he stated with regards to the Syrians on Manus Island: “are we in ‘ultimatum’ territory (we want to know if you are signing up for VR [voluntary return] or not?) or can we hint that departing from PNG doesn’t necessarily mean returning to Syria?”.

Ricketts has been told by Hasan Sowaid, the New South Wales director of detention case resolution in the department, they should think “long and hard about routing and putting these folks on a plane by themselves” without an escort.

Neuss sent another email on 26 January, six days after the Syrians said they faced death if returned, stating she has offered them a return to Syria again: ‘I met with three of the Syrian transferees yesterday, two of which are on PSP. I read the answers out to their questions. They were all accepting of the information, as you can imagine they are all very concerned for their families back in Syria. The main question that came out of our discussion was ‘what is the travel route we will take? How are we going to get home to our families safely?’”.

Guardian Australia has reported the contents of meeting minutes showing that two of the Syrians were on the psychological support programme on Manus Island, meaning they had severe mental health issues. One is described as “not taking any responsibility for his own behaviour”.

It is understood none of the five Syrians on Manus Island went ahead with the repatriation. A number of them have been on a long-term hunger strike and all were split up within the centre to “keep them quiet”.

‘Hope these [identity documents] will be considered favourably by the [Syrian consul general]’

The disclosures also show that Syrians detained on Nauru have been offered repatriation, with departmental officials liaising with the Syrian consulate in Australia to organise travel documents.

In early January Lucy Emery, a transferee welfare and removals officer on Nauru, wrote to Ricketts and Timothy Bryant, another assistant secretary, indicating that a Syrian on Nauru wanted to be repatriated and seeking advice on what documentation would be needed because the man was born in Palestine.

Bryant wrote back: “I’m keen to prepare the strongest application we can for submission to the Syrian authorities. We will get better traction with the Syrian C-G [consul general] if we approach them with a complete travel document application with a formal, supportive covering letter from the department.”

Later emails – from another departmental removals officer on Nauru, Tim Kemp – indicated the Syrian would disclose any of his identification documents to Syrian authorities to facilitate return. Bryant later confirmed copies of the identity documents have been sent to the Syrian consulate: “Hope these will be considered favourably by the C-G,” he wrote.

A later email in March, sent by immigration staff at Sydney airport, showed a planned return of a Syrian detainee for 7 April. “Escorts and RLOs will be accompanying detainee to Syria via Abu Dhabi and Amman,” the official wrote.

The Australian immigration minister has not responded to questions over whether the return went ahead.

‘Doing the unthinkable’

Elaine Pearson, the Australia director at Human Rights Watch, said the correspondence highlighted that Australia was doing the “unthinkable” by endeavouring to return Syrians.

“While Syrian authorities are committing crimes against humanity including systematic killings and torture, Australia is doing the unthinkable – trying to send Syrians back home,” Pearson said.

“Even worse – authorities are actively sharing information with Syrian authorities in order to obtain travel documents which is likely to further endanger their lives.”

“Australia’s obligations under the refugee convention are to protect those fleeing persecution, not send people back to be slaughtered. Given the IOM isn’t even entertaining the idea of voluntary returns to Syria, Australia shouldn’t either,” Pearson said.

Ben Pynt, the director of advocacy at Humanitarian Research Partners, who lodged the FOI request, said any returned Syrian faced the certainty of harm.

“There isn’t a ‘mere likelihood’ that these people will be persecuted on returning to Syria. It isn’t even a ’50/50 chance’. There is an absolute certainty that these people will be harmed or killed upon their return, and the government’s reaction is to push them to go home without even listening to their claims for asylum,” Pynt said.

The Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said the emails highlighted a contradiction in messages from the Australian government.

“On the one hand the Abbott government acknowledges the massive humanitarian crisis in Syria but, on the other hand, they’re forcing refugees in Australia back to danger,” Hanson-Young said.

“The psychological pressure that is being placed on these people is extremely concerning. Many of them are on watch because of mental health concerns, but the government is still willing to send them back to potential torture and trauma in Syria.

“The lack of concern from [the] department ... about what will happen to these people when they are eventually dumped back in Syria is alarming.

Daniel Webb, the director of legal advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre, said any coerced return to Syria would “breach international law and expose people to grave risks of serious harm”.

“The humanitarian crisis in Syria has produced almost 3 million refugees. A tiny handful have escaped and sought Australia’s protection. They’ve told authorities they’d be killed if sent back. Yet these documents show the government remains fixated on pressuring them to return,” Webb said.

“The government tries to spin its asylum-seeker policies as a humanitarian crusade to save lives at sea. But if it honestly cared about saving lives it wouldn’t be coercing Syrians to return to the risk of death.”

Morrison did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Australia going to 'unthinkable' lengths to return Syria detainees, emails show | World news | theguardian.com

Written by: John Kelly August 19, 2014

You can smell an air of desperation in the ranks of the Coalition government at the moment. Each week, it seems, we have a rich canvas of events and incidents involving incompetence, ineptness and stupidity to write about. It is coming from the Liberal side, of course,  now utterly fraught with gaffe-prone ministers, ill-judged expectations, a stunningly arrogant assumption of superiority and a leadership that has become world famous for absurdity, foolish outbursts and a refusal to change tactics and direction. But, hey, I’m not saying anything we don’t already know.

Joe Hockey’s apology on Radio 2UE was excessive, bordering on Act 3 of a soap opera. He messed it up by trying to make it sound like he was the offended party. “For there to be some suggestion that I have evil in my heart when it comes to the most disadvantaged people in the community is upsetting.

“But it’s more upsetting for those people in the community. So I want to make it perfectly clear to the community that if there’s any suggestion that I don’t care about you or that I have evil intent toward you, I want to say that couldn’t be further from the truth and I’m sorry for the hurt.”

Joe Hockey (image from afr.com)

Very touching, Joe, but it’s not about you and the fact is you only did it because you were shamed into it. Hockey has exposed his own incompetence. He doesn’t seem to understand what the word, ‘regressive’ means. He doesn’t seem to get that when assessing the impact on the lower levels of affluence in society it’s the percentage of your income spent on fuel or food or transport that matters, not the actual amount.

Any flat tax is regressive, Joe. Progressive taxes place a more equitable load on the higher paid. It all makes sense if your eyes are open. But, if you subscribe to an ideology that is committed to preserving the wealth for the wealthy, then perhaps it’s not so clear.

Tony Abbott has put his foot in it (again), with his comments about the upcoming vote for independence in Scotland. “I think that the people who would like to see the breakup of the United Kingdom are not the friends of justice, not the friends of freedom, and that the countries that would cheer at the prospect of the breakup with the United Kingdom are not the countries whose company one would like to keep,” he said. Against freedom and justice? What was he thinking?

David Marr has an amusing theory behind this churlish outburst. Attacking the Scots will bump up the yes vote by enough for the Nationalists to win. Most Scottish parliamentary seats in the House of Commons are held by Labor. By removing them from Westminster, the Tories have a better chance of retaining power in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Tony Abbot saves the Tories. Wow!

While David chuckled his way through that little parody on Insiders, last Sunday, it was the reply Abbott received from Alex Salmond who showed remarkable insight into our Prime Minister that went viral. Salmond, who is Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party said Mr Abbott was “notoriously gaffe-prone” and he had “put his foot right in it.” Tell us something we don’t already know, Alex. The First Minister was clearly being kind to someone he must have perceived as an idiot and who needed to be handled gently.

Image from smh.com.au

There is also the matter of ramping up home security in the light of Australians joining the conflicts in Iraq and Syria and the PM’s concern for the Yazidis of Northern Iraq. There is a strange sense of Deja Vu in relation to this humanitarian crisis and the rescue of 4000 Kosovar refugees by John Howard in 1999. Church leaders are asking Abbott to protect Christians in Iraq and Syria.

Dr Freier, the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, has written to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Immigration Minister Scott Morrison asking that they offer refuge to Christians facing forced conversion to Islam or death.

One could be forgiven for thinking that a revised definition of ‘hypocrisy’ is about to be written. Will we see a sectarian airlift out of the Middle East protecting Christians while we traumatise predominantly Iraqi and Afghani Muslim and Tamil Hindu refugees in off-shore concentration camps in New Guinea and Nauru? One can only wait and see.

But the blunder of the week thus far, must go to the Prime Minister who blames the previous NSW Labor government for changing the law that now sees two Liberal MP’s resign and another six standing aside for accepting campaign donations from developers. Such an absurdly simplistic claim must surely have the more stable minds inside the Liberal party wondering how long they can continue to allow the party to bleed so profusely.

One gets the feeling that for freedom and justice to be served for the Australian voter, enough heads should roll to make ‘Game of Thrones’ look like a vicarage tea party.

Another Day, Another Blunder - » The Australian Independent Media Network