Showing posts with label Malcolm Bligh Turnbull. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malcolm Bligh Turnbull. Show all posts

Tuesday 28 June 2016

The truth about Malcolm Turnbull's wealth


Malcolm Bligh Turnbull’s ‘truth’……


The rest of the world’s truth……

The Australian, 11 June 2016:

Last Sunday, Malcolm Turnbull sent out an email — Re: “My Dad” — inviting us all to reflect upon and share the story of his upbringing by his late father, Bruce. It was a deliberate decision by the Prime Minister to personalise the election campaign. The ­exercise was well calculated, but a couple of lines, about Bruce Turnbull in particular, were noticeably selective.

“We didn’t have much money. He was a hotel broker and for most of that time he was battling like a lot of people are — a lot of single parents are, certainly. He did well after a while. In the latter part of his life he kicked a few goals after a lot of effort …”

Malcolm Turnbull the politician has consistently downplayed his father’s success as a small businessman, and the substantial inheritance he received when Bruce died in a plane crash near Gloucester in 1982, age 56.

While researching my biography of the Prime Minister, Born to Rule, I spoke with old friends and business associates of Bruce. They remembered a fit man’s man, sharp witted and deal savvy. Many profiles over the years make the easy assumption that Malcolm Turnbull inherited his celebrated intelligence from his mother, the actor, writer and academic Coral Lansbury.
Having spoken to some of Bruce’s mates, I am not so sure.

Prestige property agent Bill Bridges, who has sold and resold many of Sydney’s best homes over a career spanning 50 years, was in a running club with Bruce that included Bruce Gyngell and NSW Supreme Court judge John Sackar. Bridges told me that “there was no one more streetwise than Bruce Turnbull, and that’s the best education you can get”.

Bruce Turnbull was a country boy and former electrician from Maitland, near Newcastle, who came to Sydney in his twenties. Bruce truly was self-made. He married Coral a year after Malcolm was born in 1954 and for the most part the couple lived in a flat on New South Head Road, Vaucluse, in Sydney’s salubrious eastern suburbs, which land title records show Bruce co-owned through a private company.

Young Malcolm lived here happily, walking to and from Vaucluse Public School. In 1963, he was sent to board at Sydney Grammar’s preparatory school at well-to-do but distant St Ives. What he would not have known is that his parents’ marriage was failing. Coral had fallen in love with another academic and she left Bruce suddenly, taking the furniture — and the cat — and moving to New Zealand, where she remarried.

This was undoubtedly a tough time for Bruce and his son. They moved out of the Vaucluse flat and into a series of rented flats — including one in Gladswood Gardens, a red-brick block in a dead-end street in Double Bay.

During the next five years, Bruce’s hotel business really hit its straps and by 1970, when Malcolm was in Year 10, he had bought a luxurious three-bedroom apartment in Point Piper — a stone’s throw from the waterfront mansion Malcolm Turnbull lives in now. The apartment had smashing water views and cost Bruce $36,000. Today it is worth millions. When not boarding at Randwick — where he moved once he reached high school — this was Malcolm’s base for most of the next decade.

Bruce added to his portfolio in the 1970s, buying a unit in Bellevue Hill and two houses in Randwick. He almost doubled his money on a slice of the historic Hermitage ­Estate in Vaucluse, which he sold within 18 months to a company owned by Kerry Packer, a powerful early ­patron to his son.

Malcolm, who worked as a journalist through his years of law study, inherited his ­father’s penchant for property investing, and started early: at age 23 he bought a semi-detached house in inner-Sydney Newtown for almost $50,000 and at age 25 he bought a Redfern terrace for $40,000. He sold both for tidy profits. Turnbull bought his own first home, for an undisclosed sum in Potts Point, after returning from his Rhodes scholarship at Oxford University and marrying Lucy Hughes.

Bruce Turnbull was semi-retired by 1982, when he laid down almost $600,000 to buy a stunning farm at Rossgole, near Scone, which Malcolm has since expanded and which ABC viewers have seen on Australian Story and Kitchen Cabinet.

It is difficult to get the full picture of Bruce’s estate because it was accumulated before property records were computerised, and pre-ASIC. But friends say he, like many a real estate agent, would keep the best hotel deals for himself and his partners, picking up watering holes in thirsty locations like St Marys in Sydney’s west, Warners Bay at Lake Macquarie, and Newcastle……

Malcolm was also a hotel ­licensee, and on top of all this was getting a steady income stream from a 10 per cent share of the earnings from his broking licence, which he had contracted out…..

A glowing 1988 magazine profile estimated Turnbull inherited about $2 million when his father died, which would be worth almost $7m in today’s dollars. To inherit such a sum at the age of 28 is a life-changing event in anyone’s language. Turnbull went on to make a motza, but people who knew both father and son well point out, “he inherited a motza, too”……

Certainly Turnbull carried some resentment at his father. A flash of insight comes from an unpublished screenplay about the 1986 Spycatcher trial, by Turnbull’s old friend the late Bob Ellis and Stephen Ramsay. The script was written with the creative collaboration of Malcolm. It is fascinating to read a section where Malcolm, talking to his wife during a low point in the trial, throws down his whisky glass in despair, smashing it, and tells Lucy:
Malcolm: I wish dad was alive.
Lucy: (alarmed by this) You hated him.
Malcolm: I know. (Getting up, punching the door) But I didn’t want him dead. Not so soon.

After his success in the Spycatcher case, Turnbull turned his back on his promising career in the law and used his inheritance to set up a cleaning company, Allcorp, with then recently resigned NSW premier Neville Wran. He also founded a merchant bank with Nicholas Whitlam, son of the former prime minister (both Packer and Larry Adler gave their financial backing for a short time).

Striking out on his own, Turnbull was hungry and savage. Packer famously said he would not like to come between the young Malcolm and a sack of gold. It was not the trappings of wealth he was chasing but the substance: the independence of not having to work for someone else and the security that comes with prime real estate.

Malcolm had his father’s nose for a deal. During the next 15 years, he made a fortune as a merchant banker, as an adviser to Fairfax, an investor in unbelievably risky ventures such as logging in the Solomon Islands and gold mining in Siberia, and as an early backer of OzEmail and shareholder and partner in Goldman Sachs, where he helped Rodney Adler sell doomed insurer FAI to HIH.

By 1999, Turnbull had debuted on the BRW Rich List with a fortune of $65m. After Goldman Sachs listed on the New York Stock Exchange the following year, Turnbull’s fortune was bumped up to $90m, and that was conservative. It has more than doubled since, mainly by appreciation. The building blocks were in place by 2001, when Turnbull turned his attention to politics.

Nowadays, people who know Turnbull say he wears his wealth rather like a hair shirt. The PM does not apologise for his success, but he goes close sometimes, acknowledging there are “taxi drivers that work harder than I did”.

The PM consistently downplays his father’s wealth and his inheritance because he wants to underline that he is a self-made man. This is a hot-button issue for voters: they respect someone who gets rich off their own effort, but not someone who inherits.

By any reckoning, Turnbull had unbelievable advantages. Reading through Twitter feed #MalcolmWasSoPoor gives a flavour of the cynicism surrounding Turnbull’s “battler” story. Could Turnbull have done it all without his inheritance? Given his abilities, connections and prodigious work ethic, almost certainly yes. But did he? No.



In 1957 when this article was published in The Sydney Morning Herald's Women's Section the average female annual income was £1,200 pounds a year. Malcolm's mother was earning over four times that income.

Prior to meeting Bruce Bligh Turnbull she had been the recipient of £9,000 a year (for life or until remarriage) from her late first husband's estate and, in November 1954 reached a lump-sum settlement of $3,100 in lieu of her interest in the the estate.

Malcolm's father would have had an annual income in 1957 that would probably never had fallen below average male earnings, so the combined household income would have been at least £8,700 to £9,700 a year.

Tuesday 14 June 2016

Australian Federal Election 2016: how not to answer the question and still regurgitate your talking points


Malcolm Bligh Turnbull raises political evasion to an art form in this ABC 7.30 interview on 8 June 2016:

ON DUMPING A FIRST-TERM PRIME MINISTER

LEIGH SALES: Why should Australians re-elect a government that considered its own performance so poor that it dumped a first-term prime minister and on the economy has basically tread water for three years?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well we have a national economic plan, Leigh, for jobs and growth and we have delivered elements of that plan already. Part of our plan is big trade export deals. We've opened up huge markets in Asia which are driving investment and growth and employment right across the country. Our economy is in transition from a big mining construction boom, which fuelled up economic activity here and employment, and then that has declined, as it was always going to, so where do we get the growth story going forward? And we've set in place a plan that will deliver that and is delivering that. Innovation as well.

LEIGH SALES: You're talking about going forward. I was explicitly referring to your record in your three years in government.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well our record is good. We had - in 2015 we had three per cent growth in GDP. It's now 3.1 per cent, the last figures. We had over 300,000 jobs created. That's the highest number of jobs created in Australia since before the GFC.

LEIGH SALES: But then you come up against this problem that if your record was so good, why did you have to dump a first-term prime minister?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Leigh, I'm looking forward. My job as Prime Minister is to ensure that our children and grandchildren have the best opportunities in the future and we do that by securing our economic future with our national economic plan.

LEIGH SALES: But Prime Minister, you'd have to understand that voters make their decision looking at your record as well as what you're promising.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Our record is strong. Look at what we have done in terms of economic growth. We have ...

LEIGH SALES: But again, I come back to the same point: if your record is strong, why did you have to replace a first-term prime minister?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well the record is strong. The issue of the - the political issue you raise is a separate matter. The really critical thing that matters to Australian is can they get a job? Can their children get a job? Can they get a better job? If they want to leave their job and start a business, will they be able to? Is there the confidence? We had very highest confidence figures, the highest for nearly two years - more than two years, actually - came out just yesterday. So what we're seeing is strong business confidence, strong levels of employment growth and that's because my government's economic plan is working, but I need three more years to complete it and that's what I'm seeking from the Australian people……

ON PERSONAL PERFORMANCE

LEIGH SALES: When you challenged Prime Minister Abbott, you cited two reasons: poor polling and the lack of a coherent economic message. I'd like to tonight discuss your performance against those two benchmarks that you set yourself, starting with the economy. Do you accept that far from establishing a coherent economic message, your delay in announcing policy and then your wishy-washiness, as one of your own backbenchers put it, has confused and disillusioned voters?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think everyone in Australia now understands, perhaps because of this long campaign, that we do have a plan for jobs and growth and they understand that it has a number of elements - innovation, defence industry investment, the export trade deals, employment programs and business tax cuts.

LEIGH SALES: But you took a long time to get there and what I'm getting to is: hasn't that left people a little bit confused?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I believe that the message is very clearly understood, Leigh, that there is one party or one coalition of parties, the Liberal-National Coalition, one government, of which I am the Prime Minister, which has a clear plan for jobs and growth. We've laid it out. And there is no question that every single measure in our plan will deliver stronger economic growth. Now, with regret, I have to say the Labor Party, in so far - they don't have a plan, they have a serious of policies - incoherence is their watchword - and every single one of their policies is calculated to actually reduce investment and reduce employment. It's an economy-threatening set of policies…..

ON WHAT A REDUCTION IN COMPANY TAX WOULD DELIVER TO ORDINARY WORKERS

LEIGH SALES: The company tax cut is the centrepiece of your economic policy. In practical terms ...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it is one of the very important elements.

LEIGH SALES: In practical terms, what would that deliver to a household where dad's a policeman and mum's a teacher?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it delivers stronger economic growth. You see, we all live ...

LEIGH SALES: I just wonder: what does that mean to them?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well that means greater opportunities, it means more jobs, it means stronger - a stronger economy, it means they have got better prospects in everything they do. It also means - let's talk about people who work for the Government who are in effect public servants. They depend - everyone who receives government services, whether they're public servants or not, everyone depends on the Government having the revenues to pay for them. You see, this is part of the problem that Mr Shorten has is that he proposes more and more spending on his spendometer, but nothing in his policies will produce stronger economic growth.

LEIGH SALES: Let's stick towards what you can offer the sort of people that I've outlined.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes, stronger economic growth benefits everybody in the economy.

LEIGH SALES: You explain in what way. For someone who's listening tonight, as I said, dad's a policeman, mum's a teacher - what does it mean when you say stronger economic growth will benefit them?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it means that they will have the benefit - they'll have - if they're working for the Government, they will have a government which has more revenues that is better able to support them. If they're not working for the Government - and I know I'm here at the Government broadcaster, but most people don't work for the Government, most people work for business - a stronger economic growth, stronger economy means better prospects for the business and better prospects for the employees of that business. That's why every dollar of tax cuts produces $4 of extra value in the economy in GDP, and most of that, between two-thirds and three-quarters, goes to labour or employees. And Chris Murphy confirmed that today. It's - but it's very well understood. And by the way, it was very well understood by Mr Shorten only a few years ago, not to speak of the great Labor Treasurer and Prime Minister, Paul Keating…..

LEIGH SALES: I'm just not sure. Does that message though connect with people who struggle to pay for child care, who go to the emergency room at the hospital and they have a long wait, who it takes them an hour to commute to work. I'm just wondering if the way you frame that message actually connects with people.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well everybody knows that their prosperity depends on the prosperity of their employer. And if they're working for a business, as most people are working in the private sector, they want to know that their business is doing well, that the company they're working for is investing, is growing, is able to retain more of its earnings and put more of it back into the business. You see everything we're doing is going to encourage more investment. And I know you don't want me to refer to the Labor Party, but I do have to note that their policies will discourage investment. They are taxing investment and that will reduce investment and it will reduce jobs.

ON EXAGERATED CLAIMS

LEIGH SALES: You keep bringing up the Labor Party, so let's talk ...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well it is a two-horse race! (Laughs)

LEIGH SALES: Let's talk about them. Why do you keep exaggerating in the language that you use around them. You say for example that they're declaring a war on the family businesses of Australia, that they want to stand in the way. I mean, even if you disagree with their policies, you're really saying that they want to stand in the way, they're declaring a war?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I assume they - I assume - well leaving aside the - the bellicose metaphors ... -

LEIGH SALES: You're the one who's made them. That's why I'm asking.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, no, fair enough and that's a choice of language.

LEIGH SALES: But why are you doing that though?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well I think it's very important, Leigh, to call it out for what it is. I mean, let me just ...

LEIGH SALES: But you're not. My point in my question is that you're exaggerating it and I'm wondering why because in the first interview you did in this program when you became Prime Minister you said that you wanted to engage with voters in a way that respected their intelligence and I just wonder if you think that exaggerating your point is respecting their intelligence?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I'm not exaggerating and if I can answer the question, I'll do so. What the Labor Party is saying is that our tax cuts benefit banks and multinationals. And if you read through the brochure they put out today, which has not a lot of words in it and no numbers, it is - that's how it presents it. Let's be quite clear: the companies that will benefit from our tax cuts over the next three years are businesses that turn over $10, $25 and $50 million, and then in the next three years, it is companies that turn over $100, $250 and $500 million. There are no banks among them. The vast majority of the companies that will benefit between this election and the next election are family-owned Australian businesses, employing Australians which are, on any view, medium-sized businesses. Now, Mr Shorten presents that - he is standing in the way - yes, he is standing in the way of those overwhelmingly Australian family-owned businesses getting a tax cut, and I tell you, if they get that tax cut, they will invest more and they will employ more.

LEIGH SALES: You haven't addressed the central point of my question, which is why, if you have a strong case, which you believe you do, you feel the need to exaggerate it and disrespect voters intelligence?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well what is the exaggeration?

LEIGH SALES: Because you claim that - of Shorten that they have a war on family businesses of Australia, that they want to stand in the way.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well they are standing in the way and I assume they want to do what they are doing. I am assume they're not standing in the way accidentally or out of thoughtlessness. I assume this is a calculated decision to oppose those tax cuts.

LEIGH SALES: Tony Shepherd, who chaired the Coalition's government Commission of Audit, doesn't consider Labor anti-business. "I don't think there's anything put forward in the campaign that's anti-business," he told the SMH on 4th July. They have their own company tax policy where they want to propose tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of up to $2 million. That's scarcely a war on business.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, Leigh, we can - we'll have to disagree about the language. The bottom line however is let's deal with the facts, is that Labor opposes any tax relief for any business with a turnover higher than $2 million. $2 million - there are of course many businesses with a turnover of $2 million or less, but they are very small businesses by and large. And of course there are $2.2 million people working for businesses that turn over under $10 million. So they're the ones that will benefit from 1st July and they will get no support from the Labor Party because - simply because their turnover is more than $2 million, they are regarded as unacceptable a recipient of tax relief as one of the largest banks.

ON PERSONAL POPULARITY

LEIGH SALES: Your personal popularity has dropped 50 points since that day. You can't not be bothered by that and not be asking yourself what's gone wrong.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Leigh, let me say this to you. I am focused on the interests of the people of Australia. I realise within the political and media bubble there is a lot of interest in polls and a lot of people naval-gazing in introspection. But right now, I'm the Prime Minister. My job is to deliver for Australians.

LEIGH SALES: I understand that, ...

MALCOLM TURNBULL: To deliver for all Australians.

LEIGH SALES: ... but I'm giving you an opportunity to address people directly who were -perhaps who liked you, who were perhaps happy to see you get the job and have become for whatever reason disillusioned and disappointed in you.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well Leigh, all I can say is that my commitment is to ensure that we are able to take advantage of these extraordinary times. Let me - just - you speak.

LEIGH SALES: Would you agree that that fall in your approval rating, because as I said, you've established that you are interested in polling, can only reflect that people have been disappointed in you?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, what I - I've noted the polling, Leigh, but I don't take any notice of it - truthfully. I have to focus on delivering for the people of Australia - what they want to hear about. The viewers that are watching us tonight want to know how I am going to ensure that we have a strong economy, that their children and grandchildren can get good jobs, that they can maintain their good jobs, that if they want to move into a business of their own, they'll be able to do so. They want to know that government has the revenues to pay for the hospitals and the schools and the roads. That's what they want to know and that's what I'm focused on. And I really am not - I'm not very interested at all in opinion polls. I'm focused on doing my job as Prime Minister. Other people can comment on polls.

LEIGH SALES: But I think people watching this also want to know that you're listening to them and what those polls tell you is that there's something that you're doing which they don't like.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well why don't you ask me a question about it?

LEIGH SALES: Well I am asking you a question about it. What do you think - what do you think - what do you think has happened that you have lost that ginormous chunk of approval?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Leigh, I am not going to be drawn into that kind of introspection. My job is to focus on the needs of Australians. Other people - you know, you and I can have this discussion, it might be interesting, but the viewers that are watching us tonight, they want to know how the plan I'm laying out is going to enable Australia to succeed. I mean, let me just describe the situation we're in. We are a high wage, generous social welfare net first-world economy. We're in a global economy that is growing rapidly, particularly in our region. There are enormous opportunities. We have opened them up as never before with our free trade agreements - that's a fact - and that's driving jobs right across the country. We are making a successful transition from the downturn - inevitable downturn of the mining construction boom, but we can't take economic growth for granted. These are times of great opportunity but great challenge. To succeed - we'll always be a lucky country, but we've got to make our own luck. We've got to make our own luck and I have the plan that will deliver the prosperity and the security we need in the years ahead. That's my commitment……

Sunday 5 June 2016

Australian Federal Election 2016: what a fizza!


The FIZZA meme became a bit of a political buzzword in this election campaign and hit the streets under an image Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull:






And courtesy of a little digital magic FIZZA also appeared on the rooftop of a certain Point Piper home.......  
                    

At one point the political meme morphed into street art......



Finally the image was emended to show authorization to comply with AEC rules during the 2016 federal election campaign......


Meet the artist.....



* All images found on Twitter

Saturday 4 June 2016

Polling blues for Team Turnbull at the end of Week 4 of the 2016 Australian Federal election campaign



It suggests voters are now genuinely considering throwing out a first-term federal government - an event that has not occurred since the dark days of the 1930s depression….

The nationwide phone survey of 1359 residents taken from Tuesday to Thursday , put Labor ahead on 51-49 after preferences, and showed Mr Turnbull's approval continuing to slide towards negative territory after record highs last November. His net approval now stands at plus-3 points - barely inside positive territory - against Bill Shorten who is unchanged on minus-6…..

If replicated at the election on July 2, the 49 per cent return for the Coalition would be the equivalent of a massive 4.5 per cent swing against it - enough to see it bundled from office in a humiliating defeat costing it as many as 23 seats.


While locally The Daily Examiner reported on the odds in the seat of Page, 3 June 2016:

THE BOOKIES are giving the seat of Page to the ALP less than a month out from the Federal election.
Online bookmaking firm sportsbet.com.au has the incumbent, the Nationals' Kevin Hogan, drifting out $1.30 favouritism to $2.15 and Labor's Janelle Saffin firming to $1.65 from $3.50 at the start of the campaign..
The bookmaker says the majority of punter support has been for Saffin, who was the Member for Page from 2007 -2013, with 5:6 bets heading her way.
The Greens have also been wound out from $16 to $51, with not a single bet coming for Kudra Falla-Ricketts.
Minor party candidates Bethany McAlpine, Mark Ellis and Anna Ludvick are all priced at $34 after being wound out from $26.
"Kevin Hogan was considered a lock-in for Page before Malcolm Turnbull called the election, but punters have turned," said sportsbet.com.au's Ben Bulmer.
"Janelle Saffin, who started the campaign as the outsider, is now the punters pick and the clear favourite to win back the seat."

Tuesday 31 May 2016

Summoning up "the old Malcolm"


For some reason certain commentators and voters appear to believe that Malcolm Bligh Turnbull had to fundamentally change in order to be elected Prime Minister of Australia by the Liberal Party.

Nothing Turnbull has done since 1 December 2009 when his party dumped him as opposition leader indicates that any change has occurred.

Basically what one sees is what has always been there – a hugely egotistical man, driven by ambition, who believes the misleading ' poor boy' backstory he created about his own life and who has little to no knowledge of the hopes, dreams, concerns and daily lives of ordinary people and cares even less.

In other words, we see this…….


 Maltony Bligh Turnbull
Courtesy of Robbo

Thursday 26 May 2016

Australian Federal Election 2016: alleged corruption in Border Force ranks


Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
17 May 2015

The Age, 19 May 2016:

A network of Australian border security officials is allegedly working for organised criminals, including drug and tobacco smugglers, in the most serious corruption scandal to ever hit the nation's border agencies.

A Fairfax Media investigation has uncovered multiple cases of alleged corruption involving staff from the Australian Border Force and the Department of Agriculture, along with maritime industry employees with government clearances…..

The allegations come as the government makes a virtue of its strength on border security, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull claiming the opposition "lack the commitment to keep our borders secure".

However, the federal government and customs chiefs, including the nation's top border security official, Michael Pezzullo, have been repeatedly warned over four years in high-level confidential briefings about significant suspected corruption in the Border Force's ranks, especially in NSW.

Evidence, including NSW police briefing notes and testimony from crime figures, suggests that one of the most vital border security facilities, the NSW Customs Examination Facility, has been compromised by corrupt insiders, enabling criminals to import large amounts of drugs and tobacco undetected. Staff at the facility are responsible for searching containers suspected to contain contraband.

A small network of Department of Agriculture officials responsible for clearing imports into Australia have also been assisting and liaising with known drug traffickers for at least the past five years…..

Fairfax Media has delayed reporting on the border corruption scandal for several months at the request of authorities.

In NSW, evidence uncovered by Fairfax Media from multiple sources, including agency officials, government briefing files and figures with underworld ties, implicates Border Force officials in drug and tobacco trafficking, and leaking to the criminal underworld.

Criminal intelligence suggests one officer has been taking kickbacks of hundreds of thousands of dollars from traffickers, while another has been facilitating importations.

Suspected corrupt officers are still operating.

The latest scandal comes three years after a network of corrupt customs officers was identified at Sydney airport and charged by the federal police. At the time, Mr Pezzullo promised sweeping reforms, including many which have been implemented.

Top security and policing officials, along with corruption experts, called for the nation's federal police watchdog, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI) to have its budget dramatically increased and said the Australian Border Force had failed to deal with corruption in its ranks.

Leading corruption expert and former senior judge Stephen Charles, QC, said ACLEI – which, with about 20 investigators out of a total of 55 staff, is among the smallest corruption fighting agencies in Australia – was badly outgunned. Mr Charles said Australia needed an anti-corruption agency with hundreds of staff……
One senior government source said the Australian Border Force was "incapable" of eradicating corruption in its ranks and sometimes dealt with internal integrity issues with departmental sanctions, such as demotion or sacking, rather than by conducting intensive probes that could expose corrupt networks

Read the full article here.

* Photograph found at The Sydney Morning Herald

Sunday 22 May 2016

Little known fact about Malcolm Bligh Turnbull

 

While in England on a Rhodes scholarship Malcolm Turnbull was a journalist on the books of The Times (UK) and this newspaper didn’t publish him for eleven months, and never used a story.

Sunday 15 May 2016

Australian Federal Election 2016: spot Amanda Vanstone's attempts at political deception in The Age newspaper


This was former Liberal Senator for South Australia and former minister in the Howard Government, Amanda Vanstone writing in The Age on 9 May 2016 in an article titled Turnbull or Shorten? The choice seems clear:


Let’s break that down a little.

Schooling

Yes, Malcolm Turnbull went to a public primary school at Vaucluse in Sydney’s affluent Eastern Suburbs for about three years and, yes he went to Sydney Grammar School from the age of eight with the assistance of a scholarship for at least part of that period. He graduated from university during the years when undergraduate and post-graduate tertiary education was free of course fees in Australia. He was the child of divorced parents. All this is on the public record.

Bill Shorten went to a local Catholic primary school before attending Xavier College’s junior & senior schools in the Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne – his mother taught at Xavier and presumably there was some degree of discount on his school fees. So yes, he also had a private education in affluent suburbs. He graduated from university during the years when tertiary education was free of course fees and undertook a post-graduate degree during a period when course fees were re-instituted. His parents divorced when he was about 20 years of age. All of which is also on the public record.

Wealth

Malcolm Turnbull inherited assets worth an est. $2 million from his hotel-broker father before he turned 29 years of age according to one of his biographers Paddy Manning and, he and his wife independently and jointly went on to garner considerably greater wealth which was last estimated to be in the vicinity of $200 million. His last Statement of Registrable Interests lists a veritable slew of financial investments and an expensive property portfolio shared between he and his wife. It is not known if he inherited any money from his mother.

It is not known to the writer if Bill Shorten inherited any money to speak of from his dry-dock manager father or his mother, however his last Statement of Registrable Interests lists very little in assets held by either he or his wife beyond their mortgaged family home.

What essentially separates these two men are the differences in their personal and political philosophies and the wide gap between their different levels of personal wealth.

Although this is something Amanda Vanstone is trying hard to distort in this federal election campaign and something The Age appears to be so indifferent to that its editor is not reigning in her excesses.  

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Bet there are quite a few Liberal and Nationals MPs who are not thrilled with this 'inspired' piece of political branding


It would appear that Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull's desire to capitalise on his somewhat faded personal popularity, as well as distance himself from any further association with former prime minister Tony Abbott's 2013 election campaign, has seen a rather egocentric re-branding of Liberal-Nationals Coalition.

The unfortunate visual re-enforcement of business as usual.......


The new branding…….. 


And the fine print which has Tony Nutt, federal director of the Liberal Party of Australia, taking responsibility for what is possibly campaign mistake number two……


Images found at @mearsey and @KieraGorden

UPDATE

Team Turnbull's branding just took on water as the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) announced on Twitter that Turnbull & Nutt had forgotten to register web domain names applicable to The Turnbull Coalition Team.

So:

Sorry, turnbullcoalitionteam.net is not available.
Sorry, turnbullcoalitionteam.org is not available.

Sunday 8 May 2016

Federal Election 2016: Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and housing affordability


On 4 May 2016 this on-air exchange occurred between ABC 774 Radio presenter Jon Faine and Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull:

JON FAINE" Yeh but my question was specifically about the intergenerational aspects of it. It’s  [negative gearing] creating conflict with effectively the kids of your and my generation, who can't get into the market and they're saying oh for goodness sake you baby boomers, you just want everything and you're locking us out.”

MALCOLM TURNBULL"Are your kids locked out of the housing market?"

JON FAINE"Yes"

MALCOLM TRUNBULL"Well you should shell out for them, you should support them, a wealthy man like you"

JON FAINE"That's what they say" [laughing]

MALCOLM TURNBULL"Exactly. There you go. See you've got the solution in your own hands”

JON FAINE: “That’s hardly national policy”

MALCOLM TURNBULLYou can provide a bit of inter-generational equity in the Faine family"

There is a reason why Turnbull can be so casually dismissive of concerns about home ownership and housing affordability and, it can be found in his privileged background.


Title records show that Mr Turnbull was a law student at Sydney University when he spent $17,000 on a worker’s semi on Newtown’s Wells Street. At the time he was far from a struggling student kicking around the backstreets of the inner west. He was already a Point Piper resident, with corporate records showing he lived in the Longworth Avenue apartment owned by his late father, hotel broker Bruce Turnbull.
That Newtown investment property was likely Mr Turnbull’s first windfall from the Sydney property market. He sold it in 1981 for $68,000, quadrupling in value over the three years.
The year after his Newtown purchase title records show the Rhodes scholar (or “student” according to the property transfer) bought a terrace on Redfern’s Great
Long before Malcolm Turnbull ascended to the highest political office in the country and took the keys to his official Sydney residence Kirribilli House, he had already amassed a fortune – much of it from Sydney’s property market.
The 29th prime minister has come a long way from his 1978 first-home purchase in Newtown, to his $50 million-plus trophy waterfront home in Point Piper.

Privately educated Malcolm Turnbull was 23 or 24 years old, son of a successful property speculator and a recent university graduate, when he purchased his first property in 1978.

By the end of 1982 this now married practicing lawyer was a member of the Liberal Party, had inherited an est. $2 million in assets, become a grazier and acquired a second investment property – all the while residing in a Point Piper flat owned by his father.

Five years later he was an investment banker at Whitlam Turnbull & Co. Ltd.

By the time he entered parliament as the Member for Wentworth in 2004 he was reputedly worth $133 million.

Turnbull’s fortune continues to grow.

This is a man who has never known Struggle Street. 

Sunday 1 May 2016

Australian Federal Election 2016: who else is tired of Liberal-Nationals political lies concerning negative gearing?


Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs recently observed that Australian politicians were generally ill-informed and uneducated.

She was speaking in reference to democracy, human rights and international law.

I am beginning to suspect her observations may apply to almost any matter that is placed before them for consideration or action.

When it comes to negative gearing, Liberal and Nationals federal politicians have obviously not read beyond those party talking points released as the federal election campaign heats up and, I suspect their ignorance is wilful. 

Readers have probably already noticed how many of them have declared investment properties and accompanying mortgages in the current Register of Members’ Interests?

So in an effort to balance the one-eyed view of negative gearing held by those with vested interests, here are some facts and observations……

What is negative gearing?

This is how the Direct Property Network (Denuo Pty Ltd) website describes negative gearing:

Negative gearing: cost of the property is greater than the income generated. e.g. total cost is $2,000 per month (includes loan, council rates, real estate management fees etc) less the incoming rent $1,500/month rent received. The difference is $500 per month or $115. 38/week, which costs the investor.
The benefit of negative gearing is the cash loss is offset against income from other sources, thus reducing your taxable income, and hence the amount of tax you have to pay (compared to the tax you'd pay without the investment).
The effects of this cash loss are buffered or absorbed by the tax system.
Because of the tax effects your loss is reduced.
Simply put: the tax man and the rental income pays for your investment property!!

And this is what the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) says about negative gearing:

A rental property is negatively geared if it is purchased with the assistance of borrowed funds and the net rental income, after deducting other expenses, is less than the interest on the borrowings.
The overall taxation result of a negatively geared property is that a net rental loss arises. In this case, you may be able to claim a deduction for the full amount of rental expenses against your rental and other income (such as salary, wages or business income) when you complete your tax return for the relevant income year. Where the other income is not sufficient to absorb the loss it is carried forward to the next tax year.
If by negatively gearing a rental property, the rental expenses you claim in your tax return would result in a tax refund, you may reduce your rate of withholding to better match your year-end tax liability.
If you believe your circumstances warrant a reduction to your rate or amount of withholding, you can apply to us for a variation using the PAYG income tax withholding variation (ITWV) application (NAT 2036).

Advice from domain.com.au on how to negatively gear your own holiday house so that the taxman pays for your weekends away and annual holidays.

Who negatively gears investment properties?

Business Insider reported on 16 February 2015 that:

The richest 40% of Australians carry 80% of the investor housing debt.

According to the Grattan Institute on 8 March 2016:

Data is not directly available on what proportion of home purchases are made by investors. Data on new home lending from The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Lending Finance figures indicates that between one-third and half of new lending is to investors. And ABS census data shows that just under a third of existing properties are owned by investors.
But not all of them negatively gear. Some do not borrow, and others do not borrow enough to be negatively geared: that is, their rental income is greater than the expenses and loan interest. The tax stats show us that about two-thirds of all housing investors are negatively geared. This suggests that around 20% of housing buyers are negatively geared investors.

In 2015 Australians borrowed a total of $73.54 million in housing finance [ABS, 5671.0 - Lending Finance, Australia, Dec 2015].

These figures indicate that in 2015 negatively-geared investors borrowed an est. total of $14.7 million in housing finance.

It appears that many investors who negatively gear property have borrowed up to 50 to 80 per cent of the purchase price of their investment.

This is a breakdown of who these investors are thought to be, according to Grattan Institute spokespersons writing in The Conversation on 8 March 2016:

Click on images to enlarge

That graph is supported by a second based on ATO data:

Executive Director of The Australia Institute Ben Oquist stated in The Sydney Morning Herald on 16 February 2016:

"In total, these concessions [negative gearing, capital gains tax discount & superannuation tax concessions] are worth more than $37 billion, yet the young receive only $2.4 billion of their value…
"The capital gains tax discount and negative gearing are particularly unfair for the young, with the under 30s taking approximately 1 per cent of the benefit of tax breaks worth $7.7 billion a year and climbing.
The NATSEM research also shows that 73 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount, flows to the top 10 per cent of income earners.

The Sydney Morning Herald also reported on 13 November 2015 that:

According to Tax Office data, nearly 30 per cent of anaesthetists negatively gear their properties, compared to just 3.6 per cent of cleaners.
Surgeons (27.7 per cent), finance managers (23.4 per cent), mining engineers (22.2 per cent), and lawyers (22.1 per cent) are also far more likely to use the strategy than people in lesser-paying jobs, the data shows.
Sales assistants (3.7 per cent), hairdressers (5 per cent), nurses (9.6 per cent) and teachers (12 per cent) are much less likely than surgeons and lawyers to use negative gearing…..

Click on images to enlarge

Data shows the average tax benefit that surgeons received from negatively geared property was $4161 in 2012-13, followed by anaesthetists ($3353), lawyers ($1788), mining engineers ($1336) and finance managers ($1247).
But cleaners only received an average tax benefit of $41, while sales assistants ($42), hairdressers ($167), nurses ($254) and teachers ($327) fared little better…..

Data for the 2013-14 financial year confirms the same professional occupation mix as benefiting most from negative gearing tax concessions.



It comes as no surprise that an electorate with some of the wealthiest people in Australia - the Liberal Party electorate of Point Piper held by Malcolm Bligh Turnbull MP - is also the electorate which claims the most in average rental losses from negative gearing:

ABC News, 27 April 2016, ATO (2014) and NATSEM

According to the Brisbane Times on 1 May 2016:

New research by the Parliamentary Library has found that of the 6071 people in Mr Turnbull's postcode who submitted a tax return in 2014, 592 claimed the tax deduction to the tune of almost $18 million - or $30,278 each.
That works out at about $582 a week.

Nor does it come as a surprise to find some Turnbull Government ministers have one or more geared investment properties, such as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton, who in December 2015 purchased a $2.235 million two-story beach-front house at Palm Beach QLD with money borrowed from the ANZ Bank. He and his wife appear to own four other properties - two of which are also listed as investments.

In fact an est. 1 in 3 federal politicians own rental properties and ownership by party breaks down like this:


Qld Nationals senator Barry O'Sullivan reportedly owns 41 of these properties, Nationals MP David Gillespie 18 properties, Palmer United Party MP Clive Palmer 12 properties and Country Liberal Party MP Natasha Griggs 12 properties.

So why does multi-millionaire Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull insist that removal of the negative gearing would hurt mum and dad investors ie those with taxable income incomes at or below $80,000pa?

Well, the first point to remember is that people with genuine and 'unmassaged' taxable incomes below $80,000 per annum are more likely to be receiving negative gearing tax concessions worth less than $800 per year.

The second point is that Labor is only talking about removing the negatively gearing option from old housing stock that is not already negatively geared.

Current investment properties - no matter who they are owned by - will be exempt from proposed negative gearing changes.

Basically, removing negative gearing from old housing stock purchased after 30 June 2017 would predominately affect that section of society which seeks to aggressively avoid tax and accrue wealth by property speculation.

The simple answer to the question of why Malcolm Turnbull has taken his contrary stance is that this is a federal election year and the country is probably heading to the polls in less than six weeks - therefore both Liberal and National ministers, senators and MPs all need to keep their political donors, personal support bases and the property, banking and finance industries firmly on their side if they are to retain their seats and win the Abbott-Turnbull Government a second term in office.

I suspect that small-time investors did not genuinely factor into Turnbull’s decision to leave negative gearing arrangements well and truly alone, no matter what he argues between now and 2 July 2016.

After all, before this election year dawned negative gearing was open to debate in his own party. As the departing treasurer Joe Hockey demonstrated in Hansard on 21 October 2015 at Page 11952 when he appeared to be agreeing with an element in Labor’s draft affordable housing policy:

JOE HOCKEY: We should be wiser and more consistent on tax concessions to help pay for that. In particular, tax concessions on superannuation should be carefully pared back. In that framework, negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so that there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property

In an effort to paper over Turnbull Government unwillingness to look taxation inequities squarely in the eye, Liberal and Nationals politicians are apparently blaming ordinary Australians and their supposedly shaky levels of confidence, if The Saturday Paper of 30 April 2016 is any indication:

Coalition sources say concerns about the impact on consumer confidence of big changes to the tax system – along with the assessment that the boost to growth was too small to justify the upheaval – were behind the decision to abandon an increase in the goods and services tax. 
Similar concerns also fed into the decision not to fiddle with negative gearing.

The online newspaper went on to say:

The Saturday Paper has been told cabinet took its decision to retain negative gearing some weeks ago and that it was a political – and not an economic – move.
The policy decision was made to form part of the government’s armoury in the lead-up to the election…..

What do ordinary people think of negative gearing?

According to The Australia Institute less than 9 per cent of the Australian population owned investment properties in 2012, so it is unsurprising to find this online poll in The Daily Examiner (Clarence Valley) on 29 April 2016:


Conclusion?

Putting it quite frankly;  protecting current negative gearing tax concessions for an estimated less than 9 per cent of the population (whose cumulative tax minimisation/avoidance is by most accounts distorting the property market) at the expense of the remaining est. 91 per cent is bad taxation policy.

Favouring this less than 9 per cent, during a federal government term which saw first Abbott then Turnbull rip into the fabric of health, education and welfare safety nets protecting over 23 million people because tax revenue is not keeping pace with government spending, is mindlessly destructive politics.

A fairer approach to taxation concessions - particularly those on self-managed superannuation funds, investments and capital gains realized - which does not encourage aggressive tax minimisation/avoidance at the expense of the common good is not the bogeyman vested interests are making out.