Sick and tired of the silvertail Turnbull Government and its mouthpiece Alan Tudge demonising the unemployed in a tight jobs market?

This was 9 News on 13 June 2017, at the obvious urging of Human Services Minister Alan Tudge, indulging in a round of naming and shaming in "Australia's ten worst dole bludging towns and suburbs revealed":

TOP TEN LIST

1. Caboolture, Queensland - 11.4% unemployment March 2017
2. Blacktown, New South Wales -  east 5.9%, south 6.5% & north 7.3% unemployment March 2017
3. Mildura, Victoria - 7.5% unemployment March 2017
4. Frankston, Victoria - 8.9%, north 11.5% & south 2.7% unemployment March 2017
5. Deception Bay, Queensland -  8.8% unemployment March 2017
6. Werribee, Victoria - 12.2% & south 8.5% unemployment March 2017
7. St Albans, Victoria -  north 16.3% & south 16.3%
8. Dubbo, New South Wales -  south 3.0%, east 3.5% & west 4.8% unemployment March 2017
9. Auburn, New South Wales - 9.5% unemployment March 2017
10. Dandenong, Victoria - 18.5% & north 10.8%

The red annotations are official unemployment rates for these named and shamed locations in the March Quarter 2017, as released by the Australian Dept. of Employment.

If 9 News had resisted the easy path of merely repeating the minister’s dog whistle, it might have given some thought to what these unemployment rates might represent at the coal face.

In NSW these percentage are included in a market place where there are an est. 4 job seekers for every job vacancy, in Queensland an est. 8 job seekers for every job vacancy and in Victoria an est.12 job seekers for every job vacancy.

Is it any wonder then that those with low or no skills receiving unemployment benefits become discouraged over time with repeated rejection and begin to allegedly “miss job interviews and don’t turn up to work-for-the-dole appointments”.

If you want to complain to Human Services Minister Alan Tudge about his cynical dog whistling 'phone (02) 6277.7200 Canberra Office (03) 9887.3890 Electorate Office or email online here.

Is the National Vocational Education and Training System an abject failure?

In 2011 the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act came into being. It is administered by the Dept. of  Education and Training whose current minister is the Liberal Senator for South Australia, Simon Birmingham.

The system was allegedly designed to deliver workplace-specific skills and knowledge, vocational education and training (VET) covers a wide range of careers and industries, including trade and office work, retail, hospitality and technology. 

It wasn't too long before government-owned Technical and Further Education (TAFE) colleges/institutes across Australia began to complain they were being starved of funding and courses in order to feed this new education strategy and private ‘colleges’ began to multiply swiftly.

Every so often one of these dodgy private colleges hits the headlines and commentators tut-tut furiously and futilely.

However, most private VET service providers don’t rate much of a mention in mainstream media so the scale of this system failure is not readily apparent, except perhaps to the many thousands of fee-paying students affected.

This is a short and incomplete list of some of the more recent private-sector failures to provide quality further education and vocational training:

ASA (Australian Sports Academy) Pty Ltd, terminated for providing incorrect information in the application.
Australian Vocational Training Academy Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to provide compliant Training and Assessment Strategies, non-compliance with record keeping requirements; and failure to provide records and evidence to the Department upon request.
Careers Australia Education Institute Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to properly train and assess students in accordance with training package requirements, non-compliance with record keeping and failure to provide records and evidence upon request.
Careers Australia Institute of Training Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to properly train and assess students in accordance with training package requirements, non-compliance with record keeping and failure to provide records and evidence upon request. Careers Australia group now in voluntary administration
Industry Education and Training Services Pty Ltd, terminated for: providing incorrect information in the application.
Seluna Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to comply with training and assessment requirements of the VET Quality Framework, and submitting training activity and receiving subsidies for learners where there was no evidence of commencement.
Western Institute of Technology Pty Ltd, terminated for: providing incorrect information in the application.
Wise Education Group Pty Ltd, terminated for: failure to meet Standards for RTOs 2015 and non-compliance with record keeping requirements.

Group314 Pty Ltd, terminated for: Termination of S and S due to previous termination of APL; and,

Donna Mere Morrell-Pullin, terminated for: providing incorrect information in the application. [my red annotation]

[http://coastcommunitynews.com.au/2017/02/terminated-vocational-education-providers-named-and-shamed/]

Conwal and Associates Pty Ltd, non-compliant with the requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled

Online Courses Australia Pty Ltd, non-compliant with the requirements of the VET Quality Framework. registration cancelled

Australian Vocational Learning Institute, non-compliant with the requirements of the VET Quality Framework. registration cancelled

 Clover Educations trading as Cool Body Institute of Massage, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled

AITE Pty Ltd Australian Institute of Technical Education, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled

Get Qualified Australia-Adelaide Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia Trades Academy and Get Qualified Trades Academy, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled

Get Qualified Australia-Canberra Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia College, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled

Get Qualified Australia-Brisbane Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia Institute, not operated consistently with the applicable requirements of the VET Quality Framework, registration cancelled

CTM Training Solutions Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Green Pty Ltd trading as Green Training, VET services registration cancelled

Switch On Learning Pty Ltd trading as Australian Institute of Technology & Trade, VET services registration cancelled

Australian Tertiary Academy Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Equalis Pty Ltd trading as Equalis, VET services registration cancelled

Amana International Training Academy Pty Ltd trading as Zenith Education & Training, VET services registration cancelled

ASCET Institute of Technology, critically and systematically non-compliant with the requirements of the vocational education and training (VET) quality framework, registration cancelled

5 Star Training Institute Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

AJK Image Pty Ltd as trustee for The Nicole Kratzmann Family Trust trading as AKISS (Advanced Knowledge in Skin Science), VET services registration cancelled

Australia-Wide Business Training Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Childs Training Pty Ltd as the trustee for the Childs Family Trust trading as Quality Unlimited, VET services registration cancelled

Clear Fountain Pty Ltd trading as NITE School and Nationwide Instructors, Trainers and Educators, VET services registration cancelled

DJ Howle Pty Ltd trading as Onsite Training Services, VET services registration cancelled

Entertrain Institute of Technology Pty Ltd trading as Entertain Interactive Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Excellent Training Institute Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

June Dally-Watkins Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Master Group (Aust.) Pty Ltd trading as Master Group, VET services registration cancelled

Optimal Progression Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Todd Rutherford trading as Drilling Skills Australia, VET services registration cancelled

Aus-Com Training Services Pty Ltd trading as Aus-Com Training Services, VET services registration cancelled

Ausietech Investments Pty Ltd trading as Australian College of Management & Technology)

Professional Training College Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Nailtech Training Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

Project Management Partners Pty Ltd, VET services registration cancelled

[See latest regulatory decisions of Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)] 

Gurkhas Institute of Technology Pty Ltd, registration cancelled

DIY Training Services Pty Ltd, registration cancelled

Get Qualified Australia-Adelaide Pty Ltd trading as Get Qualified Australia Trades Academy and Get Qualified Trades Academy, registration cancelled

Sage Academy Training Pty Ltd, registration cancelled

Premier Training Institute Pty Ltd, registration cancelled

Safety and First Aid Education Pty Ltd, registration cancelled

Full list of Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) decisions.

And Australia wonders why it has a skills shortage?

How much longer is the Turnbull Government going to keep playing these silly, divisive blame games?

This was the Minister for Human Services and Liberal MP for Ashton, Hon. Alan Edward Tudge, speaking to $300-a-head luncheon guests on 26 May 2017 as they dined on slow-braised osso bucco and blueberry fruit tart washed down with wine courtesy of their host, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) and Multinational sponsor Serco:

“welfare has become a destination, not a safety net”

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, four weeks earlier, in April 2017, 728,500 people were unemployed and looking for work across the nation.

Of these 508,200 were looking for full-time work and 220,300 were looking for part-time work.

Half of all these people will be off unemployment benefits in 4 months or less and only 18.33% of the total number had been unemployed for 12 months or more.

That’s not a bad achievement in a marketplace where the ratio of unemployed people to job vacancies stands at roughly four to one.

Somehow this doesn’t look as though Australians think of living on Centrelink unemployment benefits as a desirable destination rather than as a short-term, below the poverty line safety net.

Which begs the question – just how stupid does Alan Tudge think voters are that he continually spouts such nonsense and expects to be believed.

Would believing Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt's denials be the height of foolishness?

Along with making home-owning aged pensioners pay for their Centrelink/Vet Affairs pensions by way of a debt against the value of their houses, it appears as though funding private hospitals at the expense of public hospitals may be on the Liberal-Nationals-Murdoch-IPA Coalition wish list.

A list voters never actually get to see unless the Liberal and National parties are re-elected to government - at which time its contents are usually presented to the electorate as fixed policy.

Here it is. Minister claims to 'rule out' hospital funding overhaul but taskforce continued to meet. You can't trust Turnbull with Medicare. pic.twitter.com/3THdSs3kkx

— Senator Murray Watt (@MurrayWatt) May 29, 2017

Basic outline of unsubmitted recommendations of the
Global Access Partners (GAP) Taskforce on Hospital Funding

Via Twitter

The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 May 2017:

Health department bosses have described their radical proposal to remake hospital funding as "future gazing" after the Turnbull government declared it would never adopt the controversial policy.

The private health insurance rebate would be abolished, consumers would be charged more for extras cover and the states would be forced to find more money for public hospitals under the plan.

As revealed by Fairfax Media on Monday, the nation's most senior health bureaucrats – Department of Health Secretary Martin Bowles and his deputy Mark Cormack – are members of a secretive taskforce formed to develop the policy around a "Commonwealth Hospital Benefit" (CHB).

Health Minister Greg Hunt immediately ruled out adopting the policy.

"Not government policy. Won't be government policy. Will never be government policy," Mr Hunt said.

Mr Hunt said the taskforce – funded by the department but run by a private think tank called Global Access Partners – pre-dated his time in the portfolio and he had already told bureaucrats he was not interested: "I've rejected it once. If it ever comes forward, I'll reject it again."

Officials attended a GAP meeting that explored the proposal just four days after Mr Hunt apparently told them not to pursue the idea in March.

And Mr Cormack met with members of GAP as recently as May, two months after they say Mr Hunt ruled out the proposal…..

They insisted there was nothing secret about the taskforce even though it was never announced, never released anything publicly and branded its material – leaked to Fairfax Media – as "confidential".

Mr Bowles insisted the taskforce was fully independent – even though the government paid for it with a $55,000 contract…….

Under the plan, the Commonwealth would "pool" the approximately $20 billion it currently gives to public hospitals each year with the $3 billion it pays to private sector doctors and the $6 billion it spends on the rebate to help people pay their private health insurance premiums. 

It would use the money to pay a standard benefit for services regardless of whether they are performed in a public or private hospital, or whether people choose to be treated as public or private patients.

While the Turnbull government struck a three-year hospital funding deal with the states last year, it has flagged it wants a more long-term, less ad-hoc agreement – and a CHB proposal could fit the bill. COAG is set to revisit the issue of hospital funding next year to set the course for a post-2020 agreement.

News.com.au, 29 May 2017:

He told Senate Estimates yesterday it was his job as head of the department to look at the future of health funding.

He confirmed the department had entered into broad policy work on the proposal.

However, it emerged he did not put the $55,000 contract for the consultancy work to tender.

Mr Bowles said he gave the work to Mr Peter Fritz, the head of GAP, after they met in 2016 and told the Senate it was possible for him to award contracts for work costing less than $80,000 without a tender process.

Senator Watts probed Mr Bowles about connections between GAP and the Australian Health Research Centre which is funded by a number of large health insurers.

Members of the AHRC attended taskforce meetings, he revealed.

However, Private Healthcare Australia which represents insurers has raised major concerns about the plan.

“I’m genuinely stunned,’ Private Healthcare Australia chief Rachel David said when she was told the work had been paid for by taxpayers.

“It was a dramatic overhaul of the health system that totally changed the role of private health insurance, eliminated the difference between public and private hospitals and wold have put doctors on salaries,” she said.

“It would have been inflationary, there was no demand management,” she said.

This is what Global Access Partners Pty Ltd (formerly CSD Pty Ltd estab.1969) says of itself:

Global Access Partners (GAP) is an influential network that initiates high-level discussion on global issues, encouraging the sharing of knowledge, progress and policy change. Through its events, GAP promotes Australia’s capacity to find solutions to the challenges facing the worldwide community, and translates these solutions into business opportunities.

It appears to have been founded by:

Peter Fritz - who besides being GAP Chair & Group Managing Director of TCG Pty Ltd also chairs a number of influential government and private enterprise boards - and Catherine Fritz-Kalish currently GAP’s Managing Director.

Its offices are at 71 Balfour St, Chippendale NSW 2008 Australia.

GAP sees its participation in health public policy to date thus:

* The Australian National Consultative Committee on Health (formerly known as the Australian National Consultative Committee on e-Health) was established as a result of Global Access Partners’ 2004 Forum on ‘Better Health Care through Electronic Information’.

The ANCCH represents the major ICT industry players and other stakeholder groups. The Committee contributes to the debate around the public and private health agenda in Australia with a view to promote and realise better patient health outcomes through the application of changes to process, and the interaction of technology to improve efficiency, safety and productivity.

The group also provides a forum for public-private partnerships in order to promote improved execution and industry development.

The Committee  raises issues of national importance, influences government policy and supports the interests of its members. Its four broad areas of interest are agency coordination, chronic disease management, connectivity and infrastructure, and change management.

The ANCCH initiatives in the area of health and wellbeing over the last seven years have ranged from discussions of national health policy to the problems of implementing an Australia-wide e-health infrastructure and the potential applications of genetic testing in drug therapy to the management and long term funding of chronic "lifestyle" diseases in an ageing Australian population.

* GAP Taskforce on Government Health Procurement (2015-2016) is a cross-sectoral multidisciplinary group established by Global Access Partners to analyse Australia’s public health procurement and offer practical proposals for reform (see final report). The Taskforce considered the impact of procurement processes on the age and reliability of medical equipment, service levels, innovation and competition. Its final report highlights some of the inefficiencies of current health government purchasing  and calls for a more rational tendering process to reduce costs and waste in the system, while improving the quality and safety of care.

"This is a contemptible intervention from a pro-mining government to deny the legal rights of Indigenous people"

“Our traditional lands are an interconnected and living whole; a vital cultural landscape. It is central to us as a People, and to the maintenance of our identity, laws and consequent rights. If the Carmichael mine were to proceed it would tear the heart out of the land. The scale of this mine means it would have devastating impacts on our native title, ancestral lands and waters, our totemic plants and animals, and our environmental and cultural heritage. It would pollute and drain billions of litres of groundwater, and obliterate important springs systems. It would potentially wipe out threatened and endangered species. It would literally leave a huge black hole, monumental in proportions, where there were once our homelands. These effects are irreversible. Our land will be “disappeared”.”  [Wangan & Jagalingou People, Our Fight]

BuzzFeed News, 18 May 2017:

Human rights lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Macquarie University, George Newhouse, said Brandis' intervention was using native title law against Indigenous Australians rather than assisting them.

"This is a contemptible intervention from a pro-mining government to deny the legal rights of Indigenous people under the Native Title Act 1993," he told BuzzFeed News.

"[The government's] power is being used to obstruct Indigenous land claimants. This discriminatory law only affects Indigenous Australians. The rights of Indigenous people continue to be stripped away for the benefit of big coal miners."

Greens Deputy Leader and Senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters, slammed the intervention, saying the government had sided with Adani over traditional owners.

"Brandis’ attempt to push a bill through the Senate that was designed to ram through the Adani coal mine against the wishes of the local Wangan & Jagalingou people failed, so now he is interfering in their court case," she told BuzzFeed News.

"This isn’t about good reform to Native Title it’s about making things as easy as possible for Adani at the expense of the land rights of First Australians".

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said Labor supports the government's proposed amendments to the Native Title act, but declined to comment on Brandis' intervention.

Wangan and Jagalingou Family Council, 18 May 2017:

Senator Brandis’ intervention follows his second failure to rush through changes to the Native Title Act. The Attorney General has asked the Court to not make a ruling, but wait for the political process around the Native Title Bill to conclude. The Bill has not passed the Senate because of a lack of consultation with Traditional Owners around the country, and concern about key provisions.

Senior spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Traditional Owners Council, Adrian Burragubba, said, “The Attorney General has made an extraordinary and political intervention in matters before the court. Intervening in our case shows Brandis is working in billionaire Adani’s interests, not ensuring the proper administration of justice. Again, Brandis is making Native Title all about Adani’s mine instead of good law reform.

“Brandis should apply himself to good law reform, and let the court do its work. Instead he’s trying to influence the decisions of a judge in favour of a mining company.

“The Wangan and Jagalingou Council are seeking Federal Court orders to strike out the purported Indigenous Land Use Agreement [ILUA] filed by Adani Mining with the National Native Title Tribunal. The ILUA would authorise ‘extinguishment’ of our native title and allow the mine to proceed against our strong objections and our right to say ‘No’.

“The Federal Government has been attempting to push through amendments to the Native Title Act to overturn the ruling in McGlade and protect Adani’s interests. Along with other Traditional Owners, we  continue to demand proper consultations and the necessary time to achieve consent for Native Title amendments”, he said.

While on the other side of the country another opportunistic miner is using Native Title law for his own benefit

Thomson Reuters Foundation News, 17 May 2017:

SYDNEY, May 18 (Reuters) - Mining magnate Andrew Forrest has used laws designed to protect indigenous land rights to stop prospectors searching for minerals on his West Australian cattle farms, angering both traditional Aboriginal landowners and mining community members.

While tensions between the competing interests of indigenous landholders, pastoral leaseholders and miners on government-controlled land are common, Forrest's approach represents one of the first known examples of a non-Aboriginal successfully using rights afforded to indigenous people to their own advantage.

Native title is a legal doctrine in Australia that recognises indigenous rights to certain parcels of land.

Forrest's use of it is not illegal, but it adds to the fractious relationship he has with some indigenous groups. Different groups have raised concerns over Forrest's cattle interests and have battled over land rights with the company he founded and chairs - Fortescue Metals Group, the world's fourth biggest iron ore miner……

But Matthew Slack, the head of the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corp which oversees native title for the indigenous landowners, said it was "pretty rich" for Forrest to use rights designed to protect indigenous interests.

Thalanyji were also concerned about cattle numbers and water use at Forrest's 2,400 square km (927 sq mile) Minderoo pastoral lease in Western Australia's Pilbara district, he said.

"We are disgusted with Forrest and have been for some time. Slack said. "Our dreamtime creatures can't survive because the river is so low."

A gender lens on the 2017-18 Budget exposes its class-ridden, misogynistic bottom line

In 2014 the Abbott Government ceased the thirty year-old federal government practice of releasing a Women's Budget Statement.

The National Foundation for Australian Women stepped in to fill the gap since then and this month has released its 97-page review of the Turnbull Government’s 2017-18 Budget, Gender lens on the Budget.

This budget review contains little that is unequivocally positive for women and summarises the bad news thus:

Women are overrepresented at lower income levels. Changes to government benefits and increases in taxes have a disproportionate effect on women. ATO statistics recently released show the median income for women was $47,125 in 2014-15, while for men the amount was $61,711.

Effective marginal taxation rates (EMTRs) measure the proportion of each extra dollar of earnings that is lost to both income tax increases and decreases in government benefits (for example, Parenting Payment, Family Tax Benefit, the Age Pension etc).

The increase in the Medicare Levy will affect those on incomes greater than $21,644. For those with eligible children, FTB A payment rates are frozen for two years. Those who pay child care fees will continue to face high EMTRs. University graduates will start repaying loans when they reach income levels of $42,000 per year.

These changes hit those on earning well below the average wage, and are particularly harsh for women. Combined, these changes could lead to effective marginal tax rates of possibly 100% or higher for some women, particularly as Family Tax Benefit Part A begins to decrease at $51,903. Graduates caught between these policies will experience considerable financial stress; graduates earning $51,000, most of whom are likely to be women, will have less disposable income than someone earning $32,000. Changes to penalty rates may also have a significant impact on some graduates if they are extended to the aged and health care sectors as well as the childcare sector.

The point to note is not just the harsh effects on low income women but also that it is not discussed in the Budget papers, with no modelling of the exact EMTRs for different groups of women provided. The way to improve incomes for most women is not to cut taxes but through improved welfare, social investments and increased wages (for example, by taking real action against the spread of precarious low paid work or by opposing cuts to penalty rates). Tax cuts, particularly those for top income earners, lower revenue at a time when investment is needed in public services and social infrastructure. ATO statistics show that in 2013-14 only 17% of women had taxable incomes greater than $80,000. This tax reduction has led to an increase in gender inequality.

Welfare payments to the unemployed are a small part of total welfare outlays. However, as ACOSS points out, the 2014 demonising of recipients continues. Many groups argue for an increase in the value of the Newstart payment, and an increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. What we have instead is ineffectual drug testing, harsh compliance penalties and expanded income management. However, for sole parents there will be a new verification process that is especially demeaning.

There were no measures designed to specifically address gender inequality and the related entrenched financial vulnerability of women….

This Budget fails to address major challenges facing young women in Australia, and has no measures to improve financial, job or housing security for this cohort.

Youth unemployment is at 13.5% of the youth labour force, which is the highest rate in 40 years, and many young people are underemployed (18% of young people in the labour force) (Brotherhood of St Laurence, 2017, 3). Women aged 20-24 have a much higher rate of underemployment than men of the same age (Burgess, 2017). The job market is increasingly casualised and insecure, and as young people have little or no working experience they are more likely than other groups to work in nonpermanent jobs (Brotherhood of St Laurence, 2017, 4). There is nothing in this Budget to address the unemployment or underemployment that young people experience, and which have implications for the economic security of young women…..

The enhanced residency requirements for claimants of the Age Pension and the Disability Support Pension (DSP) from 1 July 2018 will require claimants to have 15 years of continuous Australian residence before being eligible to receive the Age Pension or DSP unless they have:

* 10 years’ continuous Australian residence, with five years of this residence being during their working life (16 years to Age Pension age); or

* 10 years’ continuous Australian residence, without having received an activity tested income support payment for a cumulative period of five years.

Approximately 40% of older Australians are born overseas and the majority of these are women (AIHW 2007, 4). Within CALD communities, as with the broader population, women are more likely to require age pension support because they have less superannuation (from lower paid jobs and from fewer years working). Women are therefore more vulnerable to economic insecurity and should not be punished in old age for being migrants or for not being able to meet the 5 cumulative years of no income support payments during the requisite 15 years’ continuous residency. CALD women are more likely to experience periods of income support due to their family care responsibilities and should not be punished for this.  [my yellow/red highlighting]

The Turnbull Government has been offering half-truths to voters once gain

In its 2017-18 Budget the Turnbull Government announced it would commence the phased re-introduction of Medicare Benefits Schedule rebates indexation.

Treasurer and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison stated in his Budget Night speech that “We are lifting the freeze on the indexation of the Medicare Benefits Schedule. We are also reversing the removal of the bulk-billing incentive for diagnostic imaging and pathology services and the increase in the PBS co-payment and related changes.”

It now appears that it was premature to expect that out-of-pocket expenses for a number of radiology and diagnostic imaging services might be contained after the rebate freeze was lifted for these services in three years time.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 May 2017:

The Medicare rebate thaw will not apply to 93 per cent of scans, including the X-rays, MRIs and ultrasounds used to diagnose some of the most common forms of cancer.

Health Minister Greg Hunt's staged four-year thaw has been widely welcomed by doctors' groups such as the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of GPs. Under the plan, indexation will gradually be reapplied to bulk-billing incentives, visits to the doctor and allied health services.

On budget night, the Turnbull government said the final stage of the thaw, due in July 2020, would lift the freeze on "targeted" radiology and diagnostic imaging services - the first indexation since 2004.

Prime Minister Turnbull puts pressure on the Senate to back the increase to the Medicare levy after the release of two new opinion polls. Vision courtesy Seven News Melbourne.

But new Department of Health figures reveal precisely how "targeted" the changes will be: the freeze will be lifted on 59 of the 891 radiology items listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule - just 7 per cent.

While mammograms and a number of CT scans will be indexed under the plan, X-rays, MRIs, PETs and ultrasounds for such common conditions as brain, lung, breast and ovarian cancer will not. The rebate on common scans for arthritis and nuclear medicine will also remain frozen. [my yellow highlighting]

As for the promised reversing of the increase in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), this is only the potential for a flow-on effect from other changes in the PBS and is in no way guaranteed to occur.

'Whistleblower network' confirms Cashless Debit Card trial currently sends welfare recipients' transaction histories to federal government agencies, including Dept. of Social Security

Voters have been raising many concerns on social media platforms about the Turnbull Government’s nation-wide Cashless Debit Card proposal.

Two questions frequently posed have been in relation to the fact that the Indue Ltd account created for each welfare recipient will not attract interest on any balance recorded and, the inevitability that federal government will keep a record of an individual’s purchasing history when using this card.

Other concerns have ranged from restricted purchasing options if vendor participation is low through to how rent from private landlords can be paid and the pitiful amount of cash in hand allowed under the Turnbull Government’s de facto privatisation of the Centrelink pension/benefit/allowance payments system.

A website dedicated to the idea of open and transparent government as a benchmark of genuine democracy went looking for some answers………..

The Little Bird: Support those who support the greater good, 5 May 2017:

CORRESPONDENCE WITH INDUE: #CASHLESS WELFARE CARD

I recently emailed a list of questions to Indue after reading their cashless welfare card Conditions of Use.

QUESTIONS FOR INDUE

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to you with questions based on the document at https://indue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Conditions-of-Use.pdf Why do you not pay interest on the funds kept on Indue cards? How was the list of restrictions you impose on card holders drawn up?

These restrictions include:

* refusal to pay interest on savings;

* preventing joint banking;

* refusing the ability to pay down other credit cards;

* refusing the ability to set up direct debits;

* refusing chargeback rights provided with normal bank card purchases;

* construction of merchant whitelist/exclusion list.

Who were the stakeholders in the decision making process to create the above list of punishments and where is the documentation to provide accountability to the public about how this list was developed?

Can you please list the datasets that you share with other organisations and the organisations that you share this data with?

Why do you collect information about taxi rides taken by people using your debit card? What information do you collect about journeys taken by card holders?

Why are Indue account holders required to provide you with ‘external account information’?

Is it the case that you supply card holder transaction history with the Commonwealth Government? (p64)

What is the name of the ‘overseas service provider’ that you share card holder information with? (p65) What data does the Indue DCT App collect? (p71)

thank you for your time Rosie Williams BA (Sociology) whistleblower.network

Here is their reply. I have coloured text in red where I have concerns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Ms Williams

Thank you for your questions regarding the Cashless Debit Cards issued by Indue in connection with the Commonwealth Government’s Cashless Debit Card Trial.

Account Restrictions and Interest on Funds

The restrictions associated with the Cashless Debit Cards and Accounts including the decision to offer fee-free accounts and not to pay interest on the funds in accounts were decisions of the Commonwealth.  Any questions related to the decision making process surrounding the Cashless Debit Card Trial should be directed to the Department of Social Services at debitcardtrial@dss.gov.au.

Although the Department of Social Services is best placed to answer your questions regarding the restrictions, we take this opportunity to clarify the following with respect to the restrictions noted in your correspondence:

*  chargeback rights that exist for Visa debit cards issued by other financial institutions also apply to the Cashless Debit Cards.  Indue encourages anyone who believes that an  

    incorrect or unauthorised transaction has occurred through the use of their Cashless Debit Card to contact Indue’s Customer Service Centre on 1800 710 265;

*  cardholders are able to enter into direct debit arrangements with third parties by using their Visa Card number but not their BSB and Account Number; and

*  cardholders are able to transfer at least $200 per 28 days from their Cashless Debit Card account to a third party account which may be used to pay down any credit card debt.  If

   cardholders believe that the restrictions in place are causing them financial hardship by preventing them from paying off credit card debt, then Indue recommends they contact the Department of Social Services on 1800 252 604.

Privacy

Indue only collects and discloses information for the purpose of providing services to cardholders and providing information to the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Cashless Debit Card Trial.  The information that Indue shares in the course of providing the services includes details such as a cardholder’s name, date of birth and address as well as transactional information, including the amount of a transaction, where a transaction was undertaken and who the payment was made to or received from.  It is essential to provide these details to payment scheme providers so that transactions can be made. In addition to the Commonwealth, in the course of providing the services to cardholders Indue may provide information to:

*  service providers who Indue operate the accounts (such as the card manufacturer and Indue’s payment switch);

*  payment scheme providers (such as Visa, BPAY and APCA);

*  regulatory bodies, government agencies, law enforcement bodies and courts;

*  other participants in the financial systems (such as other financial institutions for the purpose of resolving disputes, errors or issues in relation to Accounts); and

*  other parties as is authorised or required by law.              

Information regarding taxi journeys may be collected to ensure merchants cannot circumvent welfare restrictions. 

External account information

There is no obligation on Indue account holders to provide Indue with their external account information.  In certain circumstances Indue may request this information from account holders or the Commonwealth so that Indue can facilitate a transfer from an Indue account to a cardholder’s external account.  For example, to return any residual funds to a Cashless Debit Card account holder upon the closure of their account.

Provision of transaction history to the Commonwealth

As set out in the Conditions of Use for the Cashless Debit Card (available on our website at www.indue.com.au/dct/cou), Indue shares information collected about cardholders with the Commonwealth.  This information may include the cardholder’s address, date of birth, contact details, transaction history and communications a cardholder has had with Indue about their account. This is necessary for the Commonwealth to operate aspects of the trial.

Indue DCT Application

Once the Indue DCT Application has been installed on a device and a card holder has logged into their account, Indue will collect device identification details including DeviceId, DeviceName, DeviceModel, DevicePlatform and DeviceVersion. These device details allow Indue to identify the type of device used by a card holder. These details are necessary for the Application to allow in-application notifications to card holders. 

Yours sincerely,

customer service centre

PO Box 523, Toowong QLD 4066

phone 1800 710 265

email dct@indue.com.au  web indue.com.au/dct

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~