EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Kevin Rudd’s bn health and hospital funding favours labor seats,

     

    The HHF is one of the three “nation-building” funds established by the Rudd government for long-term reforms and to support jobs and economic activity. The funds have played central roles in Labor’s two economic stimulus packages and last year’s budget.

    Related Coverage

    Health Minister Nicola Roxon has the final say on which projects receive HHF money – she issues the guidelines for funding evaluation, proposals are assessed by an independent advisory board of experts that she appoints and those projects that meet the conditions go to her for ultimate approval. Not all screened proposals that qualify receive HHF funding.

    Many of the fund projects were deemed “shovel-ready” or have been boosted by state government contributions. They include a new rehabilitation unit at the Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, the Parkville Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Melbourne, the Health and Medical Research Institute in Adelaide, an expansion of Townsville Hospital and the Lifehouse Cancer Centre in Sydney.

    Taking into account last year’s electoral redistributions in Queensland and NSW, which notionally handed five seats from the Liberal to Labor, including Herbert (Townsville) and Greenway (western Sydney), Labor’s share of the HHF pie rises to 83 per cent – or $5 to the government-held electorates for every $1 going to non-Labor seats.

    The HHF figures are in line with the skewed outlays of the government’s $275 million GP Super Clinics program, under which Labor electorates are receiving 80 per cent of the funds to construct the new one-stop medical centres.

    Based on the House of Representatives, where Labor holds 83 of 150 seats, a reasonable share of health funds for its electorates would be 55 per cent.

    The Rudd government has chosen to green-light HHF projects located in ultra-marginal Labor seats such as Solomon in Darwin, Bass in Tasmania and Hasluck in Perth, and in winnable Coalition electorates such as Herbert, Greenway and Hughes in southern Sydney.

    Health policy is shaping up as a key election issue, with Labor’s reform plan proposing majority funding from the commonwealth (by taking one-third of GST funds) and improved local management of hospitals.

    On April 19 in Canberra, the Prime Minister will seek an agreement on his health reforms when he hosts premiers and chief ministers at the Council of Australian Governments meeting.

    Breaking down HHF projects by state, Western Australia (which has 10 per cent of the population) has been handsomely rewarded, gaining an 18 per cent share.

    Victoria, Tasmania and the territories have received funding in excess of their per capita expectations.

    Queensland and South Australia have won funds in line with their size.

    But NSW, long seen as a poorly managed jurisdiction, particularly in containing health costs, has been severely penalised in the HHF process.

    Although the state has 32.5 per cent of the population, it has received only 16.8 per cent of the HHF’s investments.

    Announcing the Building Australia Fund, Education Investment Fund and HHF in his May 2008 budget speech, Wayne Swan lamented the short-sightedness of national budgets.

    “For too long, our national budgets have focused on the next election, not the big challenge facing our country in the next decade and beyond,” the Treasurer said.

    At the time, the federal opposition called the three new investment vehicles, with planned seed capital of $41bn, “slush funds” to be used by Labor to pursue short-term political ends.

    According to its guiding principles, the HHF is geared to investments in major projects that will meet health reform targets as well as strategic stakes that will lead to improvements in “efficiency, access or outcomes of health care”.

    The Health Minister ultimately approves funding for projects that have passed screening by an advisory panel of experts appointed by the minister.

    The HHF advisory board is chaired by private equity figure Bill Ferris, chairman of the Garvan Institute for Medical Research and a former chairman of Austrade.

    Other advisory board members include KPMG partner Patricia Faulkner, Health and Ageing departmental secretary Jane Halton, infrastructure executive Bruce Warner and public health academics Stephen Leeder, John Wakerman and Cindy Shannon.

    In the 2009-10 budget, Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced $3.2bn in new spending from the HHF to upgrade hospital facilities, improve cancer treatment and to promote so-called “translational research” from the laboratory bench to bedside care.

    Most of the money has gone to specific projects, although $532m for a network of regional cancer centres has yet to be allocated.

    And $120m has been provided to BreastScreen Australia for a national mammography program.

    23 comments on this story

  • Coalition to reduce migration

    Coalition to reduce migration

    • Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent
    • From: The Australian
    • April 06, 2010 12:00Am

    TONY Abbott’s Coalition will cut net migration levels if it wins government, in a bid to stop Australia’s population reaching its predicted size of almost 36 million in 2050.

    Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison yesterday told The Australian the Rudd government had allowed immigration to rise too high and the population figure that Treasury’s Intergenerational Report predicted last September for 2050 was unsustainable.

    Mr Morrison said the Coalition would not allow the average net overseas migration of more than 300,000 a year that had occurred since the Rudd government took power to continue.

    “We want to return to the levels we pursued in government,” he said. “A net overseas migration intake of 300,000 (as occurred under the Rudd government) would not be a feature of future Coalition policy.”

    Mr Morrison said the current population growth rate of 2.1 per cent put Australia ahead of Canada, Britain and the US.

    Related Coverage

    “It even puts us ahead of China and India,” he said. “It’s principally fuelled by net overseas migration. A natural increase in the fertility rate has (increased it) but what has been driving the numbers . . . has been spiralling rates of net overseas migration.”

    Mr Morrison said the Coalition would support skilled migrants coming, but was likely to cut other elements of the program, including family reunion.

    “It’s about getting your immigration policy under control,” he said. “The migration program should be tight and focused on skills and productivity.”

    The Opposition Leader last night backed Mr Morrison’s comment that the prediction of a population of 35.9 million was not sustainable, saying the roads of Sydney and Melbourne were already choked.

    But Mr Abbott stopped short of committing the Coalition to a cut in migration, saying decisions on the intake should be taken on a “year by year basis”.

    “Immigration has to be in Australia’s national interest,” he said on the ABC’s Q&A program last night.

    Mr Morrison said the 35.9 million forecast, which Kevin Rudd has endorsed as appropriate, was being driven by net overseas migration well above what it was under the Howard government.

    He said average net overseas immigration under the Coalition had been 126,000 a year, but under Labor it had risen to more than 300,000.

    Mr Morrison said that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia’s population was growing in net terms at the rate of one person every minute and 10 seconds, and immigration accounted for more than 60 per cent of the increase.

    The new immigration spokesman toughened the Coalition’s rhetoric on asylum-seekers, challenging the government to take control of Australian borders in the wake of 103 boats carrying 4575 passengers reaching our shores since Labor was elected.

    Mr Abbott last night backed the return of the temporary protection visa system and said a Coalition government would return asylum-seekers to their homelands if they no longer had a fear of persecution.

    Columnist Glenn Milne yesterday wrote in The Australian that the Opposition Leader and Mr Morrison had determined that if Australians were concerned about boatpeople, they were going to have similar concerns about Mr Rudd’s declaration that a “big Australia” of 35.9 million people by 2050 was a good thing.

    Mr Morrison denied the Coalition was pushing a racist agenda by endeavouring to cut migration numbers.

    “It has nothing to do with issues of race,” he said.

    “We did not want to create an unpleasant debate. We were quite serious about having a debate that didn’t degenerate into political name-calling on issues of race.

    “At the end of the day, we will obviously take a more conservative view about intake in the current climate.”

    The business community’s reaction to Mr Morrison’s comments is likely to be tempered by the immigration spokesman’s support for the skilled migration program, which business leaders strongly back because of the nation’s skills shortage.

    Former NSW premier Bob Carr, who has been outspoken on the issue of population, said the government must cut skilled migration. “The argument is about the level of immigration, the rate of immigration . . . we’ve ramped it up to levels the Australian people aren’t comfortable with,” Mr Carr said.

  • Regional NSW ‘to grow 70%’ by 2036

    NB (What idiocy From Planning Minister Kelly.This is based solely
    on the economy. This is a recipe for disaster)

    Regional NSW ‘to grow by 70%’ by 2036

    AAP April 6, 2010, 9:47 am

     

    Population growth in regional NSW over the next 25 years will boost the economy, Planning Minister Tony Kelly says.

    The government on Tuesday released its population forecasts up to 2036, showing regional areas with the strongest projected growth are mostly along the coast or just inland.

    Maitland’s population is expected to rise 71 per cent, Palerang shire, west of Canberra, is set to go up by 69 per cent and Queanbeyan is expected to rise 72 per cent.

    Other areas expected to have strong growth include Eurobodalla, Coffs Harbour and the Yass Valley, the forecasts say.

    Planning Minister Tony Kelly says the projections are pleasing.

    “It’s pleasing to see some of our inland and coastal areas are expected to experience strong growth, helping the state’s regional economy,” Mr Kelly said in a statement.

    The forecasts would allow all levels of government to plan for the future, he said.

    The projections also showed an increase in people aged up to 14 will be limited to metropolitan areas, coastal areas and areas surrounding Canberra.

    An increase in the number of people aged 65 and over will occur in every local area.

    Populations of some Sydney suburbs are set to double or even quadruple.

    Camden’s population will more than quadruple, the forecast says, increasing by 390 per cent to 249,800 people, while Liverpool will almost double, growing by 90 per cent to 324,400 residents.

     

  • Arctic thaw frees overlooked greenhouse gas: study

    Arctic thaw frees overlooked greenhouse gas: study

    Reuters April 5, 2010, 4:26 am

    Related Links

     

    OSLO (Reuters) – Thawing permafrost can release nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, a contributor to climate change that has been largely overlooked in the Arctic, a study showed on Sunday.

    The report in the journal Nature Geoscience indicated that emissions of the gas surged under certain conditions from melting permafrost that underlies about 25 percent of land in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Emissions of the gas measured from thawing wetlands in Zackenberg in eastern Greenland leapt 20 times to levels found in tropical forests, which are among the main natural sources of the heat-trapping gas.

    “Measurements of nitrous oxide production permafrost samples from five additional wetland sites in the high Arctic indicate that the rates of nitrous oxide production observed in the Zackenberg soils may be in the low range,” the study said.

    The scientists, from Denmark and Norway, studied sites in Canada and Svalbard off northern Norway alongside their main focus on Zackenberg. The releases would be a small addition to known impacts of global warming.

    Nitrous oxide is the third most important greenhouse gas from human activities, dominated by carbon dioxide ahead of methane.

    It is among the gases regulated by the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol for limiting global warming that could spur more sandstorms, floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels.

    Nitrous oxide comes from human sources including agriculture, especially nitrogen-based fertilisers, and use of fossil fuels as well as natural sources in soil and water, such as microbes in wet tropical forests.

    The scientists said that past studies had reckoned that carbon dioxide and methane were released by a thaw of permafrost while nitrous oxide stayed locked up.

    “Thawing and drainage of the soils had little impact on nitrous oxide production,” Nature said in a statement of the study led by Bo Elberling of Copenhagen University.

    “However, re-saturation of the drained soils with meltwater from the frozen soils — as would happen following thawing — increased nitrous oxide production by over 20 times,” it said.

    “Nearly a third of the nitrous oxide produced in this process escaped into the atmosphere,” it added.

    (Editing by Philippa Fletcher)

  • Bob Carr: Why our cities will really choke with population growth

    Bob Carr: Why our cities will really choke with population growth

    by former NSW premier Bob Carr

    The debate is not about immigration and its benefits. We all believe in them — Australia is a migrant nation. The debate is not about multiculturalism and it’s not about the source of migrants. The debate is about whether immigration should be running at very high levels. It’s about whether we end up with a population of 36 million in 2050 in contrast to the previous expectation of 28.5 million.

    There are strong economic arguments against this immigration surge. Immigration worsens skills shortages. The tradesman who’s recruited for a specific job arrives with his family. Immigration adds more to the demand for labour than it contributes to the supply. The Productivity Commission Research Report (2005) The Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia made clear migration does not reverse the ageing of the population.

    Bob Birrell has pointed out you would have to run immigration at very high levels for a very long time to have the slightest effect on population aging. The population is aging in Australia and just about everywhere else. Get used to it. Nurture older workers instead of driving them out of the workforce the moment they turn 55. High immigration is not the solution.

    There have been very silly comments about immigration and infrastructure. I don’t know of any period in the nation’s history when people said that infrastructure had kept pace with population growth. It can’t. The worst gap was in the 1950s when the roads of new suburbs were unpaved and Gough Whitlam’s children had to travel from Cronulla to the city to go to high school and people had to wait years for a PMG-delivered telephone connection and Queensland was an education slum, etc. We will never see that level of under-servicing again.

    Federal and state governments struggle to keep pace. But struggle they always will. Increase the intake and the infrastructure gap will be more acute. South-east Queensland makes the point.

    In January one academic on the 7:30 Report said that we need a new federal authority to take responsibility for all planning. This, he declared, was the answer. Once we have it we can stick to high immigration. Really? As if shifting responsibility to another level of government would dispose of all the arguments over densities, sprawl, social equity, environmental assessment, design and sustainability.

    Actually Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide (I don’t know enough to comment on Brisbane and Perth) already have very sound, environmentally sensitive metropolitan plans. Among other things they identify transport corridors and areas around rail stations or transport hubs as locations for higher density development. So they are public transport-based.

    They work to limit urban sprawl. Sydney has been most successful at this, achieving the highest percentage of dwellings in high and medium density. It has also got the highest percentage of the population using public transport.

    But our cities will be more congested with 36 million, no matter how much goes into public transport. The arguments over sprawl and higher densities will be more intense. There will be environmental loss and a loss in quality of life: the beaches choked, the adjacent national parks degraded by force of numbers, the congestion of peak hour more intense (there is no public transport system anywhere in the world that avoids peak hour congestion). The cities will work. They will be different cities and it would be a brave person who would promise they’d offer a better quality of life.

    Yet I’m far more worried about water — that is, about Australia’s erratic rainfall as a constraint on the over-ambitious population growth we seem locked into.

    The business lobby won’t acknowledge any of this; they are focused on the total size of the economy, a crude measure. They don’t look at GDP growth per head. Increasing productivity is going to be harder, not easier, if this runaway immigration continues. And business should stop imagining it can have lower corporate tax rates and high immigration. High immigration mandates higher government outlays, and therefore higher taxation.

    You can’t add millions to the nation’s population and expect a lower tax regime.

    Public opinion has moved — is moving — and I don’t think the high growth option will be entertained politically, by either side.

  • New population minister a ‘red herring’

     

    The Opposition wants an independent specialist body like the Productivity Commission to inquire into future population policies.

    Meanwhile the Urban Taskforce says the appointment of a federal population minister should not lead to a cap on immigration levels.

    The lobby group has welcomed the appointment of Mr Burke and the development of a population strategy, but taskforce chief executive Aaron Gadiel says concerns about a lack of infrastructure to support a growing population are unfounded.

    “One of the reasons that we don’t have the infrastructure that we all want and expect is that in many cases our population in our urban centres is just not large enough,” he said.

    “The larger the population, the more the Government is getting the tax revenue in and has the labour force available to build up the infrastructure.”

    NSW Planning Minister Tony Kelly says he will work with the new Population Minister to ensure the state is not overwhelmed by growth.

    Mr Kelly says Sydney’s population is projected to grow to 6 million by 2036 and he anticipates a close partnership with Mr Burke.

    Tags: community-and-society, population-and-demographics, government-and-politics, federal-government, australia, nsw

    First posted 1 hour 47 minutes ago