Australian Prime Minister and Minister for Women Tony Abbott's double dipping lie is an insult to working women

On Mother’s Day 2015 the Abbott Government announced that it would be removing all or part of federal paid parental scheme payments to an estimated 79,000 working women who take maternity leave from 1 July 2016 onwards.

Under federal legislation these women had an expectation of receiving up to $11,500 for maternity leave of 18 weeks duration.

In the interview with Laurie Oakes the Treasurer Joe Hockey used the word double-dipping to describe the lawful right of working women to access both the federal paid parental leave scheme and that of their employer if there was one in place:

At the moment people can claim parental leave payments from both the government and their employers so they are effectively double dipping. We’re going to stop that. You can’t double dip, you can’t get both parental leave pay from your employer and from taxpayers.

The Double Dipping Lie Was Repeated In The 2015-16 Budget Papers Two Days Later

This is an extract from the consolidated Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 2015-16:

Removing Double-Dipping from Parental Leave Pay

The Government will achieve savings of $967.7 million over four years by removing the ability for individuals to double dip when applying for the existing Parental Leave Pay (PLP) scheme, from 1 July 2016. Currently individuals are able to access Government assistance in the form of PLP, in addition to any employer-provided parental leave entitlements. The Government will remove the ability for individuals to double dip, by taking payments from both their employer and the Government.

The Truth About The Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme

This is an extract from the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Act 2010:

Division 1A—Object of this Act

3A  Object of this Act

             (1)  The object of this Act is to provide financial support to primary carers (mainly birth mothers) of newborn and newly adopted children, in order to:

                     (a)  allow those carers to take time off work to care for the child after the child’s birth or adoption; and

                     (b)  enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children; and

                     (c)  encourage women to continue to participate in the workforce; and

                     (d)  promote equality between men and women, and the balance between work and family life.

             (2)  Generally, the financial support is provided only to primary carers who have a regular connection to the workforce.

             (3)  The financial support provided by this Act is intended to complement and supplement existing entitlements to paid or unpaid leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child. [my red bolding]

It is noticeable that the main budget decision-makers in 2015, all six members of the federal Expenditure Review Committee, are privileged white males living off the public purse - with one receiving a salary higher than that of the U.S. president and another being a millionaire many times over.

It is also worth noting that this scaling back of the federal paid parental leave scheme was not put to voters at the last general election.

UPDATE

It would seem that despite their attempts to vilify working mothers, Coalition MPs not only voted with the then Labor Government to introduce paid parental leave - some of their wives/partners accessed both the government and their employer's leave schemes.

ABC News 14 May2015:

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has revealed his wife claimed paid parental leave payments from her employer and the Government, as Labor steps up its attacks on the Coalition's plan to stop women benefiting from two schemes.

"We accessed both schemes as my wife was entitled to and there are many people I'm sure on both sides of the House who have done that," Mr Frydenberg told Sky News.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is also on cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee, has deflected questions about whether his wife claimed money from two schemes.

Earlier today Senator Cormann described the Coalition's push to stop women getting two payments as a "fairness measure" and defended the Government calling it "double dipping".

But this afternoon, under questioning from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, Senator Cormann did not deny his wife received benefits from her employer and the Government PPL scheme.

"Let me confirm for him that I have indeed had a little child in 2013 and that our family of course worked within a system that was available at the time like any other family and that my family will work within whatever system is in place in the future," Senator Cormann said.

The Australian 17 June 2010:

AUSTRALIA has its first universal paid parental leave scheme, catching up with the rest of the developed world, after the Coalition voted with the Rudd government to back the historic legislation.

Who is to blame for Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget?

“The budget belongs to no individual minister, it belongs to all of us but it particularly belongs to all the members of the Expenditure Review Committee.”

[Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, 7 May 2015]

Federal Expenditure Review Committee

CHAIR: Prime Minister Tony Abbott (Liberal Party Leader)

DEPUTY CHAIR: Treasurer Joe Hockey (Liberal Party MP)

MEMBERS:

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss (National Party Leader)

Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison (Liberal Party MP)

Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann (Liberal Party MP)

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg (Liberal Party MP)

Make no mistake, the contents of the Abbott Government 2015-16 Budget Papers are heavily influence by the worldview of Tony Abbott.

He would not have been able to resist the urge to dominate and override his ministers, as his frequent 'captain's picks' demonstrate. 

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.

Suicide is still the leading cause of premature death in Australia yet it took the Abbott Government ten months before it blinked over mental health funding cuts

In the May 2014 budget papers Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, along with Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minster Mathias Cormann, wielded an ideological razor on health funding provided by the Commonwealth .

It has taken the Abbott Government ten long months to realise that the mental health sector, a traditionally underfunded area, could only respond to mooted federal funding cuts by reducing services or closing agencies.

The Minister for Health Sussan Ley finally announced a funding extension for a further twelve months on 2 April 2015 - two days after an Australian Bureau of Statistics media release which confirmed that suicide was still the leading cause of premature death in Australia.

It's almost as though someone in the Prime Minister's office finally put two and two together and realised that there was a public relations disaster of monumental proportions in the offing.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Excerpt from an Australian Bureau of Statistics media release on 24 July 2010: New South Wales was found to have the lowest suicide rate at 8.6 deaths per 100,000 people for the period 2006-2010.

NSW Government Suicide by Local Health District and year:

The suicide rate for Northern NSW in 2010 was 10.7 deaths per 100,000 people and for the Mid-North Coast the rate was 6.2 per 100,000 people.

By 2013 New South Wales had a suicide rate of 9.1 per 100,000 people for 2009-2013.

In 2012-13 hospitalisation of young people aged between 15 and 24 years for intentional self-harm was significantly higher than the state average in Ballina, Byron, Clarence Valley and Coffs Harbour local government areas and, on par with the state average in Kyogle, Lismore, Tweed and Richmond Valley local government areas.

ABS 3303.0 - Causes of Death, Australia, 2013:

 There were 2,522 deaths in Australia from intentional self-harm in 2013.

(a) All causes of death data from 2006 are subject to a revisions process - once data for a reference year are 'final', they are no longer revised. Affected data in this table are: 2009-2011 (final), 2012 (revised), 2013 (preliminary). See Explanatory Notes 52-54 and Technical Note, Causes of Death Revisions, 2011 and 2012. (b) Includes ICD-10 codes X60-X84 and Y87.0. Care needs to be taken in interpreting figures relating to suicide. See Explanatory Notes 87-93. (c) Age-specific rates of deaths are the number of deaths per 100,000 population. See Glossary and Data used in calculating death rates (Technical Note) for further information. (d) The age-specific rates published in this table are calculated for the 2009-2013 reference period. As such, they may differ from age-specific rates published elsewhere in Causes of Death, which are calculated for a single year.  (e) Includes deaths of persons whose age was not stated.

(a) All causes of death data from 2006 are subject to a revisions process - once data for a reference year are 'final', they are no longer revised. Affected data in this table are: 2009-2011 (final), 2012 (revised), 2013 (preliminary). See Explanatory Notes 52-54 and Technical Notes, Causes of Death Revisions, 2011 and 2012. (b) Cells with small values have been randomly assigned to protect the confidentiality of individuals. As a result, some totals will not equal the sum of their components. Cells with a zero value have not been affected by confidentialisation. (c) Includes ICD-10 codes X60-X84 and Y87.0. Care needs to be taken in interpreting figures relating to suicide. See Explanatory Notes 87-93. (d) Includes 'other territories'. (e) Includes deaths of persons whose age was not stated.

np not available for publication but included in totals where applicable, unless otherwise indicated.

The Sydney Morning Herald 8 December 2014:

Mental health organisations are cutting services and shedding staff because of uncertainty about their funding, according to the sector's peak body.

Forty per cent of mental health agencies say they have already lost staff as a result of the uncertainty, while more than half report a reduction in services to their clients, according to a survey of 75 organisations which receive Commonwealth funding, conducted by Mental Health Australia.

Almost half of those surveyed reported difficulty in attracting new staff, and 81 per cent reported a decline in staff morale.

Fifty six per cent of organisations said they had not had communications with the government regarding the future of their Commonwealth funding after June next year, and 85 per cent reported a loss of trust in government among management and staff.

Mental Health Australia chief executive Frank Quinlan said the typically short-term funding cycles for mental health programs, a lack of clarity about how the National Disability Insurance Scheme would affect funding arrangements, and a national review of existing mental health programs had combined to create a "perfect storm of indecision."

"Nobody argues about the need for these programs but at the moment we just can't seem to find anybody to own the future of that problem," Mr Quinlan said.

Health Minister Peter Dutton is considering the review of existing services, conducted by the National Mental Health Commission, after receiving the report late last month….

Excerpt from Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) media release, 31 March 2015:

Suicide was once again the leading cause of death for Australian's aged 15 to 44. Suicide accounted for 2,520 deaths in 2013 at a standardised death rate of 10.7 per 100,000 people. The median age at death for suicides is lower than for many other causes at 44.5 years of age. As a result, suicide accounted for over 85,000 years of life lost making it the leading cause of premature death in Australia. [my red bolding]

ABC News 2 April 2015:

In a move worth $300 million, mental health services will have their funding renewed for a further 12 months.

The announcement made today by Health Minister Sussan Ley follows a campaign by Mental Health Australia, after some mental health services began to shut down, unsure of future funding.

Hundreds of contracts were due to end on June 30.

Ms Ley said the 12-month extension would allow services to continue to be delivered while work continued on the current Mental Health Review.

ACOSS: Drop unfair plan to lower pension indexation, reform super and pension assets test instead

Australian Council Of Social Services, 1 April 2015:

Drop unfair plan to lower pension indexation, reform super and pension assets test instead

The Australian Council of Social Service today issued a call to the Federal Parliament to reject the plan to lower the Indexation of pensions that would severely impact all pensioners, and instead focus on eligibility for the part-pension and reforming the unfair retirement incomes system, including superannuation tax concessions.

The decision to reduce the Indexation of pensions in the last Budget came as a great surprise to most of us, especially to pensioners. It would effectively lead to people on pensions, including older people, sole parents, and people with disabilities, falling behind community living standards," said ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie.

"We know these groups are already struggling to get by on a daily basis and if this measure goes ahead, they would lose as much as $80 per week over the next 10 years based on modelling by the National Commission of Audit.

"This would be a massive cut to the income of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, who simply could not afford to absorb it. The last thing we should be doing is reducing indexation of payments for pensioners down to the inadequate indexation which is still in place for people struggling to survive on Allowances, including young people on Youth Allowance (just $30 a day) and unemployed people on Newstart (just $37 a day). Two thirds of people on Newstart and Youth Allowance have been on these payments for over a year.

"Indexation to wages should be maintained for older people but also for sole parents and people with disability who already experience high levels of income poverty. Indexation for all basic income support payments -both Pensions and Allowances - should be linked to wages if they are to be enough for people to live with some dignity.

"We urge the government, opposition parties and crossbenchers to work together on alternative solutions to ensure the sustainability of retirement incomes system into the future. This must include reform to better target the Age Pension to those who need it and to superannuation tax concessions as part of the tax review.

"ACOSS has put forward sound and fair recommendations to this end, including reducing the current threshold that allows couples with as much as $1.1 million dollars in assets on top of the family home to qualify for a Part Pension.

"We also support the Government's move to abolish the Seniors Supplement, which is available to people who are not eligible for the Aged Pension because they are in a much better financial position than most.

"The Supplement extends to older people who are disqualified from the Age Pension due to the assets test - which means for example, it would go to couples with assets in excess of $1 million apart from the family home. By excluding superannuation income from the income test for existing recipients, it also extends to people with significant superannuation incomes.

"A couple could have a million dollars in a superannuation fund paying them an income of $100,000 a year in addition to their assets and still receive the supplement.

"We strongly support the need for an adequate safety net system to ensure that people are supported when they fall into hard times. However, this supplement of $858 each year for singles and $1,295 for couples, simply cannot be justified," Dr Goldie said.....

1. Tighten the Age Pension assets test 
• Reduce the assets test free area for home owners to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples, and increase the taper rate for both home owners and non-home owners from $1.50 per $1,000 of additional assets to $2 per $1,000, so that the cut out point for the part pension for couples is reduced from $1.1 million in assets besides the family home to $794,250 in assets besides the family home - Savings: $1,350 million ($1,450 million in 2016-17).

2. Abolish the Seniors Supplement
• Abolish the Seniors Supplement (available to people who do not qualify for the Age Pension due to their income and assets) from 1 July 2015 leaving the Pension Supplement in place for Age Pensioners - Savings: $240 million ($250 million in 2016-1).

3. Reform Superannuation system 
• Increase the preservation age so that it corresponds to the Age Pension access age by 2027 - with early access arrangements for people with disabilities and caring roles that effectively require them to retire earlier. May include allowing access from age 55 for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people whose disabilities or caring roles would ordinarily qualify them for certain social security payments (such as the Disability Support Pension or Carer Payment) or by allowing withdrawals earlier than 55 for any purpose up to modest annual and lifetime limits - Revenue neutral.
• Replace existing tax concessions for superannuation contributions with a simpler taxation structure, in which employer contributions are taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate and a capped superannuation rebate is paid into employee's superannuation accounts - Revenue neutral.
• Extend the 15% tax rate on superannuation fund earnings to accounts in the ‘pension phase', in three annual steps of 5% each year - Saving $300 million in 2016-17.
• Stem the avoidance of personal income tax by individuals over 55 years of age who ‘churn' their earnings through superannuation accounts: From 1 July 2016, reduce the annual cap for concessional contributions by $1 for every dollar withdrawn from a superannuation account in the same year by a fund member - Saving $500 million in 2016-17.

Australian Politics 2015: Hey, big spender!

The only advantage to be a senior citizen in Abbott’s Australia is that those over 65 years of age will have less years than younger folk to live in the midst of any social and economic hardship this scenario below may bring down on communities the length and breadth of  the land.

The Kouk 28 March 2015:

The Abbott government has no intention of ever repaying government debt. None. It has, quite quietly, announced that it plans to keep borrowing so that government debt remains at 13 per cent of GDP right out to at least 2054-55 which means government debt will be $1.6 trillion. Yes $1.6 trillion of government debt.

The decision to keep government debt at this level was buried in the recent Intergenerational Report. The IGR announced that the Abbott government intends to keep borrowing for at least the next 40 years and therefore maintain government debt "at a level equivalent to 13 per cent of GDP... where it will remain over the projection period [to 2054-55]" (See page 83 of the IGR).

Based on the assumption that Australia's GDP will be around $12.5 trillion in 2054-55, at 13 per cent of GDP, the Abbott government is aiming to have government debt at over $1.6 trillion by 2054-55. It currently is around $365 billion. (This is the level of GDP … implied in the IGR based on the assumption of nominal GDP growth of 5.25 per cent per annum.)

Abbott's at it again - leaving rich superannuants alone & beating up on low-income retirees & pensioners

With Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announcing that his 2015-16 Budget would be a dull and boring one, it is reasonable to conclude that the over-the-top tax concessions for super funds and rich superannuates will remain unchanged.

However, Abbott is endorsing the raising of fees paid by older low-income retirees and pensioners who want to stay at home for as long as possible in their later years.

The Australian 25 March 2015:

Older Australians will fail to get the help they need and community aged-care providers will struggle to survive if fees suggested by the government for its $1.7 billion aged-care home-support scheme go ahead as planned.

The Commonwealth Home Support Program begins in July and will provide a national, entry-level, aged-care service for those over 65 who can be aided to stay at home as long as possible, reducing the pressure on expensive and rationed residential-care places.

Draft fees released by the government, however, outline minimum expected payments for pensioners and part-pensioners up to double those paid by the same people under the four existing programs, which will be subsumed by the CHSP. “At this stage, the feedback I am getting is that the fees are probably too high and they (clients) won’t pay,” Aged and Community Services Australia chief executive John Kelly told The Australian.

“The clients will vote with their feet and they won’t use the services. That’s when you start having negative social and health consequences.”

About 750,000 people use home-support programs. Under the proposed fee schedule, single people with an income of more than $51,500 will pay a standard fee for the cost of service, those who earn less than $25,118.60 will get the full pension discount and those in-between will be given part-pension discounts.

The suggested minimum fees for pensioners for domestic assistance, personal care, nursing and allied health service is $10 per hour, $9 per hour for food and social support and $9 for meals, not including cost of ingredients……

The Abbott Government intends to only pay a group of disabled workers 50 per cent of the wages owed to them due to discriminatory employment conditions

Snapshot taken from Prime Minister Abbott’s St. Patrick’s Day 2015 message

For a man who flaunts his Catholic credentials and frequently presents himself in a posture reminiscent of a 1950s parish priest in the pulpit, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott doesn’t have a genuine Christian bone in his body.

If he did his government wouldn’t currently have a bill before the Senate which again seeks to limit an unknown number of individuals, within a group of up to 10,000 workers, to just 50 per cent of the back wages owed to them due to discriminatory employment practices allowed under the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) scheme:

Snapshot from Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014

Abbott is pursuing this in the face of a decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission and a  Federal Court judgement (upheld by the High Court) which found that these workers had been discriminated against with regard to wages paid.

He obviously intends to compound this discrimination by including that paltry offer in the bill.

What is occurring in Canberra is setting off alarm bells among families and carers, some of whom are hitting out at the Abbott Government's lack of consultation regarding the proposed legislation and at almost every group making submissions to the Fair Work Commission in Equal Remuneration Case 2013-14.

CARERS ALLIANCE media release 24 March 2015:

PARENTS OF PEOPLE WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY ARE FEARLESS

 – NOT FRIGHTENED

 Statement by Mary Lou Carter, Secretary of Carers Alliance:

“Many of our members are parents of adult children with intellectual disability employed in Australia’s Disability Enterprises (previously called ‘sheltered workshops’), our families send out a call to the Senate to respect our family members’ right of choice – the most basic of human rights – and support the passage of the BSWAT Payment Bill through the Upper House.

“We are fearless – not frightened – when it comes to protecting the jobs of our sons and daughters with intellectual disability.”

Ms Carter, who has been attending the current Fair Work Commission discussions into the process of designing a new instrument for wage assessment for Disability Enterprise employees, said the Courts are an unsatisfactory tool for fashioning public policy.

“The legal system is such that only lawyers and government-funded disability rights activists know the rules. Our family members are expected to just play along. That’s a whole new world for parents trying to protect their children’s right of choice.

“More importantly, some 9,998 workers with intellectual disability have had no say about either this BSWAT Payment Bill now before the Senate, or the forced imposition of an alternative Supported Wage assessment tool by the end of April.  Forcing services to use a wage tool that would cause closure due to financial insolvency would mean some 70% of those people could soon be unemployed. Then they would have no employment income and have to pay for day services – if they could get them - or be forced to stay at home in the care of their families.

“Parents know exactly what’s at stake if their adult children with intellectual disabilities lose their jobs in Disability Enterprises. It’s not just about the money, it’s the loss of dignity that work provides. It’s the poverty, the loss of social interaction with their peers, the loss of their sense of achievement and inclusion as valued members of their community, the loss of their self-esteem and pride.

“It’s about the denial of their right of choice -

1.   The right to choose whether they take any compensation – to which they might be entitled - by opting out of a class action in which they were included by legal artifice, without consent or consultation; and 
2.    To choose to continue working in their current jobs, earning a fair wage consistent with their capacity. If the actions of the ideologues force closures, then our workers cannot choose what no longer exists, because more time is needed to develop an alternative wage tool.

”Many people currently working in Disability Enterprises contend these choices have been denied them because of actions unilaterally taken by funded rights activists, the lawyers and the unions, without any reference to the major stakeholders: the workers with an intellectual disability themselves, their parents, families and carers.

“You would have to be there at the Fair Work Commission hearings, witnessing the ideological fight by funded advocates, lawyers and unionists, to feel how family members are depicted. If some of the workers now employed in Disability Enterprises can work in open employment, that’s great for them. But the majority cannot, and neither they nor their jobs should be demeaned, disparaged or jeopardised in this way.

“Families of Australians with significant intellectual disabilities are deeply frustrated by a system that can mount an argument based on rights, and yet, in the course of that argument deny the basic right of choice to our nation’s most vulnerable workers.

“These are our children, our family members. We are frustrated by the process, and lack of it, but we are fearless – not frightened – when fighting to protect our ADE’s. We know the value of jobs for these workers, especially when so many able-bodied workers cannot get jobs.

“We don’t talk about disability; we live it.” 

BACKGROUND

PWD People With Disability:

Wage Justice Campaign…….

17 February 2015: Update on Variation of Supported Employment Services Award 
United Voice, Health Services Union and National Peak Disability and Advocacy Organisations — Communique, Tuesday, 17 February 2015 Variation of Supported Employment Servces award. 

On 23rd December 2013, United Voice and the Health Services Union made a joint application to the Fair Work Commission to vary the Supported Employment Services Award 2010.This Award covers employees with disability working in Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs, formerly known as Sheltered Workshops). The application was made following the decision by the Full Federal Court in Nojin v Commonwealth which found that the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool used to determine wages unfairly discriminated against workers with intellectual disability. The application also seeks to deal with the extent to which other Wage Assessment Tools listed in the Award are discriminatory against workers with disabilities.

On 20 June 2014 the full bench of the Fair Work Commission decided that in an effort to find a solution that there be a Conference of the parties led by Deputy President Booth. There has been a series of meetings held at the Fair Work Commission since 1 September 2014. Conference proceedings are conducted as a confidential process and without prejudice basis.

On 16 February 2015 the parties agreed to conduct a study using the Supported Wage System with modification in a sample of ADEs. This will consider the impact of using historical productivity data on the productivity wage assessment rates of workers with disability. The parties will discuss the results of this study at the next scheduled meeting on Monday 27 April 2015.

UPDATE

The Guardian 26 March 2015:

During the caretaker period of the last election campaign the department of social services applied to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act to give it time to develop a new, fair assessment tool. It was granted a single year, which expires in April.

Guardian Australia understands a new assessment tool is not yet ready, and the government is likely to have to ask the commission for more time. The decision would be taken by the full commission.

Innes, who was still a commissioner when last year’s decision was made, said “that decision set out a course of action the government needed to take ... I have not seen evidence they have done that, so I would have thought it would be difficult for them to argue that they should get a further extension.”

Innes said if the government did not get an extension, workers with disabilities could lodge complaints and possibly seek damages.

But Dr Ken Baker, the chief executive of National Disability Services said one year was always an unreasonable timeframe.

“A new tool is being developed under the guidance of the Fair Work Commission, and the government has provided money to develop and implement it, but it is technically challenging and it takes time,” he said.

He said about one third of disability organisations had already moved to different payment schemes. But if the commission did not grant the commonwealth an extension, many organisations would be in contravention of the act.

At the same time, the government has failed to pass legislation which offers employees with disabilities half the backpay to which they might be entitled, on the condition that they shun legal action designed to recover the full amount.

The bill implementing the back pay deal – the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014 – was rejected by the Senate in November. It was to be voted on again this week but has now been dropped down the priority list and won’t be voted on until June. Crucial crossbenchers remain undecided…..