Showing posts with label government policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government policy. Show all posts
Tuesday 2 April 2019
Morrison Government still refusing to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions
The
Guardian, 31 March 2019:
Cuts to carbon emissions
from vehicle efficiency standards have been left out of government projections
for meeting Australia’s Paris climate commitments, indicating the policy has
been shelved.
The office of the
transport minister, Michael McCormack, said the government had not made a
decision on “how or when” standards to cut carbon pollution from vehicles might
be implemented.
After almost five years
of submissions a spokesman said the government “is not going to rush into a
regulatory solution” with regards to vehicle emissions.
New data shows
Australia’s emissions from transport are soaring and projected to be 82% higher
in 2030 than they were in 1990.
Australia lags behind
the rest of the world in setting vehicle efficiency standards, with most
countries in the OECD adopting policies to reduce emissions and improve the
efficiency of cars.
The ministerial forum on
vehicle emissions was set up under the Turnbull government in 2015, and
stakeholders are frustrated at the lack of progress.
Fact sheets produced by
the government that set out how it intends to reach Australia’s emissions
reduction targets under the Paris agreement suggest any policy on vehicle
emissions standards has been abandoned.
In 2015, the government
produced a
graph indicating it expected to achieve cuts of about 100m tonnes
between 2020 and 2030 through vehicle emissions standards.
The government’s latest
climate package contains no mention of this, and projects only about
10m tonnes of abatement through an electric vehicle strategy, with no reference
to vehicle emissions standards....
Thursday 14 March 2019
Did Morrison & Co send your chance of getting a decent pay rise up in smoke?
“Brace yourselves Australia — everyday things are
about to cost more, and your chance of a pay rise has gone up in smoke” [News
Corp Journalist David Ross writing
in news,com,au, 8 March 2019]
Well it had
to happen. After five and a half years of an
Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Coalition Government the nation has reached what
is known as a per capita recession.
This hasn’t
occurred since the Howard Government’s last full year in power.
Almost sixty per
cent of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product comes from consumer spending and
five and a half years of deliberate wage suppression by both the federal
government and the business sector means the majority of consumers have little
to spend.
The economy
has been markedly slowing under Scott Morrison’s economic policies, first as
federal treasurer then as prime minister.
Annual growth
has now fallen to just 2.3 per cent according to the Reserve Bank.
This slowing
has a cascade effect.
Labels:
economy,
government policy,
Morrison Government,
wages
Friday 8 March 2019
Twenty-eight climate scientists, academics & former heads of energy companies tell the world that Morrison and Co are lying to the Australian people
“Proud to be a signatory to this statement from @climatecouncil. Between us, we have devoted 600 years to this issue. Last week's announcements are not enough to get us to meet our lousy Paris Target. That target, by the way, isn't even nearly enough to ensure a safe climate.” [Tim Baxter, Twitter, 4 March 2019]
Climate Council, 4 March 2019:
Dozens of the country’s
leading climate and energy experts – including climate scientists, academics
and former heads of energy companies – have signed a joint statement stressing
that without further action Australia
will not meet its 2030 pollution reduction target.
Wednesday 6 March 2019
What one woman from Australia intends to tell the United Nations about the Morrison Government's war on low income women with young children
“We know that
poverty is unpleasant; in fact, since it is so remote, we rather enjoy
harrowing ourselves with the thought of its unpleasantness, but don't expect us
to do anything about it. We are sorry
for you lower classes, just as we are sorry for a cat with the mange, but we
will fight like devils against any improvement of your condition. We feel that
you are much safer as you are.” [George Orwell, 1933, “Down and Out inParis and London”]
If ever Australia’s
captains of industry and, those elected members of the two conservative political
parties they support. ever knew a period of poverty it is now so long ago that an
abundance of personal income has driven all thought of it from their memories.
Thus it takes
a lone woman to bring to the notice of the United Nations some of the economic and human rights injustices
perpetrated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison & Co on single mothers with young children.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 March 2019:
Imagine having to get
someone else to provide proof you aren’t shagging anyone on a regular basis and
that even if you are, you aren't getting financial support. Your own word isn't
good enough any more.
That’s what happens to
single mothers in Australia if they want to be eligible for welfare.
There’s a lot that goes
wrong for single mums in Australia. They already have difficult lives, managing
kids, jobs and life on their own. And on top of all that, there are a whole
range of compliance tasks in order to get benefits, from signing endless forms
to applying for a ridiculous number of jobs, a huge task all on its own.
It's a miserable life
for a single mother on welfare in Australia, so hard that one woman, Juanita
McLaren, has decided to take her complaint all the way to the United Nations.
She says the way Australia treats single mums breaches human rights and now,
the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, will
be hearing from her directly at a UN Women’s conference in New York next week.
In fact, he will be
presenting by her side. Huge honour and some of us might have put that on our
credit cards. She had to crowdfund to get there.
McLaren, who has also
had to get proof she’s not in a financially-bound relationship in order to be
eligible for Newstart, worked full-time when her kids were little. Then her
husband, who was the primary carer, left the family and now lives overseas.
“I just hit a wall and
headed into casual work because there was always something happening with the
kids.”
She had to ditch her
part-time studies because she couldn’t manage financially on Newstart even
though her studies were a pathway to getting better work.
Benefits were erratic
and in one case, took eight weeks to arrive – finally some money arrived on
Christmas Eve. She entered the wrong year on a form (who else has mixed up
their birth year with the current year?) and was told it couldn’t be corrected
over the phone.
It was all the little
things on top of the poverty that motivated her to make a complaint.
In some respects,
McLaren is fortunate. She’s had steady part-time work for a couple of years
now, which is slightly seasonal. She remains registered for Newstart because of
the off-season.
But it’s the constant
battle with Centrelink, with managing her family and money, with being forced
to apply for hopeless work she doesn’t want, that forced McLaren to turn to the
UN. So far, it’s the Australian government and the UN in a deadlock about
what’s harmful to single mothers.
For years now, Terese
Edwards, the CEO of the National Council for Single Mothers, has campaigned for
better financial support for her members. Edwards helped McLaren write her
complaint, which was the first individual complaint using the optional protocol
of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; and will
be at her side when she speaks at the conference…..
Cassandra Goldie, the
CEO of the Australian Council of Social Services, says single mothers are easy
to target and easy to vilify.
She says it’s not just
impoverishment that has been relentless, it is the way in which both autonomy
and agency have been removed from single mothers in direct contrast to what’s
happening in the aged care sector. And she’s not just talking about the
ridiculous requirement to get someone else to guarantee your relationship
status.
Here’s some shocking
news: One in three sole parents and their children are living in poverty
according to the latest ACOSS-UNSW Poverty report. In just two years, the rate
of poverty amongst unemployed single parents rose from 35 per cent to 59 per
cent.
“I don’t know how you do
it!” we say to them, and in the next breath: “Here, let me make it harder for
you.”
This attitude is
stitched into the heart of a welfare program called ParentsNext, which can
require some single parents on the parenting payment to report to the state
that they have taken their children to improving activities, such as swimming
lessons or story time at the local library.
If they don’t comply,
they can have their payments cut off, often with no notice, and no clear line
of appeal. The arbiter of complaints is also the provider, the company
privately contracted by the government to administer the program.
Some mothers have
reported being asked to provide photographs as proof they have attended the
child-focused activities. Others report the provider phoning the library, or
the local pool, to verify their attendance.
Librarians as monitors,
swimming instructors as social police: it’s a level of surveillance and control
that would make Orwell twitch.
The program has faced a
barrage of criticism from welfare groups, and was the subject of a Senate
inquiry last week.
Peter Davidson, senior
adviser to the Australian Council of Social Service, says the program
was previously "less heavy handed”.
I spoke to one single
mother-of-three this week, 32-year-old Sarah, who had a positive experience of
the program in its previous incarnation. She had a good case worker who helped
her into a small business course, assisting her to set up her own
florist’s business. Now she is earning some income and intends to get off the
parenting payment as soon as possible.
But in July 2018, the
Coalition government (then led by Malcolm Turnbull) extended the program from a
smaller pilot to about 70,000 single parents, 95 per cent of them women. In its
expanded form, the “targeted compliance framework”, which applies to other
payments such as Newstart, was imposed on ParentsNext. It is language that
would make Orwell’s fingers itch.
Davidson says about a
fifth of single parents on the program have had their payments suspended.
Parents are put on
participation plans, ranging from vocational training to taking their children
to a playgroup or "story time". This muddies the waters between the
practical objective of helping women back into work after the child-rearing and
the insidious policing of their parenting.
The result is
bureaucrats invigilating parents from a moral, child-welfare stance, making
payments dependent on proof that parenting is being done correctly.
This is a qualitative
difference from other “mutual obligation” welfare requirements, because it is
not about getting people off taxpayer money. It is predicated on the assumption
that parents (read: mothers) on welfare must not be as “good” as other parents.
These measures assume
that the poor have different social standards than the middle class, who know
the correct way to nurture children, with story time and swimming classes.
They are also cruelly
detached from the chaotic reality of raising small children, where leaving the
house with everyone fed and clothed is itself an achievement, but one that
almost never runs to time. Some days, the bad days, it doesn’t happen at all.
This kind of
compliance-and-penalty system stems from the belief that the poor are not just
unlucky, but they are fundamentally different from other people; that they lack
the correct values, and the rectitude to pull themselves up. This is not
so far from the Victorian-era belief that Orwell upturned with his memoir: that
poverty is a moral failing.
This attitude can exist
only when you wilfully ignore the fact that the majority of Australians will
rely on government support at some stage in their lives, with millions of us
slipping in and out of the safety net as our circumstances change.....
Australian Parliament, Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into ParentsNext, including its trial and subsequent broader rollout, public hearing, Melbourne, 27 February 2019, excerpts:
Australian Parliament, Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into ParentsNext, including its trial and subsequent broader rollout, public hearing, Melbourne, 27 February 2019, excerpts:
Ms
Edwards [Chief
Executive Officer, National Council of Single Mothers and their Children]: It
is unfettered power. It is shown up in a lot of ways, even as to participants'
knowledge about signing a participation plan. The participation plan is like
the blueprint for the engagement. You have your goals on your participation
plan and then, from that, you have the flow of your activities that are meant
to support those participation goals. In theory, you're allowed 10 thinking
days after meeting and developing your participation plan. What we discovered
in our survey which supported what women were telling us was that they would
sign it in that meeting, and they would sign it because they were so compliant
because the person they were sitting in front of had the power to affect their
life, in terms of their payment but also in terms of their commitments. What is
not well known by participants is: there is no minimum weekly activity
requirement, like mutual obligations. But, because women are so aware of those
mutual obligations, they start thinking that they have a similar sort of level
that they must do, and they won't upset the provider because the provider can
determine the activities; they can breach them—and, as Jenny said, in the blink
of an eye they can breach. If the participant disagrees with the breach, the
person who umpires that is the provider—they decide whether they have operated
appropriately or not. There is not one independent body that manages or
oversees that process. So that is why women are compliant—they're in this, and
it's like they've gone down this slippery slope into hell and the only way they
can come out is if they sign and do what's required. They won't upset a
provider.
Ms
Davidson: They don't even know about that 10-day period. With the lack of
information that people are provided, they don't know about the 10-day thinking
period.
Senator
WATT: The way the system is supposed to work is that people are supposed to
have 10 days to have a think about the proposed plan before they commit to it.
Ms
Edwards: Which implies that it's two people having a mutually equal
conversation about: 'What would actually help you get to where you need to go?'
Senator
WATT: Yes, but, in fact, many people feel pressured to sign there and then?
Ms Edwards: Yes, and then what else is
happening, which is where the providers are working outside of their
guidelines, is that they will unilaterally change activities and times.
Senator
WATT: The providers will?
Ms
Edwards: Yes. And they will do that in writing, they will do that in phone
calls and they will do that in texts......
Ms
Buckland [Private
capacity]: I'll give you an example, and it's a complicated one, because there
are many issues with it, but I was contacted by a woman who had a newborn
baby—she'd had it the day before. She should be exempt from ParentsNext—
CHAIR:
It's supposed to apply at the very most when the baby's six months.
Ms
Buckland: Yes. So it's from 34 weeks pregnant to the child being six months
that there's an exemption. She wasn't able to speak to anyone about her
exemption. She was still expected to mark her attendance at an activity; she
was expected to attend an appointment one-week post birth. I think that there
are obviously inherent issues with that kind of system. Her payments were
suspended.
CHAIR:
With a newborn?
Ms
Buckland: With a newborn baby......
Prof. Croucher [President, Australian Human Rights
Commission]:….
The
commission's submission identifies five key problems with the compliance
framework of ParentsNext. I will briefly remark on two of these problems. First,
the detrimental effect of punitive compliance can be unjustifiably harsh. Many
of Australia's most valuable parents and children rely on the parenting payment
to afford basic day-to-day essentials. This includes single mothers living on
or below the poverty line. Yet, under ParentsNext, these struggling families
face automatic payment suspensions. This can happen for a single instance of
noncompliance with a program requirement, despite having a reasonable excuse
like a sick child. In the worst cases, their parenting payment can be reduced
or cancelled.
Without
money to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter for your family, how can
human rights be realised? How can there be human dignity? Poverty erodes the
enjoyment of many human rights, such as access to education, health care and
participation in public life. The current operation of ParentsNext risks
further entrenching poverty and inequality in Australia. It already risks
reducing a parent's resilience to the complex challenges they already face,
including homelessness, domestic violence and mental illness.
The
commission is also concerned that there are insufficient safeguards to prevent
inappropriate compliance action. For example, some punitive financial measures
are automatic. Others can be made by private commercial service providers
rather than by public officials.
Secondly,
the claimed success of ParentsNext is not appropriately evidence based. On the
basis of the evaluation of the program to date, it is not possible to conclude
that the program is achieving its aims or that it has had a positive effect
which outweighs the detriment of undermining the right to social security. For
example, the department's evaluation of the trial program relied heavily on a
survey of participants, but it didn't disclose how many people participated in
the relevant survey, and it's unclear whether the sample size was statistically
significant. The design and methodology of the survey were not disclosed. The
department's evaluation also draws many positive conclusions about the efficacy
of the program—for example, that it increases chances of employment. However,
many of these conclusions are based on the opinions of survey participants
rather than on objective data.
Lastly,
the commission is seriously concerned about the discriminatory impacts of the
program. ParentsNext is only applied to a small and targeted proportion of
people receiving the parenting payment. Women and Indigenous Australians are
disproportionately affected, with women comprising approximately 96 per cent of
the 68,000 participants and Aboriginal and Torres Islander people approximately
19 per cent.
The
human right to social security should be enjoyed equally by all, regardless of
sex, race or age. Australia's domestic legislation, such as the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975 at the Commonwealth level, also protects the right to
equality and nondiscrimination. It is unfair that the parents who are required
to participate in ParentsNext are at risk of losing essential support, while
the majority of parenting payment recipients can access their social security
without meeting the additional onerous obligations of ParentsNext.....
Tuesday 5 March 2019
The graphs that expose Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison's climate change policy propaganda
Australia has a monumental problem.
Since September 2013 the Australian Government, first under Liberal prime ministers Abbott and Turnbull and then under current Australian Prime Minster and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison, has failed to implement effective national climate change mitigation measures.
This has left the nation with an est. 695 million tonnes (or 2.9 billion tonnes) of greenhouse gas emissions it has to reduce/abate by 2021-2030 in order to meet its international obligations.
Ever since he successfully ousted the last Liberal prime minister in a 'palace coup' Morrison has been telling the world that this country will meet its Paris Agreement targets "at a canter" and that national greenhouse gas annual emissions are falling.
Both he and his ministers talk of greenhouse gas emission levels falling per capita or per head of population. All that means is that the Australian population is growing at a slightly faster rate than national emission levels are rising. It doesn't mean greenhouse gas emissions are falling.
On 25 February 2019 Morrison announced his Climate Solutions Package - mostly a rehash of old Liberal-Nationals climate policies and as yet unrealised infrastructure projects - which he rather misleadingly states will "reduce greenhouse gases across the economy".
After this 'solutions' initiatives announcement the Minister for Energy and Liberal MP for Hume Angus Taylor went on national television claiming Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by "over 1 per cent" - omitting to point out that this quarter to quarter seasonally adjusted weather normalised change did not result in an overall decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions for the year to September 2018.
In August 2015 the then Abbott Government, in which Scott Morrison was a cabinet minister, also misspoke when it told the United Nations that its "direct action" plan was successful and that:
The target is a significant progression beyond Australia’s 2020 commitment to cut emissions by five per cent below 2000 levels (equivalent to 13 per cent below 2005 levels). The target approximately doubles Australia’s rate of emissions reductions, and significantly reduces emissions per capita and per unit of GDP, when compared to the 2020 target. Across a range of metrics, Australia’s target is comparable to the targets of other advanced economies. Against 2005 levels, Australia’s target represents projected cuts of 50 to 52 per cent in emissions per capita by 2030 and 64 to 65 per cent per unit of GDP by 2030. [my yellow highlighting]
For this to be a genuine reduction which will help alleviate the effects of climate change it means this 695 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that are in the earth's atmosphere right now have to be removed by abatement action on Australia's part between 2019 and 2030.
At the United Nations 2018 Climate Action Summit (COP24) it was pointed out to all member countries that attempting to use old credits from the Kyoto Protocol as carryovers when accounting for ongoing emission rates will not actually bring down current global emissions levels.
However, the Morrison Government is using old carryover credits from the Labor Government years 2008-2012 to reduce Australia's own abatement commitment by est. 368 million tonnes - bringing it down to only a 328 million tonnes reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030. Less than half of what the Australian Government actually committed to under the Paris Agreement.
The federal Dept of Environment and Energy's own data gives a more honest picture of where Australia stands on bringing down greenhouse gas emissions since 2013 than does Morrison's dodgy accounting tricks.
4. Trend
emissions levels are inclusive of all sectors of the economy, including Land
Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Removing LULUCF from caluclations will result in higher trend levels.
|
Only three of the eight sectors in this graph show any real improvement since 1990 and even these become somewhat static after 2013.
|
When it comes to the year 2018 from 1 January to 30 September, the Financial
Review reported on 28 February 2019 that:
Increases in greenhouse
gas emissions from growing liquefied natural gas exports, although offset by
lower emissions from electricity, pushed Australia's overall carbon pollution
up by nearly 1 per cent in the year to September….
Greenhouse gas emissions
were up by 4.6 millon tonnes, or 0.9 per cent, in the year to September last
year to 536 million tonnes, according to the quarterly update of Australia's
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
The gains from big
declines in emissions from the electricity sector (3.2 per cent) and
agriculture (3 per cent) were negated by the 5.8 per cent increase in mining
and manufacturing, especially LNG exports (up 19.7 per cent), steel production
(up 10 per cent) and aluminium production (up 5.5 per cent).
"Growth in LNG also
strongly impacted fugitive emissions due to the flaring and venting of methane
and carbon dioxide. An increase in 10 per cent in steel production in
particular affected industrial process emissions," the report said…..
The bottom line is that in September 2013 Australia's greenhouse gas emissions stood at 515.1 Mt of CO2-e, having fallen from a high of 617.5 Mt of CO2-e in March 2007.
However, emissions have steadily risen in the years following 2013 until in September 2016 they had reached 527.2 Mt of CO2-e, by September 2017 533.3 Mt of CO2-e, by March 2018 535.8 Mt of CO2-e and by September 2018 our national emissions were 536 Mt CO2-e.
No matter how many ways Morrison Government spokespersons attempt to present the figures, the fact remains that Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions began to fall steadily between 2007 and 2013 but once the Abbott Government removed the price on carbon and altered other Labor climate change policies they began to rise again and they are still rising.
To date the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has marched this country backwards towards national greenhouse gas emission levels not found since the end of 2012.
How much further will they send us back in time if they govern for another three years? Will the national emissions total in 2022 be in excess of 545 million tonnes? A higher national total than that of the year the Abbott Government promised the United Nations it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
The Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: September 2018 Incorporating emissions from the NEM up to December 2018 can be found here.
However, emissions have steadily risen in the years following 2013 until in September 2016 they had reached 527.2 Mt of CO2-e, by September 2017 533.3 Mt of CO2-e, by March 2018 535.8 Mt of CO2-e and by September 2018 our national emissions were 536 Mt CO2-e.
No matter how many ways Morrison Government spokespersons attempt to present the figures, the fact remains that Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions began to fall steadily between 2007 and 2013 but once the Abbott Government removed the price on carbon and altered other Labor climate change policies they began to rise again and they are still rising.
To date the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has marched this country backwards towards national greenhouse gas emission levels not found since the end of 2012.
How much further will they send us back in time if they govern for another three years? Will the national emissions total in 2022 be in excess of 545 million tonnes? A higher national total than that of the year the Abbott Government promised the United Nations it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
The Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: September 2018 Incorporating emissions from the NEM up to December 2018 can be found here.
Wednesday 13 February 2019
Australian Tax Office Excess Franking Credits: “When people next receive their dividend refund cheque from the government, remember the government has had to borrow that money”
The Australian Government's public debt stood at an estimated $541.73 billion and growing on 8 February 2019.
On 8 February
2019 in Sydney economist Stephen
Koukoulas made a short three minute statement before the House of
Representatives Economics Committee ‘inquiry’ into the Labor Federal Opposition’s
policy to eliminate excess franking credits.
Excess franking credits are refundable to a shareholder who receives a dividend but has no tax liability to use those franking credits against.
It is free money - money for jam - granted to shareholders for the last eighteen years under a Liberal-Nationals federal government tax policy.
By 30 June 2015 these excess franking credit refunds were costing the federal government an est. $2.54 billion annually and, are currently estimated to be costing the Australian Government well in excess of $5.9 billion each year.
Below are the
notes Koukoulas used for that oral Statement
which boiled down to two issues, the cost to the budget and how the policy is
distorting investment decisions from investors and lazy financial planners.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tax policy is always
riddled with trade offs.
No government wants to tax anyone more than it needs to, nor should it impose a tax regime that is unfair if it means cuts to services, a heavy tax impost on others in the community or adds unnecessarily to the budget deficit and government debt.
Labor’s policy on refundable franking credits will impact the budget bottom line by more than $5 billion a year.
Without the change, this $5 billion, or $100 million a week, means less money is available for the government to provide health care, roads, education, disability assistance and defence.
It is disconcerting that every dollar of refundable franking credits is currently borrowed by the government.
When people next receive their dividend refund cheque from the government, remember the government has had to borrow that money:
… every cent of it.
… this adds to government debt that will have to be repaid one day in the future by our children and our grandchildren.
I think this is unfair.
The policy also distorts the way we Australians invest our savings.
Many investors put money into companies that pay high, fully franked dividends regardless of the underlying strength or potential of that business.
Look at Telstra. The banks.
It is blind, uneducated and lazy investing recommended by lazy financial planners.
It is only the dividend, not the underlying strength of the business, that guides the investment decision.
This is one reason why the Australian stock market is still 15 per cent below the 2007 peak, while the US, German and Canadian stock markets are substantially higher.
None of these countries have refundable franking credits.
Investors in those countries provide finance to dynamic growth companies and strong businesses.
In Australia, such companies are often shunned by investors because they pay no or low dividends.
Investors instead place their money with what are average firms that structure their businesses according to tax policy distortions.
Imagine if the ASX was at 10,000 points, not the 6,000 point level prevailing today?
I suspect the concerns about dividend refunds would be trivial.
The Australian tax distortions mean that local entrepreneurial firms have less access to local capital.
The money is instead tied up in dinosaur companies paying high dividends.
It is one reason why so many of the 21st century technology and start up firms in Australia head overseas to pursue their business models.
No government wants to tax anyone more than it needs to, nor should it impose a tax regime that is unfair if it means cuts to services, a heavy tax impost on others in the community or adds unnecessarily to the budget deficit and government debt.
Labor’s policy on refundable franking credits will impact the budget bottom line by more than $5 billion a year.
Without the change, this $5 billion, or $100 million a week, means less money is available for the government to provide health care, roads, education, disability assistance and defence.
It is disconcerting that every dollar of refundable franking credits is currently borrowed by the government.
When people next receive their dividend refund cheque from the government, remember the government has had to borrow that money:
… every cent of it.
… this adds to government debt that will have to be repaid one day in the future by our children and our grandchildren.
I think this is unfair.
The policy also distorts the way we Australians invest our savings.
Many investors put money into companies that pay high, fully franked dividends regardless of the underlying strength or potential of that business.
Look at Telstra. The banks.
It is blind, uneducated and lazy investing recommended by lazy financial planners.
It is only the dividend, not the underlying strength of the business, that guides the investment decision.
This is one reason why the Australian stock market is still 15 per cent below the 2007 peak, while the US, German and Canadian stock markets are substantially higher.
None of these countries have refundable franking credits.
Investors in those countries provide finance to dynamic growth companies and strong businesses.
In Australia, such companies are often shunned by investors because they pay no or low dividends.
Investors instead place their money with what are average firms that structure their businesses according to tax policy distortions.
Imagine if the ASX was at 10,000 points, not the 6,000 point level prevailing today?
I suspect the concerns about dividend refunds would be trivial.
The Australian tax distortions mean that local entrepreneurial firms have less access to local capital.
The money is instead tied up in dinosaur companies paying high dividends.
It is one reason why so many of the 21st century technology and start up firms in Australia head overseas to pursue their business models.
This costs the
Australian economy growth and jobs.
With the policy change on refundable franking credits, there will be a greater incentive to invest in companies and other assets for reasons of growth and entrepreneurial flair…
… which will be a positive for the economy and jobs …
… and it will be good for the long term future of Australia.
Thank you
With the policy change on refundable franking credits, there will be a greater incentive to invest in companies and other assets for reasons of growth and entrepreneurial flair…
… which will be a positive for the economy and jobs …
… and it will be good for the long term future of Australia.
Thank you
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tuesday 12 February 2019
The lies Liberals tell on the subject of aged care
The
Australian, 7
February 2019:
Aged Care Minister Ken
Wyatt was handed a departmental briefing report showing the “winners and
losers” from the Coalition’s $2 billion savings drive in the aged-care sector
shortly after Scott Morrison announced a royal commission and denied funding
cuts.
Documents obtained by
The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show the proportion of
“losers” almost tripled to 53 per cent following the budget savings revealed in
late 2015.
In the three-year period
to 2018, aged-care services that had been classified as “winners” almost halved
to 47 per cent, according to the brief sent to Mr Wyatt.
A series of “hot issue
briefs, question time briefs and general briefs” sent to Mr Wyatt last year
acknowledged the budget hit to the Aged Care Funding Instrument — which is the
basic taxpayer care subsidy paid to all nursing homes — together with
“increasing cost pressures will be putting pressure on the sector”.
Mr Wyatt was also made
aware of reports of “cut backs to staffing”. At a press conference announcing
the royal commission into aged care in September, the Prime Minister was questioned about two cuts to the
ACFI in the 2015 mid-year economic update and the 2016 budget but denied any
had been made.
“No, no, the Labor Party said that. I don’t accept that,”
he said.
Two days later, a question time brief prepared for Mr Wyatt offered advice on
what to say if asked about funding cuts to ACFI.
The ministerial brief
also contains a breakdown of funding changes by domain, revealing that average
annual taxpayer subsidies per resident increased by just $400 between 2016-17
and 2017-18 despite the growing frailty and complexity of Australians as they
enter residential aged care older than ever before.
For the first time,
funding for the two areas that provide extra boosts for nursing home residents
with significant behavioural problems and complex healthcare requirements went
backwards by $300 a person.
The peak body for
aged-care providers, ahead of the April 2 budget, has urged the Coalition to
include an additional payment of almost $700 million each year.
“This estimate reflects
a range of factors, including the value of foregone indexation (through ACFI),”
Leading Age Services Australia (LASA) says in its pre-budget submission, seen
by The Australian. “This is approximately a 5.2 per cent increase in
residential care funding in 2019-20, noting that this is difficult to calculate
as forward estimates for residential and home care are no longer separately
reported.” LASA said it considered the money to be a “down payment” and a
notably larger funding boost might be needed following the findings of the
royal commission.” The commission, which is due to release its interim report
in October and the final version by the end of April 2020, has already
highlighted the widespread industry practice of “doping” nursing home
residents, which doctors, nurses and consumer groups attribute to overworked
staff. [my yellow highlighting]
Monday 14 January 2019
Four months out from a federal election Australian PM Scott Morrison decides to irritate 537 local government councils & their ratepayers
The timing of the announcement by Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison concerning a new code for citizenship ceremonies was probably was probably meant to distract the national electorate from the sight of the ecological disaster occurring along the Murray-Darling Basin river systems.
Instead it irritated a great many voters four months out from the federal election and reminded ratepayers that he expected them to foot the bill for mandatory citizenship ceremonies to be held on 26 January every year from 2020 onwards.
Australian
Local Government Association,
media release, 13 January 2018:
FEDS' COERCIVE APPROACH
TO AUSTRALIA DAY CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES HEAVY-HANDED
Today’s announcement by
the Federal Government to force councils to hold citizenship ceremonies on
Australia Day as a response to the debate to change the date of this national
holiday is heavy-handed and odd, according to the Australian Local Government
Association (ALGA), the peak body representing local government and councils
Australia-wide.
ALGA President, Mayor
David O’Loughlin, said that most councils likely won’t be opposed to the
Federal Government’s proposed changes to the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies
Code but councils will have valid concerns, not excuses, that will need to be
addressed.
“The priviledge of
Australian citizenship is highly respected by the Australian community and
councils value their role in holding citizenship ceremonies and being a part of
this important commitment,” Mayor O’Loughlin said.
“However, most councils hold more than one citizenship
ceremony a year, some as often as monthly. The Federal Government’s strong
focus on drawing a link between Australia Day and citizenship ceremonies is
bizarre.
“If the Federal Government had bothered to consult with
us in the development of this policy, they would have heard that in some
locations, it’s simply too hot for councils to hold ceremonies during the day,
so they do it the evening before, just as the Federal Government does with its
Australian of the Year Ceremony.
“Other councils combine their citizenship ceremonies with
their local Australia Day Citizen of the Year Awards which are often held in
the week before Australia Day, just as many of the State and Territory
Governor’s do with their Australia Day Awards ceremonies.
“It would make more
sense for the Federal Government to insist on local, state and their own level
of government holding events to celebrate Australia Day Honours and Citizens of
the Year on Australia Day, rather than only insisting on local councils holding
a citizenship ceremony on the 26th of January, especially given Citizenship Day
is the 17th of September, months after Australia Day.
“We do acknowledge that a small number of councils are in
discussions with their communities about whether the 26th of January is the
appropriate day to celebrate Australia Day.
“However, councils cannot move Australia Day - this is
ultimately up to the Federal Government – but it is our job to be responsive to
our communities, including to their calls for prudence and advocacy.”
ALGA has responded to the Federal Government’s strong
commitment to change the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code with calls for
it to show an equally strong commitment to assist councils with issues – such
as cost – that may come with holding the ceremonies on Australia Day.
“There are significant additional event and staff costs
associated with holding citizenship ceremonies on a public holiday, which is
why some councils sensibly choose to hold it on a weekday instead,” Mayor
O’Loughlin said.
“Interestingly, the Federal Government has made no
mention of any financial contribution towards the additional costs involved in
running these ceremonies - ceremonies conducted on behalf of the Federal
Government - instead opting to continue a pattern of cost-shifting to councils.
“There is very real pressure on council budgets
nationally and the Federal Government must put their money where their mouth is
if they are serious about their proposal.
“The Federal Government
must lift its core funding to local government, Financial Assistance Grants
(FAGs), back to 1% of Commonwealth Taxation Revenue (CTR) – levels last seen in
1996.
“This funding has been
in steady decline for the past 20 years and, unless the Federal Government does
something to fix it, today’s announcement will be seen as just another
cost-shifting tactic.
“Our local and diverse
communities matter, and so do their pools, beaches, libraries, sporting
grounds, parks and the safety of their local roads. Therefore the 1% funding to
local governments and local communities should be of far more importance to the
Federal Government.”
Further information
about ALGA’s call to restore Financial Assistance Grants to 1% of CTR is
available on www.allpoliticsislocal.com.au [my yellow highlighting]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)