In Abbott's Australia things are improving - citizens are getting told "No" faster

Since the Abbott Government came to power in September 2013 information from government departments has been somewhat more difficult to obtain.

Websites have been redesigned in such a way that data is often buried layers deep with no obvious links on the home page, telephone queries are often answered more guardedly than before and now it seems that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are being answered within an acceptable time frame but with those answers more likely to be a Yes, but or an outright No to releasing information if the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) December 2014 report on the Department of Human Services is any indication.

The Information Commissioner noted in relation to the Dept. of Human Services that between 2011–12 and 2013–14 there was: a) an increase in the department’s use of the FOI Act practical refusal mechanism, from 33 occasions in 2011–12 to 777 in 2013–14;  b) a decline in the number of FOI requests to which access to documents was given in full, from 58% of requests in 2011–12 to 26% in 2013–14; and c) an increase in the number of applications for Information Commissioner (IC) review of the department’s access refusal decisions, from 49 IC review applications in 2011–12 to 95 in 2013–14.

So how do other federal government departments which handle ‘sensitive’ information rate when it comes to the ease with which publicly available information can be obtained regarding their response to FOI requests?

Well there does appear to have been some improvements in time between FOI request received and reply sent by other government departments in the same period covered by the OAIC report.

However……………..

The Dept. of Immigration and Border Protection very cutely informs readers of its 2013-14 Annual Report of the high number of FOI requests it finalised in that financial year – but not the total number of these requests which resulted in a partial or complete refusal of requested data/information. The department’s disclosure logs give no indication as to whether documents supplied under FOI requests were redacted in the 2013 section, but do indicate which document releases were full/partial in the 2014 section of that financial year.

Given this department finalised 14,923 FOI requests in 2013-14, the relatively small number listed in the disclosure logs leads one to suspect that a great many requests were refused.

Of the 146 FOI requests which appear to have been finalised by the Dept. of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) in the 2013-14 financial year only 8 are listed as having been released as full or partially redacted documents and 3 are elsewhere listed as being rejected outright. The status of the remaining 135 FOI requests is uncertain.

In August 2014 this is what one released DPMC document looked like:

The content of which could not be more obscure.

The Australian Attorney-General’s Department website lists approximately 40 documents released under Freedom of Information in 2013-14 but there are no details published online and one must contact the department directly for information on these documents. The department’s annual report for that year does not list the number of FOI requests received or finalised.

According to its annual report the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) received 768 FOI requests in 2013-14 but only lists 9 finalised FOI requests for that period in its online disclosure log. The status of the remaining 759 is unknown. A number of the documents that were released are heavily redacted. 

Treasury displays 13 FOI requests on the departmental website for 2013-14. A number of documents are redacted and there is one refusal recorded. However, neither Treasury's website or annual report for that financial year state the number of FOI requests received or finalised in that year.

All in all, a suspicion forms that freedom of information is more honoured in concept than in fact by a government led by Tony Abbott, who before he became prime minister stated an alleged belief that; we should have a government which is transparent and open.

Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance: "This has been a dire 12 months for the state of press freedom in Australia"

Forward to the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) 2015 Australian Press Freedom Report:

This has been a dire 12 months for the state of press freedom in Australia — for journalists, for the communities we serve and for sources that trust us to tell their stories.

On October 30 last year, Attorney-General George Brandis admitted that the controversial section 35P of the Government’s first tranche of national security laws was written with the aim of targeting whistleblowers. “It was primarily, in fact, to deal with a Snowden-type situation,” he said. Whistleblower Edward Snowden had worked with journalists to reveal US government officials had routinely and deliberately broken the law. [1]

On February 27 this year, the report of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security revealed that targeting whistleblowers was one of the aims of its metadata retention scheme. Recommendation 27 of the committee’s report said journalists’ metadata would be accessed “for the purpose of determining the identity of a journalist’s sources”.

Public interest journalism relies on whistleblowers, the confidential sources that provide crucial information to journalists — sometimes placing both at great risk.

It is a well-known ethical principle of journalism that journalists do not reveal their confidential sources. It’s a principle that is vigorously defended because it is the only way many vital stories in the public interest can ever be told. Whistleblowers turn to journalists to help expose misconduct, illegality, fraud, threats to health and safety, and corruption. Our communities are the better for their courageous efforts to ensure the public’s right to know.

If the identity of whistleblowers can be revealed then that has a chilling effect on public interest journalism; sources needing anonymity cannot rely on their contact with a journalist being kept secret. When that happens, we all lose.

The politicians who ignored press freedom concerns about the raft of national security laws failed to understand how confidential sources and public interest journalism are linked.

If you are going after whistleblowers, you are going after journalism.

And even when they did register the concerns for press freedom, their solutions failed miserably. Take the so-called “safeguard” of journalist information warrants introduced as an amendment to the data retention scheme. The journalist information warrant will operate in secret on pain of a two-year jail term. It relies on “public interest advocates” appointed by the government. It will still allow a journalists’ metadata to be accessed to identify a journalist’s sources, and the journalist and their media organisation will never know access was granted. Nor will they be able to argue the public interest in protecting the identity of a whistleblower.

In short, the three tranches of national security legislation passed by the Parliament represent a colossal failure to stand up for press freedom, freedom of expression, privacy, freedom to access information and the public’s right to know.

As this 2015 report into the state of press freedom in Australia shows, press freedom has been under assault in many other areas. South Australia continues to reject attempts to introduce a shield law, thus exposing journalists throughout Australia to the prospect of plaintiffs going “jurisdiction shopping”.

Tasmania briefly considered breaking away from the uniform national defamation scheme to reintroduce the prospect of corporations suing for damages.

Freedom of information law reform continues to linger in limbo due to successive governments’ inaction and a lack of courage in embracing sensible remedies that ensure the public can benefit from truly open government.

And while we are all delighted at the release and homecoming of Peter Greste from his Cairo prison, the re-trial of Peter and his colleagues goes on. MEAA is also awaiting the fate of Australian journalist Alan Morison who faces up to seven years in a Thai jail for reprinting a paragraph from a Reuters news report.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the murder of our colleagues Brian Peters, Malcolm Rennie, Tony Stewart, Gary Cunningham and Greg Shackleton in Balibo and Roger East in Dili in East Timor. MEAA is disappointed that the AFP spent five years on examining these war crimes only to abandon their investigation without seeking any co-operation from Indonesia and “without any interaction with their counterparts, the Indonesian National Police. The result is that impunity has triumphed and the killers of the Balibo Five and Roger East have literally got away with murder.

It can only be hoped that over the coming year, greater effort will be made by governments, politicians, government agencies and those who like to talk about championing press freedom to turn away from repressing freedom of expression and actually respect and promote it.

Paul Murphy
CEO MEAA

Brief background on Australian journalist Alan Morison here.

Another step down the path to fascism in Abbott's Australia

In Abbott’s Australia indirect government control of media and investigative journalists - through fear of arrest, trial and gaol sentence – is becoming entrenched through federal legislation.

The Guardian 27 April 2015:

Journalists who report on serious wrongdoing by Australian intelligence officers may still face prosecution under new national security laws, according to the commonwealth director of public prosecutions (CDPP).

Australia’s acting independent national security legislation monitor, Roger Gyles QC, is considering the impact of a new section inserted into the Asio Act in 2014 – section 35P – which would criminalise disclosure of information that relates to a “special intelligence operation”.

Gyles was scheduled to hold hearings on Monday as part of his inquiry into the laws, which were passed by the federal parliament with Labor’s support in 2014.

The new section has sparked concerns among news organisations, human rights groups and some opposition politicians. Journalists and whistleblowers may face jail for up to 10 years if they breach the disclosure offence.

There is no public interest consideration or defence that would allow a journalist to report on intelligence matters. But for a prosecution to be initiated by the CDPP, a public interest test must still be applied. The federal government relied in part on this check to reassure journalists who were critical of the new laws.

Unusually, the CDPP outlines two hypothetical scenarios that reporters might be placed in to consider whether it would proceed with a prosecution in a submission to Gyles’s inquiry.

In one scenario a journalist receives information about “serious wrongdoing by a commonwealth officer in the course of a special intelligence operation”. The journalist contacts Asio, which refuses to confirm or deny whether a special intelligence operation is under way, and eventually the journalist publishes the information.

While the CDPP indicates the public interest considerations would not favour a prosecution, it indicates that it might still consider the possibility.

“This scenario may well be one in which the public interest considerations either favour no prosecution taking place, or are ‘finely balanced’. As stated above the matters that will be taken into account in assessing whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest will be different in every matter,” the CDPP submission said.

The admission is likely to raise further concerns about the potential chilling effect the disclosure laws could have on the media.

ABC The Drum 17 March 2015:

The Coalition's push to save and search all of our metadata for at least two years will have a chilling effect on press freedom.

Journalists' sources will be compromised by metadata collection. Without the ability to interact with confidential sources without the government finding out, journalists may as well give the game away.

Even with the yet-unseen government amendments proposed yesterday, after negotiations with the Opposition, Australia is going in the opposite direction of our two closest allies the United States and the UK.

Requiring a warrant before searching journalists' metadata sounds like a modicum of protection. The public discussion around it indicates it will just be a "tick and flick" approach and won't give journalists or media organisations the right to argue their case.

The warrants will be obtained in secret and media organisations will be none the wiser.

A distressingly familiar list in Abbott's Australia

Australian Prime Minister Anthony John 'Tony' Abbott 

So far in Abbott's Australia thirteen of the fourteen signs of fascism have become obvious elements in the national government's interaction with citizens and/or in the formation of government policies.

Fourteen Signs of Fascism*

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism—Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights—Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need".  The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause—The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 

4. Supremacy of the Military—Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 

5. Rampant Sexism—The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. 

6. Controlled Mass Media—Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or through sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in wartime, is very common. 

7. Obsession with National Security—Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined—Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 

9. Corporate Power is Protected—The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 

10. Labour Power is Suppressed—Because the organizing power of labour is the only real threat to a fascist government, labour unions are either eliminated entirely or are severely suppressed. 

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts—Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free-expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment—Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses, and even forego civil liberties, in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption—Fascist regimes are almost always governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions, and who use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections—Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against (or even the assassination of) opposition candidates, the use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and the manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

* Attributed to Dr. Lawrence Britt, a name which is possibly a pseudonym

* Photographs found at Google Images

Is Abbott living in a perpetual political phantasy land unable any longer to distinguish truth from lies?

This was Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott altering political history on a whim on 28 March 2015:

Mitch Fifield, the architect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, who will deliver a genuinely insurance-based scheme which will benefit a half a million Australians with disabilities and everyone who cares for them and which will have its head office in Geelong.

Perhaps someone should remind Abbott that the Australian Parliamentary Library clearly identifies who set the National Disability Insurance Scheme in motion and laid out its basic structure:

On 30 April 2012, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced that the Government would fund its ‘share’ of the cost of the first stage of the NDIS in the 2012–13 Budget.[10] The Government’s NDIS media release accompanying the Budget states that its share includes ‘the total administration and running costs for the first stage of an NDIS’.[11] In addition the media release says that ‘states and territories that host the initial locations will also be required to contribute to the cost of personal care and support for people with disability’. At this stage, it is not clear what the Government has in mind as ‘locations’ for the first stage of the NDIS but the Commission’s proposal was for ‘regions that each contained a modest number of people who were likely to be eligible for the scheme (say, around 10 000 per region)’.[12] Commencement of the NDIS in 2013 is one year ahead of the timetable proposed by the Commission.

The $1.0 billion to be provided by the Australian Government includes:

* $342.5 million over three years from July next year for individually funded packages for people with significant and permanent disability

* $154.8 million over three years from July next year to employ Local Area Coordinators to provide an individualised approach to delivering care and support to people with a disability

* $58.6 million over three years from July next year to assess the needs of people with a disability in the launch locations

* $122.6 million over four years to start preparing the disability sector for the new way of delivering disability services

* $240.3 million over four years to build and operate an NDIS information technology system and

* $53.0 million over four years to establish a new National Disability Transition Agency to coordinate implementation and manage the delivery of care and support to people with a disability and their carers in the initial launch locations from 2013–14.[13]

During the final days of the Gillard Labor Government ABC News reported on 3 June 2013:

...the regional Victorian city has been chosen as the headquarters of the new DisabilityCare agency.

All states and territories - except Western Australia - have signed up to be part of the scheme, formerly known as the NDIS.

Once DisabilityCare is fully rolled out, the national headquarters in Geelong will employ 300 people, in addition to 150 people in the regional office......

The Barwon region of south-west Victoria, which includes Geelong, was chosen last year as one of the sites where DisabilityCare would be trialled. The trial will start on July 1 and involve 5,000 people.

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

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

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

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

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

The report makes 25 recommendations:

Summary of recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

experience, their families and support people.

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

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

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

Tier 2 system of community supports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

care plan and eHealth record for those with complex needs.

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

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

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

psychosocial, primary and community mental health services.

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

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

planning and purchasing of mental health programmes, services and integrated

care pathways.

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

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

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

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

models of care.

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

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

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

navigation for stepping through the mental health system.

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

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

Schedule and staged implementation of Medical Homes for Mental Health.

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

through changed eligibility and payment arrangements and a more equitable

geographical distribution of psychological services.

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

health care team.

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

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

collectively and with those with emerging behavioural issues, distress and

mental health difficulties.

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

communities in the prevention of trauma from maltreatment during infancy and

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

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

respond to the diversity of needs of different population groups.

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

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

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

Primary Health Care Organisations (including Aboriginal Community-Controlled

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

services.

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

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

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

suicide prevention.

8. Build workforce and research capacity to support systems change

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

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

with a priority on supporting strategic research that responds to policy

directions and community needs.

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

mental health peer workforce.

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

to deploy evidence-based treatment.

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

adopted in early childhood worker and teacher training and continuing

professional development.

9. Improve access to services and support through innovative technologies

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

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

of information/education, monitoring and clinical intervention.

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

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

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

Screen shot from www.challengeofchange.gov.au

On 5 March 2015 Abbott Government released its 2015 Intergenerational Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said the independence of the document is now unclear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

IPA in The Drum, excerpt, 7 April 2014:

This Small Business Fetish Has Gone Too Far

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

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

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

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

Let's take these one at a time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral Panic Overlooks Real Company Tax Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPA, media release, April 2015:

'Google Tax' will damage Australia's investment reputation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPA, excerpt from media release, 30 March 2015:

Tax reform must deliver tax cuts: IPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPA, January 2015:

No to the GST attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPA, excerpt from media release, December 2014:

Government should reject call for higher taxes on Australians: IPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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