One of the less covered aspects of the nationalist struggle for Catalonian independence is the fact that the left, for the most part, does not support ousted President Carles Puigdemont.
Puigdemont leads a minority centre right Government that has been steadily losing popularity. His Junts pel Sí party is itself a coalition of factions from the far left to the Christian right. It is propped up by the CUP, a left nationalist party that is the smallest in the Catalan Parliament.
There are many reasons why the wider left does not currently support the wantaway republic.
Primarily, it’s because independence offers little to the working class. The move to leave is promoted mainly by the rich. They see profit in a new republic which would retain strong industrial and tourism revenues.
The working class of Catalonia is not overwhelmingly of Catalonian heritage. In the Franco years, Barcelona was flooded by ethnic Spanish workers seeking a better life. Generations on, Catalonia is as much Spanish as it is Catalan.
That’s an uncomfortable fact for some, however it is regularly reflected in polls on independence that almost always show the majority are happy with the current arrangement of autonomy within the wider Spanish state. Even the recent referendum, hobbled as it was by the Spanish state, only indicated support for the breakaway from a third of voters.
Nationalism, whether it’s from the left or the right, is always fraught with danger. For us on the left, we need to take a calm, reasoned view of events in Catalonia. The response of the Spanish state is not Francoism returned and Puigdemont is definitely not Lluis Companys.
Put simply, these are not revolutionary times in Catalonia.
A genuine independence may well come someday, in some form not yet known, however, it will only succeed if it takes all citizens with it.
We cannot trust the right to deliver real independence for Catalonia or anywhere else.
Te Reo Putake – Socialist, vegetarian, contrarian and footballer
Coverage of LivingStandardsNZ workshop at Treasury Wednesday 4 December 2013 + Thursday 5 December 2013. Photo by Mark Tantrum | www.marktantrum.com
VERY FEW NEW ZEALANDERS would have the slightest idea who Doug Andrew was or is. And yet, in his role as an economic advisor to the then Leader of the Opposition, David Lange, Andrew was one of the people who helped prepare the way for “Rogernomics” – the introduction of neoliberalism to New Zealand. Seconded in the early 1980s from Treasury – then a hotbed of “Chicago School” free market economics – Andrew was one of the principal conduits through which the economic ideas animating the governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan found their way into the policy-making forums of the New Zealand Labour Party.
Thirty-four years later, another economist, also with a Treasury (and Reserve Bank!) background, is proffering policy advice to another Labour Finance Minister. Craig Renney, identified by Stuff’s Vernon Small as one of the key “back room players” in Jacinda Ardern’s new Labour-NZ First-Green Government, has become Grant Robertson’s “economics adviser”; “the man who did the grunt-work on the Alternative Budget – and disproved National’s claim of a ‘fiscal hole’.”
And, that’s it. To find out any more about the person behind the person controlling New Zealand’s purse-strings, it is necessary to go hunting in the forests of the Internet.
Fortunately, Mr Renney is a pretty easy quarry to track down.
He appears to be a citizen of the United Kingdom, aged in his late 30s, who embarked on his professional career by enrolling in the University of Stirling as a student of Economics and Politics in 1997. After an intriguing stint in Prague (2000-2001) Renney undertook post-graduate study at the University of Northumbria in Newcastle, from which he received a Masters in Urban Policy and Sustainable Regeneration, and another, in Public Administration.
Upon leaving university, Renney worked, variously, in local government, the UK Audit Commission, and as a public-sector consultant. In 2012 he emigrated to New Zealand to take up an analyst’s position in the NZ Treasury. Between 2014 and 2016 he was a Senior Policy Adviser in Steven Joyce’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – from whence he was seconded to the Reserve Bank. In January of last year, he took on the job of Senior Economic Advisor in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition.
It’s an impressive CV. But, it tells us virtually nothing about the political leanings of its subject. The north-east of England, where Renney spent his university years, is generally regarded as the British Labour Party’s heartland. So, it is tempting to paint the advisor to our new Minister of Finance as a Geordie with traditional Labour sympathies. Certainly, the work he undertook for local governments in the north-east has the whiff of progressivism about it. On the other hand, Renney’s student years coincide with those of Tony Blair’s “New Labour” Government. So, it’s just as easy to see him as an eager follower of Anthony Gidden’s “Third Way” economic and social project.
The point is, we don’t know anything like enough about Craig Renney, let alone the direction in which he is steering our new Minister of Finance. And, dammit, we should know! Thirty-four years ago, advice was being tended to Roger Douglas that led directly to the radical restructuring of the entire economy and society of New Zealand – and we knew nothing about it!
This is what the New Zealand historian, High Oliver, had to say about what was happening to Roger Douglas all those years ago:
“Clearly an enormous shift had taken place in Douglas’s positions on economic policy and it appears that most of this shift occurred in the latter half of 1983. It is also apparent that the shift was towards the kind of free market economics that were espoused by the Treasury. It cannot be proved that the shift in ideas resulted from the influence of Treasury officials; however, it can be shown that it coincided in time with the presence in the Opposition Leader’s Office of Doug Andrew, a Treasury adviser with whom Douglas developed close links … During his time with the Labour Opposition Andrew produced papers on a range of economic policy topics and debated with existing opinions in the Caucus Economic Committee. Andrew argued for lower levels of trade protection as the key economic policy instrument. He argued for floating the currency as a matter of course.”
Similarly, it is possible to show that Labour’s adoption of its radically self-limiting “Budget Responsibility Rules” coincided in time with the presence in the Leader of the Opposition’s Office of an economic adviser from the UK called Craig Renney. The same Craig Renney identified by Vernon Small as the person who did the “grunt work” on Labour’s Alternative Budget.
But what, exactly, does that mean? Is Craig merely putting flesh on the bones of Grant’s, and the Labour Policy Council’s, ideas? Or, are Grant and Labour merely repeating ideas and policy positions fed to them by Craig? And, if it’s the latter, then what are the ideas and policies our new government is being asked to swallow?
It is a question that has always intrigued me: “Who is more powerful? The person with a loaded rifle? Or the person who supplies the ammunition, places the rifle in another’s hands – and tells them who to shoot?”
Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.
Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.
EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.
Labour risks being bulldozed on TPPA-11, ignoring own view that the deal lacks merit
‘There is an imminent risk that trade ministry officials and the agriculture lobby will bulldoze of the new Labour-led government into taking a position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) this week and foreclose the fundamental rethink of the agreement that it previously said was essential’, warns Auckland University law professor Jane Kelsey.
‘The government needs keep that space open at the meeting of TPPA-11 officials today and tomorrow in Tokyo, which will set the agenda for the APEC meeting in a week’s time’.
A year ago, the Labour opposition said in the select committee report that National’s TPPA ‘will have ramifications for generations of New Zealanders. For their sake, we should not so lightly enter into an agreement which may exacerbate long-term challenges for our economy, workforce, and society’.
Labour attacked the ‘wildly optimistic’ assumptions that underpinned the economic claims for the agreement as ‘not credible, nor are they a basis for any responsible government to proceed in signing a binding agreement with consequences as far reaching as the TPPA’.
It said a comprehensive review was needed on the impacts on jobs, income distribution and public health.
Yet the new trade minister David Parker is now telling the media “there are undoubted trade benefits in TPP11. They are obviously not nearly as significant as they were when the US was part of the deal but nonetheless a residue is still important, particularly into Japan.”
The Minister also seemed to suggest that Labour might resolve its only firm sticking point of restricting foreign buyers of residential housing without even re-opening the TPPA text.
‘Someone needs to ask the Minister how an agreement that lacked the necessary credibility for Labour to support its ratification, even when the US was still involved, has become a deal of “undoubted benefit” to New Zealand, after the US has quit’ Professor Kelsey said.
‘The minister and Prime Minister also need to reflect on the deep sense of betrayal such a position will create among those who expected it to keep its pre-election word’.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority has upheld aspects of a complaint about four broadcasts by Radio Virsa, a small Sikh radio station based in Auckland.
The broadcast programmes were in Punjabi and contained host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues and people in the local Sikh community.
The Authority found that three of the broadcasts contained divisive and derogatory language, treated named individuals in the Sikh community (including the complainant) unfairly and in one instance, breached an individual’s privacy. The Authority found that the comments made about individuals were degrading and offensive, and devalued the reputation of some individuals in breach of the good taste and decency, and fairness standards.
In reaching its decision, the Authority noted that, while some broadcasts may be directed to a specific ethnic community, when determining complaints about whether broadcasting standards have been breached it needed to look to the diverse New Zealand community as a whole:
“When we consider a complaint of this nature, we are conscious that we must apply New Zealand standards, and the expectations and values of the New Zealand community. We also recognise that our New Zealand community comprises a wide range of cultures, ethnicities and beliefs. New Zealand values these different cultures. However, these different views and cultures also need to co-exist compatibly together.”
The Authority recognised that the particular expectations of the target audience, here a sector of the New Zealand Sikh community, was an important cultural contextual factor for the Authority to consider. The Authority acknowledged these expectations may differ from the expectations of a wider, and potentially non-religious, audience and are relevant to the assessment of whether the broadcast went beyond audience expectations.
However, in this case, the Authority concluded that aspects of the broadcasts were unacceptable in New Zealand society and caused harm to both individuals and to the intended audience.
In response to the findings, Radio Virsa has offered an apology to those impacted and the BSA has ordered that a broadcast statement reflecting the BSA’s decision be made. In addition, BSA has signalled its commitment to work with Radio Virsa to assist it to better understand the New Zealand broadcasting context, and to provide guidance to Radio Virsa staff on the application of broadcasting standards in New Zealand.
“Outcome of re-investigation into Todd Barclay allegations”
Attribute to Assistant Commissioner (Investigations) Richard Chambers:
On 27 June 2017 Police announced that a re-investigation had commenced into allegations that the private communications of an individual were intercepted by Mr Todd Barclay, who was then MP for Clutha-Southland.
This followed the earlier investigation in 2016 which found that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute.
The re-investigation was in light of further comment and information which arose in the public domain in June 2017.
Police has assessed all this information, spoken again to some individuals already interviewed, and also spoken to new individuals it was thought may have relevant information.
Police took further steps to interview Mr Barclay who again declined, as is his right.
After a thorough review of all information available to us, including legal advice both internal and from Crown Law, plus consideration of the Solicitor General’s prosecution guidelines, Police has determined that there is no change to the outcome of the original investigation.
In that first investigation no search warrants were sought or executed as there was insufficient evidence to seek such warrants. That remained the situation during the re-investigation.
As part of the re-investigation Police also looked at suggestions that there had been an element of coercion in relation to certain key witnesses. We have found nothing to substantiate these suggestions.
We are aware that the original investigation has been subject to some criticism.
We would point out that the Independent Police Conduct Authority found that it was “satisfied that the Police followed proper process and appropriately exercised their discretion not to take the matter further.” In a further comment the Authority also “determined that there is no foundation for the claim that the Police acted inappropriately or neglected their duty.”
Police has taken exactly the same approach with the re-investigation.
While we recognise the strong interest in this matter, the foundation of any decision to seek warrants or to prosecute is always the evidence available to us.
Speculation, hearsay and third party information does not in itself constitute such evidence.
We are satisfied that all necessary and lawful steps have been taken in relation to both phases of this investigation.
It’s not just housing affected by the TPPA, Prime Minister – don’t forget health
“The new Government needs to also keep the potential impact on health in mind as it prepares to take on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement over offshore investment in New Zealand’s housing market,” says Ian Powell, Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS).
“Fixing the problems we have with housing in this country is obviously a priority for the Government but the potential impact on health policy and provision is also very important, and we’d urge the Government to keep that in mind as it heads off to APEC next week.”
He was commenting on reports that Trade Minister David Parker is considering advice that an explicit ban on house sales to offshore speculators could be acceptable under the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) if it is passed into New Zealand law before the trade deal comes into force (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11938120).
Ministers and leaders from 11 nations are due to meet during the summit meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum from 8-11 November.
“No one wants health care in this country to be influenced by the vested interests of big international corporates, who will have no scruples about undermining New Zealand’s health system if it gets in the way of their profits.
“Senior doctors have welcomed the new Government’s health policies and are very keen to engage over their implementation. A key part of that for the Government is preserving New Zealand’s autonomy in health decision-making, and not letting the big corporates bully us into decisions that would compromise the health care of our communities,” says Mr Powell.
“Before considering signing this new version of the TPPA the Prime Minister should insist that there is an independent clinical assessment of its impact on our health system including the medicines that our patients depend on.”
It is a typical, wet Greymouth evening. A woman’s scream breaks the night. Lights burst on in the house and a man comes sprinting out. The garage door is smashed off its hinges but he squeezes through a space in the wall.
A young woman is frantically trying to lift a young man, her ex-boyfriend. Peter, his flatmate, rushes to help. The young man, Caleb, collapses to the ground, gasping for breath. Peter slaps him on the back, checks he’s OK.
Sirens are wailing in the distance. The young man is blue but breathing, the police report later reads. Only Peter remembers to call Caleb’s family.
Meanwhile, the police have undertaken a search under the Search and Surveillance Act They’ve found two cannabis plants in the backyard. Caleb, pictured right, quickly confesses.
…remember the Search & Surveillance Act folks? Remember how that was supposed to be used against terrorists who were threatening the country with immediate violence? Are you shocked the cops are invoking it on vulnerable suicide victims to score easy busts?
How the hell does arresting a suicide victim help that person? How cruel have we become under 9 years of National that arresting suicide victims is even considered a positive step forward?
People who have attempted suicide need help, they need healing, they need compassion. What they don’t need is to be arrested by the bloody Police!
Who have we become in just under a decade? The values of this country when dealing with the most vulnerable amongst us is sickening.
In the lead-up to the election, Kelvin Davis announced that Labour will work to reduce the prison population by 30 per cent. The party inherits quite different priorities in government.
There are plans to build an enormous prison complex in Waikato, part of a sweeping $2.5 billion package to expand prison capacity. It is not too late for Labour to scrap this plan in favour of the vision they bring with them to office. But with construction set to begin next year, it would have to happen quickly.
If prisons worked there would be no need to build another one. Consider the network of new prisons that already crisscross New Zealand: Ngawha prison opened in the Far North in 2005, Auckland Women’s in 2006, Spring Hill and Otago prisons in 2007, the remand prison at Mount Eden in 2011, and two years ago, a partnership with multinational Serco on old industrial land in South Auckland.
We could be using these resources to build homes for our people. Yet in the past 20 years, the number of houses owned by the government has fallen from 70,000 to 63,000. Follow the money and the current priorities are clear. The Corrections budget this year is four times that dedicated to Building and Housing.
A Treasury official described the construction of Otago and Spring Hill prisons as the “equivalent of building two small towns”. Imagine if these small towns were filled not with cages but with houses – affordable houses suitable for the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Does anyone believe the country is safer now because the choice was made for prisons instead?
The prison boom and housing crisis are twin problems that trap the same people. The most marginalised New Zealanders cycle between sleeping in cars and doorways and the cells of brand new prisons.
Many already know that we have among the highest rates of incarceration in the developed world. But on homelessness we look even worse: here New Zealand is No 1, with more homeless people per capita than any country in the OECD – more than even the United States.
So with serious crime dropping why are our prisons so full to bulging that we need to build more bloody prisons?
It comes back to the knee jerk get tough on crime crap that Labour themselves helped usher in when they were last in power.
The problem is that we changed our bail laws in light of public pressure caused by high profile criminals committing crime while on bail. Once upon a time Prisoners would serve a third of their sentence and be automatically be eligible for parole. The Prisoner had to keep their nose clean inside prison and it was a means to moderate prisoner behaviour, the belief being that prison was an awful environment and the less time people spent inside, the better.
We no longer have that mindset.
NZers love to see prisoners suffer, so our parole system has had an injection of spite. It is near impossible for prisoners to gain parole after a third, most serve two thirds but the extra caveats placed upon prisoners now (agreeing to partake in courses that are poorly funded and cannot meet the demand) see many serving their entire sentences.
That’s prisoners serving full sentences, 20 hours a day inside their cells with no rehabilitation being released into community services that have no ability to rehabilitate let alone find them safe or secure housing.
If Labour want to turn this madness around they must:
Increase social support networks for prisoners once they are released.
Increase access to rehabilitation programs
Better prisoner housing on release.
Change the Parole rules that move us back to prisoners being able to self moderate their behaviour in an effort to get them out of prison before they become institutionalised.
Far better mental health services.
It takes far more money to heal human beings than punish them, but the results are far healthier for society as a whole.
Does Labour have the strength to reform or continue the Prison Industrial Complex mistakes?
Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.
Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.
EDITORS NOTE: – By the way, here’s a list of shit that will get your comment dumped. Sexist language, homophobic language, racist language, anti-muslim hate, transphobic language, Chemtrails, 9/11 truthers, climate deniers, anti-fluoride fanatics, anti-vaxxer lunatics and ANYONE that links to fucking infowar.
You know, it is a peculiar thing to wake up to various people demanding the expulsion of an Iranian diplomat for remarks he made at a private gathering about the state of Israel.
I mean, correct me if I’m wrong about this … but it was not Iran which boldly threatened a state of war with our country only a few months ago, now, was it.
I have not viewed Secretary Ghahremani’s speech in its entirity, and am running off the quotes which have been extracted therefrom to bedeck the sensationalist Sunday newspapers all breathlessly seeking to cover this story.
But going off these, I can only ask where, exactly, it was that he erred?
Was it with the contention that Israel has been ‘fuelling terrorism’ in order to advance its geopolitical objectives? Surely not. After all, the Israelis themselves admitted to actively assisting Al-Nusra [better known as the local franchisee of Al-Qaeda operating in Syria]. Perhaps it was his comment that the state in question frequently attempts to “deceive the world” with the ever-widening gulf between its rhetoric of enthusiasm for peace and diplomacy … and a litany of transgressions even in recent times I hardly need to list for their familiarity.
Maybe there is objection to the Israeli state’s policy and impetus being designated “anti-human” … and yet it seems pretty plainly apparent that on everything from the [now thankfully officially discontinued] involuntary sterilization of its black citizenry through to the ongoing illegal blockades, incursions, detentions, airstrikes, etc. etc. etc. that it is rather avowedly anti *some* humans at the very least.
It is true that Secretary Ghahremani’s remarks may, in their now public disclosure, be regarded as “inflammatory”. But unless there is something significantly salacious in the rest of his speech that has as-yet gone unreported, I am not entirely sure I would suggest that anything he has said is manifestly counter-factual.
And we do enter into a rather .. odd situation if historical truths and contemporary realities are unable to be voiced because they may potentially be deemed “inflammatory”.
I mean, the pathway that takes us down, I might find myself subject to censure & vilification for simply pointing out that the pattern of Israeli-Kiwi relations over the past two decades has been characterized by an ever-escalating series of incidences more befitting outright foes than nominal ‘friends’.
Or is it “inflammatory” to mention such things as the Israeli passport-harvesting for overseas espionage at the expense of people such as a profoundly disabled tetraplegic New Zealander; the alleged activities of similar personnel in Christchurch in 2011 with the target of our national policing computer-system; or even the not-quite-Declaration-of-War from the Netanyahu Government late last year.
In any case, I do not seek to support nor exculpate the remarks uttered by some of the other speakers Secretary Ghahrameni shared a stage with back in June. Those can be considered on their own relative merits [or lack thereof].
But it is not the accountant from Mt Albert, nor the visiting Cleric whom I am seeing the loudest calls for expulsion from our country in reference to.
Instead, these are being foisted in the direction of a diplomat clearly articulating the long-held position of his Government, on the occasion of a solemn commemoration and solidarity-extension to an oppressed and marginalized people.
With that in mind, I can only wonder whether the opprobium presently being heaped in Secretary Ghahremani’s direction has less to do with what he said .. and more to do with some people being profoundly uneasy with the progressive normalization of both our relations with Iran – as well as the escalatingly positive role that the Iranians have found themselves playing with regard to the broader security situation in the Middle East these past few years.
Who knows. “Haters”, as they say, “gonna hate”.
Although it would be a pretty unctuous & unfortunate situation if this man WERE to be banished from our country for speaking in support of a people we have previously pledged to help, his only ‘crime’ that’s thus far been made out in any detail, the remarks of some of those who happened to be in the room with him at the time.
Some might even call such a move … “inflammatory”….
Most of us will remember the Helen Clark Labour government elected in 1999.
Like the incoming Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern the Clark-led government came after nine years of appalling attacks on workers and families on low incomes. Across the country its election was greeted with relief and high expectations for progressive change. People looked to Labour for significant gains for workers and families on low incomes. It failed to deliver.
Clark was elected with a “pledge card” of five promises – as a teacher the one I remember was the promise to end the bulk funding of teacher salaries.
Clark duly implemented the five pledge-card promises in the first six months or so but for the next eight and half years largely just managed the free market for the wealthy. Families on low incomes went backwards until Working for Families was finally introduced in 2004. But even this package left out the most vulnerable families and children – those on benefits – who were discriminated against through being denied the in-work tax credit.
It’s important to realise also that this package was and is in effect a subsidy on low wages paid by employers. Labour uses the same approach when market rents skyrocketed out of families’ ability to pay. The accommodation supplement (a subsidy on high rents which goes straight into the back pocket of the country’s landlords) was Labour’s answer.
Despite eight years of strong economic growth and budget surpluses, by the time she left parliament Helen Clark had left 175,000 children living below the poverty line.
There are some encouraging signs this Labour-led government will not be a “pledge-card” government.
If it can develop and maintain programmes of change across housing, health, welfare, the environment, employment rights etc then while it will never be a revolutionary government, it could be a transformational government.
In the first instance progressive people must hold the new government to its word.
Equity New Zealand welcomes the Government’s announcement that they will repeal an ill-considered and unnecessary law introduced in 2010 in a bid to strip actors and other film workers of basic employment rights. This move is a clear vote of confidence in New Zealand’s world-class screen industry.
The Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 was rushed through Parliament, classifying all film workers as “independent contractors”, unable to bargain collectively and receive other benefits associated with being an employee.
At the time Labour and Green Party MPs voted against the bill, accusing the government of relenting to a foreign company and abusing parliamentary process.
“This is a law that is deeply unfair for workers, so it is wonderful to see our new Government make its repeal a priority” said Equity New Zealand president Jennifer Ward-Lealand.
Ward-Lealand said the Government’s announcement demonstrates a genuine commitment to creating and supporting employment conditions that are fair and equitable.
“The repeal of this law is a step in the right direction but much more needs to be done to enable collectively bargaining in our industry, as is the case in every other major film industry in the western world.”
Ward-Lealand said the alleged purpose of this law was to create certainty, but it did just the opposite.
“One of the best ways to create certainty around employment conditions – for both employees and employers – is to have collective agreements that very clearly outline wages and conditions.” said Ward-Lealand.
“We look forward to working with Prime Minister Ardern and her team to create a thriving arts and entertainment industry that still manages to treat its workers with dignity and respect.”
Mental health support workers are hopeful the Labour-led Government will finally include them in the equal pay settlement.
The settlement only applies to aged care, disability, and home support workers after negotiators for the previous government refused to include support workers in mental health.
E tū’s Equal Pay Coordinator, Yvette Taylor says the situation is very unfair, but hopes are high they will finally be included.
“Jacinda made a commitment at an equal pay rally during the election campaign to equal pay for these workers and we’re looking forward to that coming to fruition really soon,” says Yvette.
Yvette says talks are already underway with health officials and looking “very positive”.
“We don’t believe the new coalition Government will throw up any barriers to this,” she says.
E tū member and mental health support worker, Sandra Rawenata says she and her colleagues are “rapt” about the new Government which has stoked hopes of a settlement.
“As soon as the Government was announced my friends and I were all over Facebook. It means a pay rise, it means we can feed our families, help our families. It means a lot of happy people,” says Sandra.
“We’re feeling hopeful out here. We’re expecting the Government to stand by what they told us at the equal pay rally and that we will be fairly paid just like our comrades in disability and aged care.”
Sandra says a settlement is crucial to stemming the loss of mental health support workers to other, better-paid care and support work.
