Showing posts with label government funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government funding. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 May 2018

Get Up!: Adani is paying for government staff to 'independently' assess Adani's mine.


Rio Tinto's RTM Wakmatha bulk carrier

Get Up!
is currently sending out an interesting email pointing out the close relationship between the Adani Group and government.


Given past behaviour of the Adani Group it is possible that it might also be considering looking to a small business focused, suspected 'greenwashing' front called the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, for assistance in the future.

Given the Turnbull Government's announcement of a $444 million grant gifted to the coal, ore, gas and petroleum export industries as well as bulk carrier fleets operating on the Australian east coast, by way of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.

A foundation which classes Rio Tinto's RTFM Wakmatha (a Post Panamax bulk carrier on the Weipa to Gladstone run) as the foundation's research vessel in its so-called mission to save the reef.
https://www.marinetraffic.com
On Monday night 28 May 2018 the 'research' vessel was on the return trip north (destination Gove NT) sailing between the coast and Lizard Island. 

Two oil tankers were also travelling north behind it. 


Get Up! email, 28 May 2018:

Adani is paying for government staff to 'independently' assess Adani's mine.

The corporation has struck a mind-boggling deal that will see Adani pay up to $1.5 million in salaries, housing and vehicle costs for council employees who will directly assess parts of their coal project.1

Adani now has its tendrils deep in every level of our democracy. From local councils, to state governments, right through to our Federal politicians. Adani has infiltrated our democracy in a way that makes objective decision making virtually impossible.

Our Reef is on the brink, and so is our planet. If we're to stop this monstrous coal mine, we have to fight back against the huge influence dirty polluters have over our democracy.

Can you sign our open letter to Australian politicians demanding they get big polluters out of government?

This is only the latest sordid chapter in this country's big book of polluting politics.

From the beginning, there has been a revolving door of operators moving freely between Adani and political offices. Last Queensland election, an Adani lobbyist 'volunteered' to run Labor's election campaign.2

Resources Minister Matt Canavan stacked the board deciding whether or not to give $1 billion to Adani with his pro-coal friends.3 And when that didn't work, Trade Minister Steve Ciobo went out and changed the rules of government funding body EFIC (the Export Finance Insurance Corporation) to allow hundreds of millions in public money to fund projects exactly like Adani's coal mine.4

The fossil fuel industry and their vested interests are rotting our democracy from tip to root. If we are to get the real, urgent change we need, we need to clean them out on every level.

Sign our open letter demanding we get big polluters out of our politics.

It's not just Adani, either.
The Turnbull Government has just announced a plan to 'save the Reef'. Except instead of doing anything about climate change, this plan involves granting $444 million to an obscure group with links to climate-deniers. Their plan? Let "corporate interest help decide the science strategy and funding priorities."5


Yep. Nearly half a billion dollars for climate-deniers to work with big business to solve the problem. What could go wrong?

At the same time, the Government's Energy Security Board put out a call for energy companies to help implement Turnbull's new energy plan. Big polluters could be writing the rules they'll have to follow. Again, what could possibly go wrong?6

It's clear that our politicians, and especially this Turnbull Government, have shown us they are both incapable and unwilling to act on climate while they are dominated by climate deniers, the fossil fuel lobby and big coal donors.

Help get fossil fuels out of our democracy. Sign our open letter now.

It's time for a clean out.

Sam R and Jairaj, for the GetUp team.

References
[1] Adani to pay for Isaac council staff working on Carmichael mine activities, ABC Online, 28 May 2018
[2] Adani lobbyist Cameron ­Milner in Palaszczuk campaign, The Australian, 30 August 2017
[3] Conflicts of interest concerns over $900m Adani loan spark Senate estimates questions, ABC Online, 2 June 2017
[4] Coalition to allow government-backed loans to coalmines as banks hesitant, The Guardian, 11 September 2017
[5] Corporate figures to help decide Great Barrier Reef priorities under $444m grant, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 May 2018
[6] Energy Security Board asks companies for staff to deliver National Energy Guarantee, Australian Financial Review, 21 May 2018


GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! This email was sent to judith.melville@gmail.com. To unsubscribe this email address from GetUp, please click here.
Our team acknowledges that we meet and work on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We wish to pay respect to their Elders - past, present and future - and acknowledge the important role all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within Australia and the GetUp community.
Authorised by Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

Tuesday, 22 May 2018

AUSTRALIA 2018: Turnbull Government continues to hammer the vulnerable


Remember when reading this that the Turnbull Government is still intending to proceed with its planned further corporate tax cuts reportedly worth an est. $65 billion. Compare this policy with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding in Budget 2018-19 which is $43 billion over four years and no dedicated NDIS funding stream established as had been previously promised.

Australian Federation of Disability Organisations & Summer Foundation, media release, 14 May 2018:

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE NDIA’S SPECIALIST DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION PROVIDER AND INVESTOR BRIEF

The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) presented its latest policy position for Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) in a statement to the provider and investor market on 24 April.

People with disabilities and developers of innovative housing for people with disabilities are pleased the NDIA has reiterated the government’s commitment to SDA in its SDA Provider and Investor Brief. The NDIA has confirmed that the SDA funding model is here to stay.

However, the NDIA’s SDA Brief expresses a vision for SDA housing with a clear bias toward shared models of housing for people with disability, presumably to reduce support costs. This is unacceptable. You can read our joint statement here (A Rich text format is available here).

You can read the Summer Foundation’s summary of the SDA Brief here.

The Australian, 16 May 2018:

The executives of the flagship ­National Disability Insurance Scheme, which received guaranteed funding worth tens of billions of dollars in last week’s budget, have launched a crackdown on support funding to keep a lid on ballooning costs.

The razor is being taken to hundreds, possibly thousands, of ­annual support plans as they come up for review, demonstrating a new hawkish approach from ­National Disability Insurance Agency bosses but resulting in the loss of funding and support for vulnerable families. In many cases, support packages for families have been cut by half.

The early years of the $22 billion program’s rollout saw wild variability in the value and type of support being granted to participants, forcing executives to come up with a way to claw back funding that has “an impact on sustainability”. In the process, people with disabilities and their families have been shocked by sudden reversals of fortune….

In its quarterly report, the NDIA noted there was a “mismatch” between reference packages — rough cookie-cutter guides for how much packages ought to be in normal circumstances — and the value of annual support packages which affected the financial sustainability of the scheme.

“The management’s response to this is to closely ensure that significant variations away from reference amounts (above and below) are closely monitored and justified,” a spokesman said.

“Reference packages are not used as a tool to reduce package amounts to below what is reasonable and necessary. Individual circumstances are considered in determining budgets, including goals and aspirations.

“A reference package does not restrict the amount or range of support provided to a participant, but acts as a starting point for planners to use for similar cohorts. It provides amounts that are suitable for a given level of support needs that has been adjusted for individual circumstances.”

The agency has claimed the implementation of this process has started to reduce funding blowouts and a hearing into the scheme by federal parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS last Friday heard startling evidence about how widespread the new approach is.

Donna Law, whose 21-year-old son has severe disabilities, was told by an NDIS planner: “Donna, watch out because your son’s next plan is going to be cut by about half.”

Clare Steve had funding cut in half by the NDIA and wanted to do another review.
“I spoke to multiple people, because no one would actually give me the paperwork to do the next lot of reviewing,” Ms Steve told the hearing.

“I was told by multiple people that it was a mistake: ‘Do not go for another review.
“If you go for another review, you could get your funding cut again’.”

ABC News, 19 May 2018:

Bureaucrats are reportedly working on a strategy to curb costs by tightening up the eligibility requirements after a blowout in the number families seeking NDIS support packages for people with autism.

ABC News, 19 May 2018:

Last December, Sam's case was one of about 14,000 sitting in the NDIS's review backlog, according to a damning ombudsman's report this week. Then, about 140,000 participants were in the scheme.

The review queue has since shrunk, but the agency in charge of the world-first scheme — a Commonwealth department known as the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) — still receives about 640 review requests each week.

Some of those requests do not reflect badly on the NDIA. People can request an unscheduled review if their circumstances change, for example if their condition improves.

But the agency often is culpable when it comes to another type of review, known as an internal review. People ask for these when they disagree with the plan and funding package they are given.

Some reviews come from people who feel short-changed, given the state government support they previously received, or because of the high expectations associated with the scheme.

But the Government is also to blame. The NDIS's full-scheme launch in mid-2016 was a disaster. The computer system failed. A backlog of NDIS applications quickly emerged.

Plans were then often completed over the phone and rushed. Key staff lacked training and experience. There was little consistency in the decisions being made.

The scheme's IT system remains hopeless, and elements of its bureaucracy are not much better, according to the watchdog's report.

The agency accepted all 20 of the ombudsman's recommendations, and Social Services Minister Dan Tehan said work was underway to bust the backlog "over coming months".


* In February 2018, the NDIA advised around 8,100 reviews remained in the backlog and the national backlog team was clearing around 200 reviews each week. The NDIA also advised it continues to receive around 620 new review requests each week, which are handled by regional review staff.

* We have received complaints about the NDIA’s handling of participant-initiated requests for review. In particular, these complaints concern the NDIA: (1) not acknowledging requests for review; (2) not responding to enquiries about the status of a request; or (3) actioning requests for an internal review as requests for a plan review.

*Participants also complained they had sought updates on the receipt and/or progress of their requests by calling the Contact Centre and by telephoning or emailing local staff. They reported not receiving a response, leaving messages that were not returned and being told someone would contact them—but no one did.

* In our view, the absence of clear guidance to staff about the need to acknowledge receipt of review requests is concerning. Indeed, the large number of complaints to our Office where complainants are unclear about the status of their review indicates the lack of a standardised approach to acknowledgements is driving additional, unnecessary contact with both the NDIA and our Office.

* Our Office monitors and reports on complaint themes each quarter. Review delays was the top complaint issue for all four quarters in 2017.

* Some participants have told us they have been waiting for up to eight or nine months for a decision on their review request, without any update on its progress or explanation of the time taken.

In some instances, the participant’s existing plan has expired before the NDIA has made a decision on their request for review. As review decisions can only be made prospectively, it can mean a participant must go through the whole process for the new (routinely reviewed) plan if they remain unhappy.

Monday, 14 May 2018

Aboriginal elders calling for NSW Berejiklian Government to commit to expanding the youth Koori court program



The Guardian, 7 May 2018:

Aboriginal elders have called for the NSW government to commit to expanding the youth Koori court program after an evaluation found it halved the amount of time young people spent in detention. The court began as a pilot project at Parramatta children’s court in February 2015 but has not received ongoing funding. A University of Western Sydney evaluation has found it cut the average number of days spent in youth detention, as well as helping address underlying issues such as unstable accommodation, lack of engagement in education and employment, and disconnection from Aboriginal culture. Elders said it reached children who had little family support and were isolated from the community. 

Friday, 11 May 2018

Entrenching inequality in the Australian way of life


There are no real winners in this 2018-19 federal budget – everyone loses something because funding/staffing cuts include services which affect the smooth running of the country, such as regulatory oversight, law, policing and communication. 

Partial winners in the longterm are those in the two highest income/asset deciles. The Anthony Pratts, Gina Rineharts, 'Twiggy' Forrests, Bruce Mathiesons, Malcolm Turnbulls and Peter Duttons of this world.

Those losing the most are low income households, especially those dependent on welfare payments and those with an annual  salary/wage between $41,000 to $87,000 because they will be assessed under the same tax rate as now but with less of the tax benefit pie on their plates in the future.


Federal Budget 2018 Facts of Life - a non-exhaustive list

* Funding in this budget does not fully compensate for funding cuts and tax increases in the last three federal budgets.

* Cuts from previous budgets are still impacting on health services; education funding for schools and vocational studies have been reduced by a combined total of $17.27 billion, funds for the public broadcaster are frozen representing a loss of $84 million on top of $254 million in budget cuts since 2014.1

* Cuts are also occurring in:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) with permanent funding  cut from $346 million to $320 million over two years and staff numbers reduced by 30 investigators in the next year.

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions with funding cut from $77.4 million to $73.75 million in two years.

The Australian Federal Police funding cut from $1.03 billion to $926 million within four years.2

* Although the federal government is contributing $43 billion, to fund what it calls its “share” of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) from 2018–19 to 2021–22, there is still no dedicated funding stream for NDIS.

* Rural, regional and remote area health is only receiving 16.66 million a year for five years to improve health outcomes in those areas across Australia – none of which appears to go directly to treatment of patients or additional services.

* Personal income tax cuts aren’t being offered to those on taxable incomes below $20,548 per annum. Those workers with a taxable income of $20,548 will receive $1 a year in income tax relief. It is reported that the full range of personal income tax relief (which provides the most benefit to the highest earners) will eventually cost est. $17.8 billion annually in lost government revenue if scheme continues until 2027.3

* Individuals earning $100,000 to $125,330 per annum now receive a low and middle income income tax offset despite being in high wage/salary deciles.

* There are estimated 101,508 older Australians on the waiting list for appropriate home care packages.4 At least 60,000 of these do not have even the initial lowest level of home care package and, all the federal government is offering is funding for an extra 14,000 high level packages still leaving 46,000 elder people with no hope of receiving assistance in the foreseeable future to keep living at home.

* There is a proposal to change the progressive tax system from 2018-19 so there are only four income tax brackets and people with incomes from $41,000 to $200,000 per annum will pay the same tax rate. This means that est. 62 per cent of future benefits would go to the highest salary/wage earners with only 7 per cent going to those on the lowest wage.
According to Budget Strategy and Outlook Budget Paper No. 1 2018-19; When completed, the plan ensures that about 94 per cent of taxpayers are projected to face a marginal tax rate of 32.5 per cent or less in 2024–25.

* People over retirement age receiving the Age Pension are being urged to consider funding part of their retirement through the Pension Loans Scheme which will be expanded on 1 July 2019, with the available fortnightly loan plus pension amount increasing to 150 per cent of the maximum rate of fortnightly Age Pension. The current maximum fortnightly pension amount is $907.60. This loan will normally be repaid when the secured real estate asset (usually the principal home) is sold or from the pensioner’s deceased estate.6

* This budget continues the funding model which skews federal primary and highschool funding towards private schools via the Quality Schools scheme with funding for government schools set at $7.6 billion and non-government schools at $11.8 billion in 2018-19 increasing to $9.6 billion and 13.8 billion in 2021-22 .7

* The Northern Territory remote area Aboriginal children and schooling component has been cut by over $47 million across the next four financial years.

*TAFE further technical education funding has been cut by $270 million on top of previous budget cuts.

* The Goods and Services Tax has been extended to cover online hotel bookings made via offshore websites. This is expected to raise $5 million in the 2019-20 financial year.

* Mobile blackspot program funding ceases in 2019.8

* The cashless debit card trial in Ceduna (South Australia) and East Kimberley (Western Australia) will be extended for another year to 30 June 2019. The federal government refuses to make the costs of this measure public.

* Part or all of a welfare payment will be withheld to clear a welfare recipients court fines or address arrest warrants.

* There has been no increase in unemployment benefits.

* Women & girls necessary sanitary products are still subject to a consumption tax payable at the supermarket/chemist checkout.

* Finally, the Turnbull Government cracked a joke in the budget papers – a new National Energy Guarantee is expected to reduce annual residential power bills by $400 at some unspecified date in the future.9

Footnotes:





Monday, 7 May 2018

Elder abuse and profit shifting go hand-in-hand in the age care sector?


Any regular reader of online news would have seen mentions of elder abuse, neglect and sub-standard health care over the years.


Elder abuse is a critical issue in aged care homes, with thousands of cases reported to the Health Department every year…. In 2016-2017, there were 2853 reports of “reportable assaults’’ and 2463 allegations of “unreasonable use of force”.

Australian Law Reform Commission, Elder Abuse (DP 83), Abuse and neglect in aged care, 12 December 2016:

1.34   Stakeholders reported many instances of abuse of people receiving aged care. These included reports of abuse by paid care workers[55] and other residents of care homes[56] as well as by family members and/or appointed decision makers of care recipients.[57] For example, Alzheimer’s Australia provided the following examples of physical and emotional abuse:

When working as a PCA [personal care assistant] in 2 high care units, I witnessed multiple, daily examples of residents who were unable to communicate being abused including: PCA telling resident to ‘die you f---ing old bitch!’ because she resisted being bed bathed. Hoist lifting was always done by one PCA on their own not 2 as per guidelines and time pressures meant PCAs often using considerable physical force to get resistive people into hoists; resident not secured in hoist dropped through and broke arm—died soon after; residents being slapped, forcibly restrained and force-fed or not fed at all; resident with no relatives never moved out of bed, frequently left alone for hours without attention; residents belongings being stolen and food brought in by relatives eaten by PCAs.[58]

1.35   The ALRC also received reports of other forms of abuse, including sexual[59] and financial abuse.[60] Restrictions on movement[61] and visitation[62] were also reported. Many submissions also identified neglect of care recipients.[63]

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 October 2017:

Across NSW, 58 per cent of aged care workers surveyed said they have not been able to provide the level of care residents deserved because of budget cuts. Of those, 80 per cent said staff shortages were the main barrier to providing proper care.

The Courier-Mail, 19 April 2018: 

PROFIT-HUNGRY aged care companies are charging fat “administration fees” to skim up to 40 per cent of government payments for in-home nursing care.

More than 100,000 elderly Australians are on a waiting list to receive as much as $50,000 a year in a “homecare package” to pay for nursing, housekeeping or companionship at home. But an investigation by The Courier-Mail has revealed that some home-care companies are pocketing as much as $19,000 of the taxpayer cash through hefty “administration” or “case management” fees.

The fees are billed on top of hourly charges for home help – leaving clients with less cash to spend on in-home care such as nursing. And if clients want to switch to a cheaper provider, they are being slugged up to $1000 in “exit fees”.

The Age, 3 May 2018:

Scandals, including a recent national audit showing 600 aged-care homes failed in the past five years to provide minimum standards, prompted a government review. The Coalition, accepting a key recommendation, has ended the ridiculous practice of alerting operators to spot checks. The review also urged the streamlining and strengthening of the regulator.

If one does a simple online search many of the big ‘for profit’ aged care providers are named in relation to such abuse, neglect and sub-standard health care allegations.

Now in May 2018 the Tax Justice Network[1]  is looking at aged care provision from another angle. One which shows that the budgetary meanness which sees these big companies expect elderly residents to remain in sodden incontinence pads or live-off meagre meal rations occurs in spite of the millions in profit made on the back of billions in taxpayer funding of the age care sector.

It has released A Tax Justice Network – Australia Report, TAX AVOIDANCE BY FOR-PROFIT AGED CARE COMPANIES: PROFIT SHIFTING ON PUBLIC FUNDS.

Sadly, this report only confirms the fact that corporate greed runs rampant through all major aspects of Australian life, including aged care.

Executive Summary, Background, p.5:

Older people are a growing proportion of Australia’s population; in 2016, 15% (one in seven) Australians were aged 65 years or older. By 2056 this percentage is expected to grow to 22% (8.7 million).1 The need for aged care services is increasing. Between 2015– 2016 almost 214,000 people entered aged care in Australia. On average, older people in Australia spend three years in permanent residential care, just over two years in home care, and one and a half months in respite care.2 The Australian tax payer, via the Commonwealth Government contributes around 75% of the expenditure in aged care in Australia, which is around 96% of the total funding on aged care from Commonwealth and State Governments. Government recurrent spending on aged care services in Australia was $17.4 billion Australian dollars (AUD) in 2016- 2017, with residential aged care services accounting for 69.3% ($12.1 billion AUD).3 Some of this funding is provided as subsidies to aged care provider companies including those that operate for profit. In 2018 the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF), Australia’s largest national professional and industrial nursing and midwifery organisation with over 268,500 members, commissioned the Tax Justice Network - Australia to analyse possible tax avoidance by for-profit aged care companies and to provide recommendations for improving transparency on Government spending on for-profit aged care.

Key points from the report

* By number of beds, not-for-profit providers are the largest aged care provider group in Australia (52% in 2013-2014), however there has been a rapid growth in the size and spread of for-profit companies; Bupa, Opal, Regis and Estia are the largest aged care providers nationally. If Japara and Allity are included, these 6 for-profit companies operate over 20% of residential aged care beds in Australia.

* In the most recent year (mostly the 2017 financial year) the six largest for-profit companies were given over $2.17 billion AUD via government subsidies. This was 72% of their total revenue of over $3 billion. These companies also reported profits of $210 million AUD (2016-2018).

* Companies can use various accounting methods to avoid paying tax. One method is when a company links (staples) two or more businesses (securities) they own together, each security is treated separately for tax purposes to reduce the amount of tax the company has to pay. Aged care companies are known to use this method as well as other tax avoiding practices. Another practice is by “renting” their aged care homes from themselves (one security rents to another) or by providing loans between securities and shareholders.

* The six largest for-profit aged care providers have enormous incomes and profits:

* The largest company, BUPA, had almost $7.5 billion in total income in Australia (2015-16) but paid only $105 million in tax on a taxable income of only $352 million.
* BUPA’s Australian aged care business made over $663 million in 2017 and over 70% ($468 million) of this was from government funding.
* Funding from government and resident fees increased in 2017, but BUPA paid almost $3 million less to their employees and suppliers.
* The second largest, Opal, had total income of $527.2 million in 2015-16 but paid only $2.4 million in tax on a taxable income of only $7.9 million.
* 76% ($441 million) was from government funding in 2016.

* Allity had total income of $315.6 million in 2015-16 and paid no tax.
* 67% ($224 million) of Allity’s revenue was from government funding in 2016-17.

* Regis, Estia, and Japara are listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) but appear to be using methods to reduce the amount of tax they pay while earning large profits from over $1 billion of government subsidies.

* Family owned aged care companies (Arcare, TriCare, and Signature) receive between $42-$160 million each in annual government subsidies but provide very little public information on their operations and financial performance and may use accounting methods to avoid paying tax.

 * (All figures quoted above are in AUD)

* The Australian Government and the Federal Opposition (the Australian Labor Party) have proposed several ways to fix the problems with companies avoiding tax by using trust structures and other methods but there are still loopholes.

* It is difficult to get a detailed and complete picture of the full extent to which these heavily subsidised aged care companies are avoiding paying as much tax as they should, because Australian law is not currently strong enough to ensure that their financial records and accounting practices are publicly available and fully transparent.

Conclusion

The six largest for-profit aged care providers in Australia received over $2.17 billion AUD in annual tax payer funded subsidies which provided after tax profits of $210 million AUD. The actual operating profits were much larger. These providers only paid around $154 million AUD in tax in 2015-16. Companies that receive millions of tax payer dollars via Australian government subsidies must be required by law to meet higher standards of transparency in financial reports and be publicly accountable. The report calls upon the Government, Opposition, and cross-bench Senators to work together to make laws to stop aged care providers from avoiding the taxes they should pay and provide clear records of their business dealings.

The Tax Justice Network – Australia strongly supports recent government legislation that has been introduced to close loopholes in the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law and government reforms to stapled structures. However, there is still a need for additional transparency measures. The Tax Justice Network – Australia also strongly supports a policy proposed by the Australian Labor Party to introduce minimum taxation of discretionary trusts. These reform measures are examined in more detail by this report in the section: Current Reform Measures.

This analysis of tax payments and corporate structures of the largest for-profit aged care companies provides clear evidence that simple common-sense reforms are needed immediately to restore integrity to the tax system and to ensure public accountability on billions of dollars in government spending.

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE REPORT

Any company that receives Commonwealth funds over $10 million in any year must file complete audited annual financial statements with Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in full compliance with all Australian Accounting Standards and not be eligible for Reduced Disclosure Requirements. Public and private companies must fully disclose all transactions between trusts or similar parties that are part of stapled structures or similar corporate structures where most or all income is earned from a related party and where operating income is substantially reduced by lease and/or finance payments to related parties with beneficial tax treatment.

Australia’s Largest For-Profit Aged Care Companies

In Australia, non-profit providers collectively operate a majority of residential aged care beds. However, the market share of large for-profit providers continues to grow rapidly. Likewise, the influence of for profit providers on shaping government policy and influencing broader trends in the aged care sector has never been greater. Ranked by the number of government allocated residential aged care places (beds) in 2017, the six largest for-profit aged care companies in Australia are; Bupa, Opal, Regis, Estia, Japara, and Allity. Combined, they operate over 20% of all residential aged care beds in the country. These companies continue to expand market share through new developments and acquisitions. These companies are also expanding to provide more retirement living and home care services, which allow access to additional government funding. In the most recent financial year (2016-2017), these six for-profit aged care companies combined received over $2.17 billion in government subsidies.4 This made up 72% of their combined total revenue of over $3 billion.5……

COMPANY SNAPSHOT

Bupa: A United Kingdom-based mutual insurance company with global operations including aged care services. Australia is Bupa’s largest and most profitable market.

Regis, Estia, and Japara: Public aged care companies listed on the ASX.
Opal: A private aged care company owned by subsidiaries of two listed companies, AMP Capital and Singapore-based G.K. Goh.

Allity: controlled by Archer Capital, an Australian private equity firm with large foreign pension fund investors.

Arcare, TriCare and Signature (formerly Innovative Care): three family-owned, for-profit aged care companies.

NOTE:
1. The Tax Justice Network - Australia is the Australian branch of the Tax Justice Network (TJN) and the Global Alliance for Tax Justice. TJN is an independent organisation launched in the British Houses of Parliament in March 2003. It is dedicated to high-level research, analysis and advocacy in the field of tax and regulation. TJN works to map, analyse and explain the role of taxation and the harmful impacts of tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax competition and tax havens. TJN’s objective is to encourage reform at the global and national levels.
Membership of the Network can be found here.