More evidence that the far-right in politics and industry are determined to drive working class Australians into generational poverty?

The Sydney Morning Herald

Wage fraud, wage freezes, cuts to penalty rates and companies scrapping enterprise agreements will reduce the retirement savings of millions of workers by $100 billion by the time they retire, a report has found.

The report, the Consequences of Wage Suppression for Australia's Superannuation System by the Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work, says the government will pick up more than one third of the cost, equivalent to $37 billion in lost taxes due to lower super contributions and higher age pension payouts.

It estimates that three million people, or one in four workers, have experienced some form of wage suppression, which will adversely impact their super payout.

The author of the report, Jim Stanford, describes wage suppression as an economic "time bomb". He says while individual families are grappling with the immediate impact of wage cuts, the long-term impact when they retire is yet to play out.

[THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAGE SUPPRESSION FOR SUPERANNUATION, p.9]

Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute, Jim Stanford, Ph.D., The Consequences of Wage Suppression for Australia’s Superannuation System, September 2017, excerpt from Summary:

Wages and salaries in Australia’s labour market are exhibiting their weakest growth in the history of the relevant statistics. Hourly wages are growing at less than 2 percent per year, and real wages (adjusted for consumer price inflation) are stagnant or falling. The unprecedented stagnation of wages reflects many factors, including chronic weakness in labour demand and the erosion of traditional wage-setting institutions (such as minimum wages and collective bargaining). But it also reflects, for millions of Australian workers, the aggressive efforts by employers (both private- and public- sector) to deliberately suppress wages below normal levels. These wage-suppression strategies take many forms: from the imposition of temporary wage freezes, to the unilateral termination of enterprise agreements, to the outright theft of wages through below-minimum payments. These pro-active measures to suppress labour incomes, breaking the normal link between labour incomes and labour productivity (which continues to grow at over 1 percent per year1), impose great harm on affected workers, their families, government budgets, and Australia’s macroeconomic performance.

There is another important consequence of these wage suppression strategies that is often not sufficiently understood by workers, employers, policy-makers and regulators: their flow-through impact on Australia’s retirement income system. When workers’ wages are unduly suppressed, then the normal flow of employer contributions into their superannuation accounts is also constrained. They will have smaller superannuation balances when they retire, and will consequently experience a lasting reduction in post-retirement incomes. Moreover, governments will share a significant portion of the resulting damage: they will collect less in taxes on superannuation contributions and investment income, and will pay out more in means-tested Age Pension benefits (since workers’ superannuation incomes will be smaller). These significant, lasting consequences from wage-suppression strategies should be documented and considered. They provide a powerful motive for all stakeholders to challenge employers’ wage-cutting initiatives. They also should be of direct concern to superannuation trustees and administrators – since the capacity of the superannuation capacity of the superannuation system to provide decent, secure retirement incomes for its members is being undermined by this growing pattern of wage suppression.

This report presents results from several quantitative simulations of the impact of wage suppression on superannuation entitlements of affected workers, their long-run retirement incomes, and corresponding fiscal effects on government. The report considers several specific scenarios, corresponding to different instances of pro-active wage suppression strategies that have been experienced by Australian workers in recent years. It traces through the impact of those policies on workers’ wages, superannuation accumulations, and retirement incomes. The simulations also describe the spill-over impacts on government (arising from reduced taxes collected on superannuation contributions and investment income, and increased Age Pension payouts). The simulations confirm that:

* Wage suppression undermines superannuation accumulations by automatically reducing employer contributions. Moreover, the damage is compounded over time due to the subsequent loss of investment income.

* Even temporary wage restraint measures (like temporary wage freezes) have lasting negative impacts on superannuation balances, by altering the trajectory of a worker’s wages for the rest of their career.

* The most dramatic instances of wage suppression – the termination of enterprise agreements by employers, and resulting large wage reductions as workers are placed back on minimum award conditions – can reduce the superannuation balance of a retiring worker by as much as $270,000.

* More modest wage suppressing policies (such as temporary nominal wage freezes, producing real wage reductions that are then sustained through a worker’s remaining years of service) reduce retirement superannuation balances by $30,000 or more.

* Government bears a share of the resulting losses, through both reduced tax collections before affected workers retire, and increased Age Pension payouts after they retire. In the worst-case scenarios, governments can experience fiscal losses of over $50,000 per worker (in real 2017 dollar terms).

* Millions of Australians have been confronted with one or more of these forms of wage suppression from their employers, so the aggregate impacts across the economy are enormous. Based on plausible estimates of the number of workers confronted with each form of wage suppression, the aggregate loss of superannuation balances on retirement (if the pattern of wage suppression is maintained) could ultimately exceed $100 billion (in real 2017 dollars) by the time affected workers retire, and the aggregate fiscal cost to government could reach $37 billion (in real 2017 dollars)………..

1 A recent Department of Finance research paper on productivity trends confirms that labour productivity continues to grow at typical historical rates – advancing at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent over the last five years alone. See Simon Campbell and Harry Withers, “Australian Productivity Trends and the Effect of Structural Change, “ August 28 2017, http://treasury.gov.au/ PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2017/ Australian-productivity-trends-and-the-effect-of-structuralchange

[THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAGE SUPPRESSION FOR SUPERANNUATION, p.10]

Centrelink sent out 19,980 incorrect debt notices in just eight months

Australian Parliament, PARLWORK, Question Details:

Question asked of the Minister for Human Services and Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge on 31 May 2017:

How many Centrelink clients who were notified of a debt or the likelihood of a debt with Centrelink through its Online Compliance Intervention system, have subsequently had their debt (a) reduced, and (b) cancelled completely.

Could he provide a breakdown of parts (1)(a) and (b) by (a) state and territory, and (b) postcode.

One hundred and three days later the Minister deigned to reply:

THE HON ALAN TUDGE MP - The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

1(a), 1(b) and 2(a) The number of debts reduced to zero and reduced but not to zero in total, by State and Territories as at 31 March 2017:

State	Debt Reduced to Zero1	Debt Reduced but not Zero1, 2
ACT	100	169
NSW	2,234	3,644
NT	40	79
QLD	1,665	2,718
SA	630	1,142
TAS	247	397
VIC	1,894	3,306
WA	646	1,069
Total	7,456	12,524

¹The month the change is reported is the month the reassessment or review of the debt was completed which may be different to the month the debt was raised.

2Debts can be reassessed multiple times. This is recorded each time as a reassessment in the appropriate month.

2(b) The breakdown by postcode is at Attachment A. To protect individuals’ privacy, cell sizes of less than five are represented as “<5”.

What it has taken the Turnbull Government so long to admit is that 37.31 per cent of the 19,980 incorrect debt notices sent out between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2017 were manifestly false debts.

In the same period a further 62.68 per cent of the 19,980 incorrect debt notices had amounts owed reduced – sometimes to under $20.

What these figures do not reveal is the total number of people who received a debt notice over these eight months and the number who paid the original amount listed on the debt notice because they were afraid to challenge Centrelink even though they personally doubted that any money was owed.

Nor is there any indication of how many Centrelink clients were referred to aggressive private debt collectors by the department.

What is known was that 1,569,911 people were sent debt notices in the 2016 calendar year alone [Commonwealth Ombudsman—Department of Human Services: Centrelink’s automated debt raising and recovery system].

Of these 20 per cent were admitted by the Dept. of Social Services to be false debts and 80 per cent were recoded as debts against a Centrelink client resulting in $300 million repaid by welfare recipients over a six month period [Minister for Social Security and Liberal MP for Christian Porter, transcript, 4 January 2017].

A total of 216,000 debt notices were generated in the three months leading up to Christmas 2016 and 133,078 alleged debts were recovered.

The Turnbull Government expects to claw back a total of $4 billion from welfare recipients by 2021.

The number of suicides as a result of a Centrelink debt notice is also unknown to date, although at least one recorded death had Centrelink debt as a contributing factor.

"It's a frightening world for Tony Abbott, and he wants you to be frightened, too"

Taking Tony's measure.......

Crikey, 21 September 2017:

Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott is committed to the destruction of the man who replaced him, and is willing to use any issue (and adopt any position, no matter how hypocritical) to do it. But it’s also worth reflecting on his psychology and that of men (they’re mostly men) like him, given they are likely to play a continuing role in parliament until the Liberal and National parties decide to enter the 21st century and start resembling contemporary Australia a little more closely.

The psychological basis for climate change denial has attracted increasing academic study in recent years, as researchers try to work out why one particular demographic — older white males — tends to dominate the ranks of climate denialists (compare, say, vaccination denialism, which has a younger and more female demographic). A 2015 study that has drawn considerable attention identified that “denial is driven partly by dominant personality and low empathy, and partly by motivation to justify and promote existing social and human-nature hierarchies.” That is, climate denialists were partly motivated by concern that climate action would undermine existing hierarchies, which, as white males, they tended to dominate. And because they see the world in terms of hierarchies, the only alternative they can conceive of is a hierarchy in which they are not dominant.

As it turns out, this kind of fear — that one is being threatened with losing one’s dominant status — is applicable across a range of issues. While he later said he chose his words poorly, Abbott saying that he felt “threatened” by homosexuality accurately conveyed a similar sentiment: he sees LGBTI people as threatening — not, of course, to his physical self, but to his social status. He put it even better when he explained his “threatened” comments by saying homosexuality “challenges orthodox notions of the right order of things”, revealing how LGBTI people conflicted with his hierarchical, “right order” view of the world.

This deep-seated, hierarchy-based fear can also be seen in Abbott’s monarchism; he described any push for a republic as “the latest instalment in the green-left’s war on our way of life”.…..

It’s a frightening world for Tony Abbott, and he wants you to be frightened, too.

Thousands of Queenslanders will have their Centrelink payments quarantined with a compulsory cashless welfare card in 2018

ABC News,

Thousands of Queenslanders will have their Centrelink payments quarantined when a compulsory cashless welfare card is brought in next year.

The Federal Government has announced the controversial card will be rolled out across the Wide Bay region, including Bundaberg and Hervey Bay.

Under the scheme 80 per cent of a person's welfare income is quarantined on a debit-style card, which cannot be used on alcohol, gambling or to withdraw cash.

It will apply to people under the age of 35 who receive dole and parenting payments.

The Wide Bay region has an est. resident population of 144,098 people living across 4.5 million hectares, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The 2016 Census revealed that only 22 per cent of the population stated they had any formal further education after high school and 27.5 per cent stated that their gross weekly incomes were less than $650. Half of those 15 years of age and older had incomes below $500.

In July 2017 Wide Bay had an employment rate of 60.8 per cent, an overall unemployment rate of 8.7 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of 23.6 per cent, according to the Australian Government Labour Market Information Portal and the Queensland Government Statistician’s Office.

Last year in Queensland there were 6.1 unemployed people for every job vacancy.

The number of businesses operating in the Wide Bay region has been slowly declining for at least the last five years, with the largest industry clusters being agriculture, construction and retail. The last data published shows barely 21,451 businesses – many of which would be owner operated having no employees or only a small number of employees.

In the Wide Bay region this expansion of the Indue cashless debit card program will initially be imposed on est. 6,700 people in Hervey Bay.

Hervey Bay has a population of 56,678 residents, with only 24.8 per cent of the population having any formal further education after high school and half of the population having personal incomes of less than $478 per week.

Families with children make up 48.4 per cent of all family groups and youth unemployment in Hervey Bay mirrors the broader Wide Bay region.

Eventually the cashless debit card program is expected to directly affect up to est. 20,478  individuals as it is rolled out across the region in 2018 and, the flow-on effect will touch their families and local businesses.

A media release by the Minister for Human Services and the Member for Hinkler stated as a principal reason for introducing the cashless debit card into the Hervey Bay community:

The consultations also revealed significant problems with alcohol, drugs and gambling, particularly among young families.  Many community sector leaders were concerned that money meant for children was not being spent on them. The card will ensure that money meant for children will not be spent on alcohol, gambling or drugs.

However, I’m not quite sure that 2016-17 crime statistics for the Qld Police District of Wide Bay-Burnett actually reflects this view.

As it is the Turnbull Government’s intention (sometimes openly stated) to force people off Centrelink’s books by controlling how welfare recipients spend their benefits, I think I can safely say that by the end of 2018 the Liberal Member for Wide Bay Llew O'Brien may find that he was only a one-term wonder in federal parliament and the Nationals Member for Hinkler Keith Pitt may also find that two parliamentary terms is his limit.

"You can opt out of it [the card] by getting a job."

Minister  for Human Services and MP for Aston Alan Tudge

21 September 2017

Political Tweets of the Week

20 minutes in and the DPM is already at peak puce. @mearesy picture. pic.twitter.com/eCZdtTtvy7

— Stephanie Peatling (@srpeatling) September 12, 2017

"You're an absolute disgrace" Coalition and One Nation senators

In a wild 2min speech, @JacquiLambie attacks One Nation & the govt ("disgusting") and defends the ABC ("our public broadcaster"). #auspol pic.twitter.com/mCBHjN8Juk

— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) September 13, 2017

Independent Senator for Tasmania Jacqui Lambie on the floor of the Australian Senate, 14 September 2017.

Senate Hansard,  12 September 2017:

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:56): The government wants One Nation support for this package so badly that it has agreed to invite a razor gang into the books of the ABC. And it wants Nick Xenophon's support for the package so badly that it has agreed not to embarrass him into being forced to vote in support of One Nation's proposal. But make no mistake, voting for this bill means voting for One Nation's deal. I know that, One Nation knows that and you can bet your last dollar that Nick Xenophon and his team know that, too. As for what the details are, we still don't know. The government won't tell us and they won't tell us. All we know is that it commits the government to review the ABC and ask if it is reducing the profitability of its commercial rivals. Guess what? The job of the ABC isn't to make money for its commercial rivals. Its job is to guarantee all Australians have access to news, programming and information that affects their lives, no matter where they live or how wealthy they are. The deal the government has made isn't designed to improve the ABC; it is designed to defund it. It's a deal to set up a rigged kangaroo court that is determined to find the ABC guilty and lay the groundwork for slashing the budget of the most trusted news source in the country—or, as I like to refer to it, the eighth great wonder of the world. That is the deal that is before us. That is the vote we are taking—to defend the ABC or to defund it. No amount of tax breaks or inquiries into tech giants can change that. As the old saying goes, if you don't know all the details of the deal, don't vote for it. If you knew all the details of the deal, you probably wouldn't vote for it anyway. A vote in favour of this package is a vote in favour of all the strings that come attached to it. The government could have opted to put the full details of the deal in the legislation, but it decided not to because it is embarrassed by what it has agreed to. And if something is so embarrassing that not even this government would be willing to put its name to it, then it says something about all those who are voting to support it. No matter what else is said, no matter who says it, there's only one thing you need to remember: if you are proud of something, you don't hide it. The deal that has been made between One Nation and the Turnbull government doesn't go ahead unless this vote passes. What we're doing by voting for this media reform package is actually voting for a dirty deal, because the government decided to link the two. We are voting for something on paper and another thing altogether in practice. We're choosing whether to defend the ABC or to defund it. I will not endorse this deal. I am willing to vote to help the commercial players by doing away with outdated media ownership regulations but I refuse to vote for a package that hurts journalism in rural and regional Australia. The bill before us is only half the deal. The other half will not be put to the vote. This is the vote—for the visible half and for the invisible other. It is the only opportunity we will have to oppose the dirty deal the government has made to let loose the razor gangs on the budget of the ABC for the crime of doing exactly what the public needs a public broadcaster to do. I won't be supporting this bill and I am disappointed that I can't. I'm disappointed that I can't support this bill, because I support what it's trying to achieve in principle. The media landscape is changing fast and— The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Lambie. You are in continuation. It being 2pm, we move to question without notice.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (18:27): The media landscape is changing fast. The industry is changing and the industry's regulation needs changing too. It's ridiculous to say that the only way to defend a struggling industry is to defend the regulation that's preventing it from defending itself against new and enormous threats. But concerns around the potential loss of media diversity as a result of the changes posed are real and valid. It is important that any deal to change regulation also protects media diversity in the process. Nobody wants any one media baron to have excessive power over the political landscape, and the best way to address concerns about private media ownership is to invest in publicly owned media. The government, with courage, would put whatever it's proposing to a vote. That's not what it has agreed to. Instead, reports suggest that the government has made some sneaky handshake deal in a back room somewhere to undermine the operations of the ABC, and it has gone behind the back of the Senate to do it. I won't be supporting this bill, and I'm disappointed that I can't. I'm disappointed that I can't support this bill because I support in principle what it's trying to achieve, but I will not be a part of taking a pitchfork to the ABC.

So you held out a hope that the Turnbull Government's use of the SSM postal survey results would be straightforward?

The forthcoming Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey will contain one clearly worded question: “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

This question can be answered “Yes” or “No” by those Australian citizens on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll who choose to participate.

The Turnbull Government has stated that a simple majority survey result will mean that legislation legalising same-sex marriage will be introduced in the federal parliament.

However, the vote of government senators and MPs will not be bound by the results of this survey – their vote on this legislation is a ‘free’ vote.

Almost sounds kosher, doesn’t it?

Ah, but this is a government full of far-right warriors determined to protect a ‘superior’ white Christian culture which has only ever really existed in their own minds and the minds of their fellow travellers.

So the Australian Bureau of Statistics website carries this information concerning the postal survey:

Readers will notice that survey results will be broken down by age and gender and, more importantly, by state or territory and federal electorates.

Call me cynical, but these demographic groupings will allow both the Turnbull Cabinet and all government senators and MPs to decide if survey participation in their own Liberal and National Party seats was either high enough or low enough for them to risk voting against same-sex marriage legislation and yet still have a chance of retaining their Senate or House of Representatives seats (as well as those generous parliamentary incomes & entitlements) in 2018.

So for those living in the federal electorates of Aston, Banks, Barker, Bennelong, Berowra, Bonner, Boothby, Bowman, Bradfield, Brisbane, Calare, Canning, Capricornia, Casey, Chisholm, Cook, Corangamite, Cowper, Curtin, Dawson, Deakin, Dickson, Dunkley, Durack, Fadden, Fairfax, Farrer, Fisher, Flinders, Flynn, Forde, Forrest, Gilmore, Gippsland, Goldstein, Grey, Groom, Hasluck, Higgins, Hinkler, Hughes, Hume, Kooyong, La Trobe, Leichardt, Lyne, Mackellar, Mallee, Maranoa, McMillan, McPherson, Menzies, Mitchell, Moncrieff, Moore, Murray, New England, North Sydney, O’Connor, Page, Parkes, Pearce, Petrie, Reid, Riverina, Robertson, Ryan, Stirling, Stuart, Swan, Tangney, Wannon, Warringah, Wentworth, Wide Bay, and Wright – your “Yes” or “No”  is probably going to count much more to these 76 Coalition MPs than those of everyone else.

Because the likes of Tony Abbott MP for Warringah, Kevin Andrews MP for Menzies and Andrew Hastie MP for Canning are only going to be swayed by what they perceive as their own self-interest.

For them it has never been about an individual's dignity, human rights or equality.

Matters don't seem to have markedly improved for the Liberal Party since February 2015

Full February 2015 six-page Higginson letter here.

Just on seven months later the disunity within the Liberal Party came to a head with the sacking of then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the installation of Malcolm Bligh Turnbull.

On 2 July 2016 the first double dissolution federal election in 30 years was held and, although the Liberal-Nationals Coalition was returned to government it was with a reduced majority after the loss of 14 seats.

In August 2016 ABC News reported that:

The New South Wales division of the Liberal Party took out two multi-million-dollar loans with Westpac in little over a year as it struggled with deep financial problems in the lead-up to the federal election campaign.

Internal documents sighted by Four Corners reveal that the embattled Liberal Party division took out the first $7 million loan with Westpac prior to the NSW state election in March 2015, secured against anticipated public funding from the NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC).

While current Australian Prime Minister and multimillionaire Malcolm Turnbull was forced to personally donate $1.75 million to the federal Liberal Party during the 2016 federal election campaign to ease its financial distress.

In 2017 factional divisions within the Liberal Party remain on public display:

Financial Review Michael Kroger hires QCs to get $75m from Liberal donor

SBS News Liberal MPs accused of defending factions

The Saturday Paper Friction between factions as disunity threatens Liberal Party

Sky News Left wing of Liberal party 'winning': Pyne

On 21 August 2017 the Federal Coalition recorded its 18^th consecutive poor Newspoll result which would have seen it lose government if a general election had been held on that day.

Four days later the Australian Electoral Commission announced that an additional 90,000 Australians have registered to vote since 8 August 2017 – increasing the number of registered voters to 16 million and making the current Commonwealth Electoral Roll the largest since Federation. When age demographics are broken down, 65,000 of these new voters are young people between 18 and 24 years of age. An age group thought to favour the Australian Labor Party and The Greens.

Sometime between 4 August 2018 and 18 May 2019 the Turnbull Government with its slim one MP majority is obliged to go to a general election.

The optics are not looking good.        

Things are crook at Tallarook for the Turnbull Government in August 2017

@LesStonehouse

On 21 August 2017 The Australian published the 18^th Newspoll in a row with negative numbers for the Coalition Federal Government:

The Turnbull government has taken a battering after a week of turmoil over the citizenship of key ministers, with the Coalition trailing Labor by 46 to 54 per cent in another brutal verdict from voters.

Labor has climbed to its strongest primary vote this year, with its core support at 38 per cent, giving it a convincing lead that would see it form government with a gain of 20 seats if the trend held at the next federal election.

The latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian, shows the government’s primary vote has fallen from 36 to 35 per cent over the past two weeks, amid internal rows over same-sex ­marriage and the storm over the foreign citizenship of three cabinet ministers.

Malcolm Turnbull has lost ground to Bill Shorten in his personal standing with Australians but has held his lead as preferred prime minister, favoured by 43 per cent of voters compared with 33 per cent who prefer the Oppos­ition Leader…..

The combined effect has widened Labor’s lead to 54 per cent to 46 per cent in two-party terms, a swing of more than 4 per cent against the government since the election in July last year….

The Newspoll survey of 1675 respond­ents, conducted from Thursday to yesterday, saw most of the results move within the margin of error of 2.4 percentage points, except for the fall in Mr Turnbull’s rating as better prime minister and the greater dissatisfaction with both leaders.

This is the 18th consecutive Newspoll in which the Coalition has trailed Labor in two-party terms, a tally that is now used against Mr Turnbull by his critics because he cited the loss of “30 Newspolls in a row” as a reason for challenging Tony Abbott in September 2015.

The swing against the government, if repeated in a uniform fashion at the next election, would lead to the loss of about 20 seats — eight in Queensland, four in Victoria, four in NSW, one in South Australia and three in Western Australia.

Mr Turnbull has retained his lead over Mr Shorten as preferred prime minister but the gap between­ the two has narrowed.

Voters cut their support for Mr Turnbull as better prime minister from 46 to 43 per cent, while increasing­ their support for Mr Shorten from 31 to 33 per cent.

The proportion of voters who were “uncommitted” increased from 23 to 24 per cent.

As a result, Mr Turnbull is now 10 points ahead of Mr Shorten on this measure, compared with a lead of 15 percentage points two weeks ago.

Primary vote

If the federal election for the house of representatives was held today, which one of the following would you vote for? If uncommitted, to which one of these do you have a leaning?

Two-party preferred

Based on the preference flow at the July 2016 federal election.

Leaders' net satisfaction

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Prime Minister is doing his job? Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the Leader of the Opposition is doing his job?

This isn't the first time Coalition MPs have lied about costings

“FEDERAL Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's populist "tax grabs" would cost Australians an eye-watering $150 billion over 10 years, the Federal Government will reveal today……Independent modelling by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) and Treasury shows that under a Shorten government small business, mum and dad investors, older Australians and higher-income earners would be slapped with higher taxes.” [The Northern Star, 14 August 2017]

The Parliamentary Budget Office exposes the lie………

PBO Media Release

This is not the first time a Coalition MP has uttered political lies about costings. Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb became rather famous for it.

ABC News, 11 October 2010:

The Federal Government says the Coalition did not tell the truth before the last election when it claimed to have had its costings audited.

The Opposition did not submit its costings to Treasury before the election, but said they had been audited by a big accountancy firm.

Fairfax newspapers quote letters between the Liberal Party and the accountants saying the work would not constitute an audit in accordance with Australian standards.

And conservative politicians wonder why the general public perceives such a yawning credibility gap.

Digital Transformation Agency: of all the stupid ideas.....

Of all the stupid ideas this has to be one of the worst…….

The Courier Mail, 5 August 2017:

ONE super ID logon that will allow Australians to interact with Medicare, pay their car registration, help switch banks and buy groceries and clothes online is being developed by the Turnbull Government.

In a bid to stop identity fraud and increase competition, Digital Transformation Assistant Minister Angus Taylor revealed the blueprint centred on one user name and one password for government and private use.

Within five years, Australians may be able to order a pair of jeans online or update their address for Centrelink, their bank or energy providers by using the streamlining technology provided by the government.

The opt-in plan will give people the ability to have one logon and password, which will not be stored centrally to ensure security.

It will likely have a twostep verification process, including a text of a code being sent to a mobile phone.

He said the first step was a logon for all government agencies, which could happen reasonably quickly, and then expanding it to the private sector.

Mr Taylor said conversations were being held with states and territories and some significant private companies.

“It’s opt-in, that’s the crucial principle. Mistakes of the past were forcing people down a particular track,” he said, stressing that there would be no “number” given to Australians and it was not a version of dumped policy of an Australia Card.

He said the measure would also make it easier to change banks or open bank accounts because the Government logon would eventually be considered one of the best identification systems.

“If you update your address, you’ll only have to do it once (and it will go to all government agencies and online retailers).”

He called it the “tell us once” principle.

Yes indeed; one phishing email, re-direct hack, one malicious website or insecure mobile phone and in the space of five minutes your identity is not your own, money leaves your bank accounts or money is borrowed against your assets and your credit card notches up thousands of dollars in goods that someone else receives.

What a brill idea, Angus! Did Malcolm suggest it?

If you're not feeling well but think things can't get any worse - you forgot to factor in the Australian Minister for Health's cost cutting ways

The Age, 4 August 2017:

State and territory health ministers say hospital treatments and services will suffer under a Commonwealth proposal to withhold budgeted funds and reduce spending.

Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt has drafted a directive to the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority to review its public hospital funding method.

It would result in retrospective funds not being paid and reduced services in future, Queensland Health Minister Cameron Dick said in a joint statement issued after the COAG Health Council meeting in Brisbane on Friday.

Mr Hunt drew condemnation from Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT when he confirmed he would uphold the direction.

"States and Territories have already funded services and boosted frontline staffing taking into consideration Commonwealth funding," the statement said.

Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA), media release, 17 July 2017:

IHPA releases Consultation Paper on Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospital Services 2018-19

The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) today released its Consultation Paper on the Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospital Services 2018-19. The consultation is open to the public until Thursday 17 August 2017.

The Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospital Services 2018-19 outlines the major policy decisions which will underpin the National Efficient Price and National Efficient Cost Determinations for 2018-19.

This year IHPA will seek feedback regarding work that has been progressed on pricing and funding for safety and quality as well as canvassing options to enable new and innovative approaches to value based or preventative health care models.

The Chair of the Pricing Authority, Shane Solomon said, “IHPA has continued to work closely with the jurisdictions, clinicians and other stakeholders to make significant progress on the implementation of national reforms to incorporate safety and quality into the pricing and funding of public hospitals in Australia.

“A range of factors must now be considered including risk adjustment and how the approach can be embedded as part of broader system change.

“The success of a safety and quality pricing and funding mechanism is dependent on national, state, and local health systems working together to support the implementation of a model and ensure that it is working to improve safety and quality across all services,” he said.

“The Consultation Paper is an important opportunity for stakeholders to engage with IHPA on the approach to pricing and funding for safety and quality as well as the emergence of new innovative pricing models to help improve public hospital services across Australia. We strongly encourage all interested parties to provide feedback as part of this process,” concluded Mr Solomon.

The Consultation Paper on the Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospital Services 2018-19 is available on the IHPA website.

Submissions should be emailed as an accessible Word document to submissions.ihpa@ihpa.gov.au or mailed to PO Box 483, Darlinghurst NSW 1300 by 5pm on Thursday 17 August 2017.

– ENDS –

Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA), Ministerial Direction, 16 February 2017:

Ministerial Direction

On 16 February 2017 IHPA received a Ministerial Direction from the Hon. Greg Hunt under section 226(1) of the National Health Reform Act 2011.

The Direction requires that IHPA undertake implementation of agreed recommendations of the COAG Health Council on pricing for safety and quality to give effect to:

1. nil funding for a public hospital episode including a sentinel event which occurs on or after 1 July 2017, applying to all relevant episodes of care (being admitted and other episodes) in hospitals where the services are funded on an activity basis and hospitals where services are block funded; and
2. an appropriate reduced funding level for all hospital acquired complications, in accordance with Option 3 of the draft Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospital Services 2017-18, as existing on 30 November 2016, to reflect the additional cost of a hospital admission with a hospital acquired complication, to be applied across all public hospitals; and
3. undertake further public consultation to inform a future pricing and funding approach in relation to avoidable hospital readmissions, based on a set of definitions to be developed by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.

IHPA will incorporate the requirements under this Direction into the final Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospitals 2017-18 due to be published on the IHPA website in early March 2017.

IHPA will undertake further consultation as part of its annual consultation process on the draft Pricing Framework for Australian Public Hospitals 2018-19 due for publication in June 2017 and provide a report back to the COAG Health Council by 30 November 2017.

Note: This follows on from a Direction received on 29 August 2016 which required IHPA to provide advice to the COAG Health Council on options for pricing for safety and quality.

More information

For any questions, please contact enquiries.ihpa@ihpa.gov.au

Links

• View the full Ministerial Direction online
• View previous Direction from 29 August 2016