If you can spare an hour or two to help Peter in Dickson, please join the team.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Tuesday 26 June 2018
Australia’s Border Farce lives down to its nickname
Minister for
Home Affairs and Liberal MP for Dickson Peter
Dutton’s poor oversight and lack of managerial skills is on display for all
to see…….
The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 June 2018:
The benefits of
the merger of the Immigration and Customs departments and creation of
Australian Border Force haven't been proven and promised increased
revenue hasn't materialised, a damning audit report has found.
While the Department of
Immigration and Border Protection did achieve the merger effectively, it
"is not in a position to provide the government with assurance that the
claimed benefits of integration have been achieved," the report said.
The merger of the
Department of Immigration and Border Protection with the Australian
Customs and Border Protection Service took place in 2015, with its functions
now covered under the Department of Home Affairs. Controversial at the time, it
heralded a move to focus more on guarding the country's borders over
resettlement and migration.
In the business case for
the merger, the department committed to a "Benefits Realisation
Plan," but because the plan was not implemented, the claimed benefits have
not been measured and can't be demonstrated, the report said.
While the business case
for the integration of the departments promised an increase in revenue from
customs duty, less than half of the promised revenue increase has materialised.
At the end of 2017, just 42.2 per cent of the extra revenue committed to had
been achieved, and the report predicted that at the current rate just 31.6 per
cent of the additional revenue promised would be delivered.
When the merger was
announced, then immigration minister Scott Morrison promised "hundreds of
millions in savings" would be reinvested back into the agency.
Auditor-general Grant
Herir slammed the department's record keeping, which the department admitted
was in a "critically poor state," and said there was no evidence that
the Minister Peter Dutton was given written briefings on the progress of
the integration of the departments.
In its response, the
Department of Home Affairs acknowledged it had issues with record keeping and
committed to making improvements a priority. The report didn't look on this
commitment favourably though, pointing to more than 10 years of audits and
reviews that have made similar findings.
The problems and their
solutions are known to the department, and it has an action plan to address
them, although numerous previous attempts to do so have not been
successful," it said.
The report also found
that the department experienced a loss of corporate memory through the merger.
"Almost half of SES
officers present in July 2015 [were] no longer in the department at July
2017," it said.
The report also found
that out of 33 consultancy contracts with values of more than $1 million, just
2 were evaluated for value for money, meaning that it was unclear if the other
31 contracts had been value for money.
Spending on consultancy
in the department more than doubled in the years after the merger, topping more
than $50 million in each of the 2014-15 and 2015-16 financial years…..
The Age, 19 June 2018:
The multimillion-dollar
college that trains Australia’s border security personnel has “overpromised and
underdelivered” and immigration and customs officials have repeatedly abused
their powers, a scathing report has found.
The
government-commissioned findings also said many department staff lack the
training needed to perform their jobs and “jaws of death” have gripped
officials struggling to complete more work with fewer resources.
In May 2014 the
Coalition Abbott government controversially announced the creation of the
Australian Border Force (ABF), as part of a merger of customs and immigration
border operations. Crucial to the new super-charged agency was the
establishment of the ABF College, with multiple campuses, to ensure recruits
and existing staff “have the right skills to do their jobs”.
Under the former
department of immigration and border protection, consultants RAND Australia
were asked to evaluate the progress of the merger, ahead of the creation
of the Home Affairs portfolio in December last year which combined immigration,
border protection, law enforcement and intelligence.
The findings concluded
that “clear and unequivocal” progress has been made towards building a “modern
border management capability”.
However, success had
been “uneven” and in particular, the ABF College “largely remains a
disappointment to senior leaders across the department”.
The report involved
interviews with senior department officials, who cited concern that the
college’s curriculum was “not adequate for actual training needs”.
The college’s use of
technology was poor and, in many cases, was used to “automate bad learning
environments” rather than improve training.
The college was supposed
to train staff across the department, however many officials were not given time
to attend courses.
Overall, the college and
other training opportunities in the department “overpromised and underdelivered
to the detriment of the workforce and the morale”.
One senior official was
so frustrated at the problems that he suspended a board examining the issues
“until new terms of reference and fresh ideas were developed”.
The report is dated 2018
but it is not clear exactly when it was finalised. The Department of Home
Affairs did not answer questions from Fairfax Media on how much had been spent
on the college and where its campuses were located. Officials have
previously said the 2014-15 budget included $54 million to establish the
college and other training measures, and that several campuses would be
established including in Sydney and Canberra.
Across the department’s
broader workforce, senior officials said staff in many cases lacked “the
capability to do the work required of their assigned positions”.
This included customs
and immigration investigators “not understanding the law, use of force
protocols, and rules of engagement” which in some cases led to “abuse of
power,” the report said.
One official said field
compliance officers “were doing dangerous jobs without proper training” and
another described a junior officer who was “unable to manage shipboard
operations due to a lack of proper training and experience”.
Department staff
described being held in the “jaws of death” as they juggled an increased
workload and declining resources. Senior officials repeatedly raised concern
that the ABF received more resources than other divisions but “has not been
subjected to the same level of scrutiny”….
As a local
member it appears that Dutton is also having ‘workforce’ issues ahead of the
forthcoming federal election…..
Peter is working hard
but could use your help.
If you can spare an hour or two to help Peter in Dickson, please join the team.
If you can spare an hour or two to help Peter in Dickson, please join the team.
The most shameful evidence of Peter Dutton's management style is found when one condiders that as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
since 23 December 2014, he currently has ultimate responsibility for the welfare of asylum
seekers held in custody.
Bringing the total number
of deaths in onshore or offshore detention and in the community to est. 64 people since January
2000.
That is the equivilant of almost four deaths each year on Peter Dutton's watch and around three deaths per year overall.
According to MSN
on 21 June 2018; There are nearly 700 men currently in
detention on Papua New Guinea, and more than 900 men, women and children on
Nauru.
Tuesday 29 May 2018
Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners: "We're on the frontline defending our lands against Adani" and we ask your help
From: Adrian Burragubba - via CommunityRun <info@getup.org.au>
Date: Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:46 PM
Subject: We're on the frontline defending our lands against Adani
To: [redacted]
Date: Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:46 PM
Subject: We're on the frontline defending our lands against Adani
To: [redacted]
This is a message from the leaders of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners. They are the Traditional Owners of the land where mining giant Adani want to build the Carmichael coal mine. Your details haven't been shared with anyone.
Dear [redacted],
We are leaders of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners. We're the people on the frontline defending our ancestral lands in the fight against Adani's destructive coal mine.
Our people have said no four times to a miserly land deal offered by Adani in exchange for the destruction of our homelands. We have been opposing Adani and holding them off since 2012.
Our resistance has nothing to do with dollars. No amount of money or promises from a deceitful corporation can stop us standing strong in defence of Wangan and Jagalingou lands and waters and sacred sites.
But Adani are ruthless. They have used the dirtiest tactics to undermine our right to say no, and manufacture a phony "Indigenous Land Use Agreement".
Right now we're fighting against Adani's shoddy tactics and their sham "agreement" in court. The judge could hand down a decision any day now. But it won't end there.
Can you sign our petition to stand with us against Adani?
We are willing to fight Adani all the way to the High Court to protect our environment and sacred sites. We are working for a positive future for our people on our country. We won't stand by and watch its destruction for coal.
Adani are relentlessly pressuring the Queensland government to clear our Native Title rights out of the way — and as the clock ticks and Adani gets more desperate, it will only intensify.
So we need to show Adani and our Governments that they can't fake or force our consent.
We have never given our consent to Adani to destroy our country, and we never will. Our land is our living law; we are connected to it through our ancestors and our culture. Without it we will cease to exist as a people.
Our people have been leading a courageous fight against a cashed-up mining giant with politicians in its pockets, and top end of town lawyers to argue away its collusion, bad faith and dishonesty.
We're calling time on this. It's time for Adani to walk away.
Sign our petition to tell Adani No means No.
Adani can't keep bullying us, or pretending they have our consent. Consent is written in our hearts and minds, and the truth is we have said no. Time and again.
And we shouldn't have to keep saying it. Adani haven't been able to put money on the table for this project or even say when they'll start digging. They've given nothing to our people, or to the people of Queensland and Australia, except a bunch of false promises. The smart money and honest commentators know Adani's Carmichael mine is going nowhere.
But still our rights are at extreme risk. The Queensland Government could yield to this corrupt polluting corporation and "legally" rip up our Native Title, just so they can say they have their final "approval".
We continue to hold the line and have many tens of thousands of supporters in Australia and around the world, but we need more. We need to build a more powerful movement, standing in solidarity with us, to take on Adani's wealth, political influence and dirty tricks.
Sign our petition to support our fight against Adani.
We are in the fight of our lives. Adani have shown a relentless determination to use unjust legal maneouvres to trample our rights. But this fight is bigger than Adani. It's about the rights that all Aboriginal people have to say no to dirty extractive industries that profit from our traditional homelands. It's about our right under international law to be free from discrimination, and to choose our own economic future.
We have a vision for our people that's sustainable. We want economic independence, and to make a future on our country that is respectful of the land and uplifting for our people. We want to invest in solar energy and other new clean enterprises. We don't want scraps from a corrupt corporation looking to profit from the permanent destruction of our culture, or meagre handouts and low paid dirty jobs that require us to give up our human rights.
When we say No to Adani, we mean No. We hope you'll stand with us.
Support our fight: http://wanganjagalingou.com. au/our-fight/
Adrian Burragubba, cultural leader and senior spokesperson
with Murrawah Johnson, Youth spokesperson
and Linda Bobongie, W&J Council Chairperson
for the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council
CommunityRun is a new online organisation that lets anyone start, run and win their own campaigns. It receives no political party or government funding and is not affiliated with any political party. To unsubscribe from CommunityRun updates, please visit here or visit http://www.getup.org.au/ unsubscribe?cr=true. To unsubscribe from individual CommunityRun campaigns, please visit www.communityrun.org.
Our team acknowledges that we meet and work on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We wish to pay respect to their Elders - past, present and future - and acknowledge the important role all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within Australia and the GetUp community.
Authorised by Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.
Dear [redacted],
We are leaders of the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners. We're the people on the frontline defending our ancestral lands in the fight against Adani's destructive coal mine.
Our people have said no four times to a miserly land deal offered by Adani in exchange for the destruction of our homelands. We have been opposing Adani and holding them off since 2012.
Our resistance has nothing to do with dollars. No amount of money or promises from a deceitful corporation can stop us standing strong in defence of Wangan and Jagalingou lands and waters and sacred sites.
But Adani are ruthless. They have used the dirtiest tactics to undermine our right to say no, and manufacture a phony "Indigenous Land Use Agreement".
Right now we're fighting against Adani's shoddy tactics and their sham "agreement" in court. The judge could hand down a decision any day now. But it won't end there.
Can you sign our petition to stand with us against Adani?
We are willing to fight Adani all the way to the High Court to protect our environment and sacred sites. We are working for a positive future for our people on our country. We won't stand by and watch its destruction for coal.
Adani are relentlessly pressuring the Queensland government to clear our Native Title rights out of the way — and as the clock ticks and Adani gets more desperate, it will only intensify.
So we need to show Adani and our Governments that they can't fake or force our consent.
We have never given our consent to Adani to destroy our country, and we never will. Our land is our living law; we are connected to it through our ancestors and our culture. Without it we will cease to exist as a people.
Our people have been leading a courageous fight against a cashed-up mining giant with politicians in its pockets, and top end of town lawyers to argue away its collusion, bad faith and dishonesty.
We're calling time on this. It's time for Adani to walk away.
Sign our petition to tell Adani No means No.
Adani can't keep bullying us, or pretending they have our consent. Consent is written in our hearts and minds, and the truth is we have said no. Time and again.
And we shouldn't have to keep saying it. Adani haven't been able to put money on the table for this project or even say when they'll start digging. They've given nothing to our people, or to the people of Queensland and Australia, except a bunch of false promises. The smart money and honest commentators know Adani's Carmichael mine is going nowhere.
But still our rights are at extreme risk. The Queensland Government could yield to this corrupt polluting corporation and "legally" rip up our Native Title, just so they can say they have their final "approval".
We continue to hold the line and have many tens of thousands of supporters in Australia and around the world, but we need more. We need to build a more powerful movement, standing in solidarity with us, to take on Adani's wealth, political influence and dirty tricks.
Sign our petition to support our fight against Adani.
We are in the fight of our lives. Adani have shown a relentless determination to use unjust legal maneouvres to trample our rights. But this fight is bigger than Adani. It's about the rights that all Aboriginal people have to say no to dirty extractive industries that profit from our traditional homelands. It's about our right under international law to be free from discrimination, and to choose our own economic future.
We have a vision for our people that's sustainable. We want economic independence, and to make a future on our country that is respectful of the land and uplifting for our people. We want to invest in solar energy and other new clean enterprises. We don't want scraps from a corrupt corporation looking to profit from the permanent destruction of our culture, or meagre handouts and low paid dirty jobs that require us to give up our human rights.
When we say No to Adani, we mean No. We hope you'll stand with us.
Support our fight: http://wanganjagalingou.com.
Adrian Burragubba, cultural leader and senior spokesperson
with Murrawah Johnson, Youth spokesperson
and Linda Bobongie, W&J Council Chairperson
for the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council
CommunityRun is a new online organisation that lets anyone start, run and win their own campaigns. It receives no political party or government funding and is not affiliated with any political party. To unsubscribe from CommunityRun updates, please visit here or visit http://www.getup.org.au/
Our team acknowledges that we meet and work on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We wish to pay respect to their Elders - past, present and future - and acknowledge the important role all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people continue to play within Australia and the GetUp community.
Authorised by Paul Oosting, Level 14, 338 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.
Sunday 27 May 2018
Another asylum seeker death on Manus Island
There have been three deaths of asylum seekers held in Australian off shore detention in the last nine months - one on Nauru and two on Manus Island - according to Border Crossing Observatory.
This recent death brings the count to four.
UNHCR: The United
Nations Refugee Agency, media
release, 22 May 2018:
UNHCR Statement
By UNHCR Regional
Representation in Canberra 22 May 2018
UNHCR, the UN Refugee
Agency, is profoundly saddened by the death of a Rohingya refugee on Manus
Island, Papua New Guinea, today. The tragic loss of yet another vulnerable
person under Australian ‘offshore processing’ again underscores the need for
proper care and immediate solutions.
“With the passage of too many years and the withdrawal or reduction of essential services, the already critical situation for refugees most in need continues to deteriorate,” said Nai Jit Lam, UNHCR’s Deputy Regional Representative in Canberra. “Australia’s responsibility for those who have sought its protection remains unchanged. Our thoughts and condolences are with the man’s family today.”
UNHCR renews its call for the Government of Australia to take immediate action to provide assistance and solutions, and to avert further harm and tragedy. Comprehensive, intensive support for refugees and asylum-seekers remains desperately needed in both Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The national authorities of both countries lack the means and infrastructure to address growing needs.
UNHCR is continuing to seek further information from the Governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea respectively.
“With the passage of too many years and the withdrawal or reduction of essential services, the already critical situation for refugees most in need continues to deteriorate,” said Nai Jit Lam, UNHCR’s Deputy Regional Representative in Canberra. “Australia’s responsibility for those who have sought its protection remains unchanged. Our thoughts and condolences are with the man’s family today.”
UNHCR renews its call for the Government of Australia to take immediate action to provide assistance and solutions, and to avert further harm and tragedy. Comprehensive, intensive support for refugees and asylum-seekers remains desperately needed in both Papua New Guinea and Nauru. The national authorities of both countries lack the means and infrastructure to address growing needs.
UNHCR is continuing to seek further information from the Governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea respectively.
UNHCR Regional
Representation in Canberra
UNHCR’s Regional Representation is based in Canberra, and is responsible for the promotion and protection of refugee rights in Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
The Guardian, 22 May 2018:
UNHCR’s Regional Representation is based in Canberra, and is responsible for the promotion and protection of refugee rights in Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
The Guardian, 22 May 2018:
A Rohingya refugee has
died in a violent motor vehicle incident on Manus Island.
The man was witnessed
“coming out of a moving vehicle”, according to the Asylum Seeker Resource
Centre, and suffered “very serious head injuries”.
He died at the scene,
the organisation said. “It is not know who else was in the vehicle.”
The man, whose identity
is not being released until his family is notified, had a long history of
physical and mental illness and had been on Manus for more than five years.
A few years ago he was
sent to Australia for medical treatment but was returned, according to the
journalist and refugee Behrouz Boochani.
Boochani said the other
refugees had been aware of his illness. They were “deeply saddened and
horrified at the news of another friend’s death”.
Tuesday 22 May 2018
AUSTRALIA 2018: Turnbull Government continues to hammer the vulnerable
Remember when reading this that the Turnbull Government is still intending to proceed with its planned further corporate tax cuts reportedly worth an est. $65 billion. Compare this policy with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding in Budget 2018-19 which is $43 billion over four years and no dedicated NDIS funding stream established as had been previously promised.
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE
NDIA’S SPECIALIST DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION PROVIDER AND INVESTOR BRIEF
The National Disability
Insurance Agency (NDIA) presented its latest policy position for Specialist
Disability Accommodation (SDA) in a statement to the provider and investor
market on 24 April.
People with disabilities
and developers of innovative housing for people with disabilities are pleased
the NDIA has reiterated the government’s commitment to SDA in its SDA Provider
and Investor Brief. The NDIA has confirmed that the SDA funding model is here
to stay.
However, the NDIA’s SDA
Brief expresses a vision for SDA housing with a clear bias toward shared models
of housing for people with disability, presumably to reduce support costs. This
is unacceptable. You can read our joint statement here (A Rich text format is available here).
The
Australian,
16 May 2018:
The executives of the
flagship National Disability Insurance Scheme, which received guaranteed
funding worth tens of billions of dollars in last week’s budget, have launched
a crackdown on support funding to keep a lid on ballooning costs.
The razor is being taken
to hundreds, possibly thousands, of annual support plans as they come up for
review, demonstrating a new hawkish approach from National Disability
Insurance Agency bosses but resulting in the loss of funding and support for
vulnerable families. In many cases, support packages for families have been cut
by half.
The early years of the
$22 billion program’s rollout saw wild variability in the value and type of
support being granted to participants, forcing executives to come up with a way
to claw back funding that has “an impact on sustainability”. In the process,
people with disabilities and their families have been shocked by sudden
reversals of fortune….
In its quarterly report,
the NDIA noted there was a “mismatch” between reference packages — rough
cookie-cutter guides for how much packages ought to be in normal circumstances
— and the value of annual support packages which affected the financial
sustainability of the scheme.
“The management’s
response to this is to closely ensure that significant variations away from
reference amounts (above and below) are closely monitored and justified,” a
spokesman said.
“Reference packages are
not used as a tool to reduce package amounts to below what is reasonable and
necessary. Individual circumstances are considered in determining budgets,
including goals and aspirations.
“A reference package
does not restrict the amount or range of support provided to a participant, but
acts as a starting point for planners to use for similar cohorts. It provides
amounts that are suitable for a given level of support needs that has been
adjusted for individual circumstances.”
The agency has claimed
the implementation of this process has started to reduce funding blowouts and a
hearing into the scheme by federal parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on the
NDIS last Friday heard startling evidence about how widespread the new approach
is.
Donna Law, whose
21-year-old son has severe disabilities, was told by an NDIS planner: “Donna,
watch out because your son’s next plan is going to be cut by about half.”
Clare Steve had funding
cut in half by the NDIA and wanted to do another review.
“I spoke to multiple
people, because no one would actually give me the paperwork to do the next lot
of reviewing,” Ms Steve told the hearing.
“I was told by multiple
people that it was a mistake: ‘Do not go for another review.
“If you go for another
review, you could get your funding cut again’.”
ABC News, 19 May 2018:
ABC News, 19 May 2018:
Bureaucrats are reportedly working on a strategy to curb costs by tightening up the eligibility requirements after a blowout in the number families seeking NDIS support packages for people with autism.
ABC
News, 19 May
2018:
Last December, Sam's
case was one of about 14,000 sitting in the NDIS's review backlog, according to a damning
ombudsman's report this week. Then, about 140,000 participants were in
the scheme.
The review queue has
since shrunk, but the agency in charge of the world-first scheme — a
Commonwealth department known as the National Disability Insurance Agency
(NDIA) — still receives about 640 review requests each week.
Some of those requests
do not reflect badly on the NDIA. People can request an unscheduled review if
their circumstances change, for example if their condition improves.
But the agency often is
culpable when it comes to another type of review, known as an internal review.
People ask for these when they disagree with the plan and funding package they
are given.
Some reviews come from
people who feel short-changed, given the state government support they
previously received, or because of the high expectations associated with the
scheme.
But the Government is
also to blame. The NDIS's full-scheme launch in mid-2016 was a disaster.
The computer system failed. A backlog of NDIS applications quickly emerged.
Plans were then often
completed over the phone and rushed. Key staff lacked training and experience.
There was little consistency in the decisions being made.
The scheme's IT system
remains hopeless, and elements of its bureaucracy are not much better,
according to the watchdog's report.
The agency accepted all
20 of the ombudsman's recommendations, and Social Services Minister Dan Tehan
said work was underway to bust the backlog "over coming months".
* In February 2018, the
NDIA advised around 8,100 reviews remained in the backlog and the national
backlog team was clearing around 200 reviews each week. The NDIA also advised
it continues to receive around 620 new review requests each week, which are
handled by regional review staff.
* We have received
complaints about the NDIA’s handling of participant-initiated requests for
review. In particular, these complaints concern the NDIA: (1) not acknowledging
requests for review; (2) not responding to enquiries about the status of a
request; or (3) actioning requests for an internal review as requests for a
plan review.
*Participants also
complained they had sought updates on the receipt and/or progress of their
requests by calling the Contact Centre and by telephoning or emailing local
staff. They reported not receiving a response, leaving messages that were not
returned and being told someone would contact them—but no one did.
* In our view, the
absence of clear guidance to staff about the need to acknowledge receipt of
review requests is concerning. Indeed, the large number of complaints to our Office
where complainants are unclear about the status of their review indicates the
lack of a standardised approach to acknowledgements is driving additional,
unnecessary contact with both the NDIA and our Office.
* Our Office monitors
and reports on complaint themes each quarter. Review delays was the top
complaint issue for all four quarters in 2017.
* Some participants have
told us they have been waiting for up to eight or nine months for a decision on
their review request, without any update on its progress or explanation of the
time taken.
In some instances, the
participant’s existing plan has expired before the NDIA has made a decision on
their request for review. As review decisions can only be made prospectively,
it can mean a participant must go through the whole process for the new
(routinely reviewed) plan if they remain unhappy.
Wednesday 16 May 2018
An insider has finally admitted what any digital native would be well aware of - your personal health information entered into a national database will be no safer that having it up on Facebook
Remembering that a federal government national screening program, working with with a private entity, has already accessed personal information from Medicare without consent of registered individuals and entered these persons into a research program - again without consent - and these individuals apparently could not easily opt out of being listed as a research subject but were often only verbally offered the option of declining to take part in testing, which presumably meant that health data from other sources was still capable of being collected about them by the program. One has to wonder what the Turnbull Government and medical establishment actually consider patient rights to be in practice when it comes to "My Health Record".
Healthcare IT News, 4 May 2018:
Weeks
before the anticipated announcement of the My Health Record opt out period, an
insider’s leak has claimed the Australian Digital Health Agency has decided associated
risks for consumers “will not be explicitly discussed on the website”.
As
the ADHA heads towards the imminent announcement of the three-month window in
which Australians will be able to opt out of My Health Record before being
signed up to the online health information repository, the agency was caught by
surprise today when details emerged in a blog post by GP and member of the
steering group for the national expansion of MHR, Dr Edwin Kruys.
Kruys wrote that MHR offers “clear benefits”
to healthcare through providing clinicians with greater access to discharge
summaries, pathology and diagnostic reports, prescription records and more, but
said “every digital solution has its pros and cons” and behind-the-scenes risk
mitigation has been one of the priorities of the ADHA. However, he claimed
Australians may not be made aware of the risks involved in allowing their
private medical information to be shared via the Federal Government’s system.
“It
has been decided that the risks associated with the MyHR will not be explicitly
discussed on the website,” Kruys wrote.
“This
obviously includes the risk of cyber attacks and public confidence in the
security of the data.”
The
most contentious contribution in the post related to the secondary use of
Australians’ health information, the framework of which has yet to be announced
by Health Minister Greg Hunt.
Contacted
by HITNA, the agency moved swiftly to have Kruys delete the paragraph
relating to secondary use.
In
the comment that has since been removed, Kruys wrote, “Many consumers and
clinicians regard secondary use of the MyHR data as a risk. The MyHR will
contain a ‘toggle’, giving consumers the option to switch secondary use of
their own data on or off.”
Under
the My Health Records Act 2012, health information in MHR may be
collected, used and disclosed “for any purpose” with the consent of the
healthcare recipient. One of the functions of the system operator is “to
prepare and provide de-identified data for research and public health
purposes”.
Before
these provisions of the act will be implemented, a framework for secondary use
of MHR systems data must be established.
HealthConsult
was engaged to assist the Federal Government in developing a draft framework
and implementation plan for the process and within its public consultation
process in 2017 received supportive submissions from the Australasian College
of Health Informatics, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and numerous
research institutes, universities, and clinicians’ groups.
Computerworld, 14 May 2018:
Use of both de-identified
data and, in some circumstances, identifiable data will be permitted under a
new government framework for so-called “secondary use” of data derived from the
national eHealth record system. Linking data from the My Health Record system
to other datasets is also allowed under some circumstances.
The Department of Health
last year commissioned
the development of the framework for using My Health Record data for
purposes other than its primary purpose of providing healthcare to an
individual.
Secondary use can
include research, policy analysis and work on improving health services.
Under the new framework,
individuals who don’t want their data used for secondary purposes will be
required to opt-out. The opt-out process is separate from the procedure
necessary for individuals who don’t want an eHealth
record automatically created for them (the government last year
decided to shift to an opt-out
approach for My Health Record)……
Access to the data will
be overseen by an MHR Secondary Use of Data Governance Board, which will
approve applications to access the system.
Any Australian-based
entity with the exception of insurance agencies will be permitted to apply for
access the MHR data. Overseas-based applicants “must be working in
collaboration with an Australian applicant” for a project and will not have
direct access to MHR data.
The data drawn from the
records may not leave Australia, but under the framework there is scope for
data analyses and reports produced using the data to be shared internationally……
The Department of Health
came under fire in 2016 after it released for download supposedly
anonymised health data. Melbourne University researchers were able to
successfully re-identify a range of data.
Last month the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner revealed that health
service providers accounted for almost a quarter of the breaches reported
in the first six weeks of operation of the Notifiable Data Breach (NDB) scheme.
The Sydney Morning Herald,
14 May 2018:
Australians who don't
want a personal electronic health record will have from July 16 to October 15
to opt-out of the national scheme the federal government announced on Monday.
Every Australian will
have a My Health Record unless they choose to opt-out during the three-month
period, according to the Australian Digital Health Agency.
The
announcement follows the release of the government’s secondary use of data
rules earlier this month that inflamed concerns of patient privacy and data
use.
Under the framework,
medical information would be made available to third parties from 2020 -
including some identifying data for public health and research purposes -
unless individuals opted out.
In other news.......
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
14 May 2018:
A cyber attack on Family
Planning NSW's website has exposed the personal information of up to 8000
clients, including women who have booked appointments or sought advice
about abortion, contraception and other services.
Clients received an
email from FPNSW on Monday alerting them that their website had been hacked on
Anzac Day.
The compromised data
contained information from roughly 8000 clients who had contacted FPNSW via its
website in the past 2½ years to make appointments or give feedback.
It included the personal
details clients entered via an online form, including names, contact details,
dates of birth and the reason for their enquiries….
The website was secured
by 10am on April 26, 2018 and all web database information has been secure
since that time
SBS
News, 14 May
2018:
Clients were told Family
Planning NSW was one of several agencies targeted by cybercriminals who
requested a bitcoin ransom on April 25…..
The not-for-profit has
five clinics in NSW, with more than 28,000 people visiting every year.
The most recent Digital
Rights Watch State of Digital Rights (May 2018) report can be found here.
The report’s
8 recommendations include:
Repeal
of the mandatory metadata retention scheme
Introduction
of a Commonwealth statutory civil cause of action for serious invasions of
privacy
A
complete cessation of commercial espionage conducted by the Australian Signals
Directorate
Changes
to copyright laws so they are flexible, transparent and provide due process to
users
Support
for nation states to uphold the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child in the digital age
Expand
the definition of sensitive information under the Privacy Act to specifically
include behavioural biometrics
Increase
measures to educate private businesses and other entities of their
responsibilities under the Privacy Act regarding behavioural biometrics, and
the right to pseudonymity
Introduce
a compulsory register of entities that collect static and behavioural biometric
data, to provide the public with information about the entities that are
collecting biometric data and for what purpose
The
loopholes opened with the 2011 reform of the FOI laws should be closed by
returning ASD, ASIO, ASIS and other intelligence agencies to the ambit of the
FOI Act, with the interpretation of national security as a ground for refusal
of FOI requests being reviewed and narrowed
Telecommunications
providers and internet platforms must develop processes to increase
transparency in content moderation and, make known what content was removed or triggered an account suspension.
Monday 7 May 2018
Elder abuse and profit shifting go hand-in-hand in the age care sector?
Any
regular reader of online news would have seen mentions of elder abuse, neglect
and sub-standard health care over the years.
hellocaremail.com.au, 2017:
Elder abuse is a
critical issue in aged care homes, with thousands of cases reported to the
Health Department every year…. In 2016-2017, there were 2853 reports of
“reportable assaults’’ and 2463 allegations of “unreasonable use of force”.
Australian
Law Reform Commission, Elder Abuse (DP 83), Abuse
and neglect in aged care, 12 December 2016:
1.34 Stakeholders
reported many instances of abuse of people receiving aged care. These included
reports of abuse by paid care workers[55] and
other residents of care homes[56] as
well as by family members and/or appointed decision makers of care recipients.[57] For
example, Alzheimer’s Australia provided the following examples of physical and
emotional abuse:
When working as a PCA
[personal care assistant] in 2 high care units, I witnessed multiple, daily
examples of residents who were unable to communicate being abused including:
PCA telling resident to ‘die you f---ing old bitch!’ because she resisted being
bed bathed. Hoist lifting was always done by one PCA on their own not 2 as per
guidelines and time pressures meant PCAs often using considerable physical
force to get resistive people into hoists; resident not secured in hoist
dropped through and broke arm—died soon after; residents being slapped,
forcibly restrained and force-fed or not fed at all; resident with no relatives
never moved out of bed, frequently left alone for hours without attention;
residents belongings being stolen and food brought in by relatives eaten by
PCAs.[58]
1.35 The
ALRC also received reports of other forms of abuse, including sexual[59] and
financial abuse.[60] Restrictions
on movement[61] and
visitation[62] were
also reported. Many submissions also identified neglect of care recipients.[63]
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
15 October 2017:
Across NSW, 58 per cent
of aged care workers surveyed said they have not been able to provide the level
of care residents deserved because of budget cuts. Of those, 80 per cent said
staff shortages were the main barrier to providing proper care.
The
Courier-Mail,
19 April 2018:
PROFIT-HUNGRY aged care
companies are charging fat “administration fees” to skim up to 40 per cent of
government payments for in-home nursing care.
More than 100,000
elderly Australians are on a waiting list to receive as much as $50,000 a year
in a “homecare package” to pay for nursing, housekeeping or companionship
at home. But an investigation by The Courier-Mail has revealed
that some home-care companies are pocketing as much as $19,000 of the
taxpayer cash through hefty “administration” or “case management” fees.
The fees are billed on
top of hourly charges for home help – leaving clients with less cash
to spend on in-home care such as nursing. And if clients want to
switch to a cheaper provider, they are being slugged up to $1000 in “exit
fees”.
The Age, 3 May 2018:
Scandals, including a
recent national audit showing 600 aged-care homes failed in the past
five years to provide minimum standards, prompted a government review. The
Coalition, accepting a key recommendation, has ended the ridiculous practice of
alerting operators to spot checks. The review also urged the streamlining and
strengthening of the regulator.
If one does a
simple online search many of the big ‘for profit’ aged care providers are named
in relation to such abuse, neglect and sub-standard health care allegations.
Now in May
2018 the Tax Justice Network[1] is looking at aged care
provision from another angle. One which shows that the budgetary meanness which sees these big companies expect elderly residents to remain in sodden incontinence pads or live-off meagre meal rations occurs in spite of the millions in profit made on the back of billions in taxpayer funding of the age care sector.
It has
released A Tax Justice Network – Australia Report, TAX
AVOIDANCE BY
FOR-PROFIT AGED CARE COMPANIES: PROFIT SHIFTING ON PUBLIC FUNDS.
Sadly, this
report only confirms the fact that corporate greed runs rampant through all major
aspects of Australian life, including aged care.
Executive Summary, Background, p.5:
Older
people are a growing proportion of Australia’s population; in 2016, 15% (one in
seven) Australians were aged 65 years or older. By 2056 this percentage is
expected to grow to 22% (8.7 million).1 The need for aged care services is
increasing. Between 2015– 2016 almost 214,000 people entered aged care in Australia.
On average, older people in Australia spend three years in permanent
residential care, just over two years in home care, and one and a half months
in respite care.2 The Australian tax payer, via the Commonwealth Government
contributes around 75% of the expenditure in aged care in Australia, which is
around 96% of the total funding on aged care from Commonwealth and State
Governments. Government recurrent spending on aged care services in Australia
was $17.4 billion Australian dollars (AUD) in 2016- 2017, with residential aged
care services accounting for 69.3% ($12.1 billion AUD).3 Some of this funding
is provided as subsidies to aged care provider companies including those that
operate for profit. In 2018 the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
(ANMF), Australia’s largest national professional and industrial nursing and
midwifery organisation with over 268,500 members, commissioned the Tax Justice
Network - Australia to analyse possible tax avoidance by for-profit aged care
companies and to provide recommendations for improving transparency on
Government spending on for-profit aged care.
Key points from the
report
*
By number of beds, not-for-profit providers are the largest aged care provider
group in Australia (52% in 2013-2014), however there has been a rapid growth in
the size and spread of for-profit companies; Bupa, Opal, Regis and Estia are
the largest aged care providers nationally. If Japara and Allity are included,
these 6 for-profit companies operate over 20% of residential aged care beds in
Australia.
*
In the most recent year (mostly the 2017 financial year) the six largest
for-profit companies were given over $2.17 billion AUD via government
subsidies. This was 72% of their total revenue of over $3 billion. These
companies also reported profits of $210 million AUD (2016-2018).
*
Companies can use various accounting methods to avoid paying tax. One method is
when a company links (staples) two or more businesses (securities) they own
together, each security is treated separately for tax purposes to reduce the
amount of tax the company has to pay. Aged care companies are known to use this
method as well as other tax avoiding practices. Another practice is by
“renting” their aged care homes from themselves (one security rents to another)
or by providing loans between securities and shareholders.
*
The six largest for-profit aged care providers have enormous incomes and
profits:
* The largest company, BUPA, had
almost $7.5 billion in total income in Australia (2015-16) but paid only $105
million in tax on a taxable income of only $352 million.
* BUPA’s Australian aged care business
made over $663 million in 2017 and over 70% ($468 million) of this was from
government funding.
* Funding from government and resident
fees increased in 2017, but BUPA paid almost $3 million less to their employees
and suppliers.
* The second largest, Opal, had total
income of $527.2 million in 2015-16 but paid only $2.4 million in tax on a
taxable income of only $7.9 million.
* 76% ($441 million) was from government
funding in 2016.
*
Allity had total income of $315.6 million in 2015-16 and paid no tax.
* 67% ($224 million) of Allity’s
revenue was from government funding in 2016-17.
*
Regis, Estia, and Japara are listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)
but appear to be using methods to reduce the amount of tax they pay while
earning large profits from over $1 billion of government subsidies.
*
Family owned aged care companies (Arcare, TriCare, and Signature) receive
between $42-$160 million each in annual government subsidies but provide very
little public information on their operations and financial performance and may
use accounting methods to avoid paying tax.
* (All figures quoted above are in AUD)
*
The Australian Government and the Federal Opposition (the Australian Labor
Party) have proposed several ways to fix the problems with companies avoiding
tax by using trust structures and other methods but there are still loopholes.
*
It is difficult to get a detailed and complete picture of the full extent to
which these heavily subsidised aged care companies are avoiding paying as much
tax as they should, because Australian law is not currently strong enough to
ensure that their financial records and accounting practices are publicly
available and fully transparent.
Conclusion
The
six largest for-profit aged care providers in Australia received over $2.17
billion AUD in annual tax payer funded subsidies which provided after tax
profits of $210 million AUD. The actual operating profits were much larger.
These providers only paid around $154 million AUD in tax in 2015-16. Companies
that receive millions of tax payer dollars via Australian government subsidies
must be required by law to meet higher standards of transparency in financial
reports and be publicly accountable. The report calls upon the Government,
Opposition, and cross-bench Senators to work together to make laws to stop aged
care providers from avoiding the taxes they should pay and provide clear
records of their business dealings.
The
Tax Justice Network – Australia strongly supports recent government legislation
that has been introduced to close loopholes in the Multinational Anti-Avoidance
Law and government reforms to stapled structures. However, there is still a
need for additional transparency measures. The Tax Justice Network – Australia
also strongly supports a policy proposed by the Australian Labor Party to
introduce minimum taxation of discretionary trusts. These reform measures are
examined in more detail by this report in the section: Current Reform Measures.
This
analysis of tax payments and corporate structures of the largest for-profit
aged care companies provides clear evidence that simple common-sense reforms
are needed immediately to restore integrity to the tax system and to ensure
public accountability on billions of dollars in government spending.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE REPORT
Any
company that receives Commonwealth funds over $10 million in any year must file
complete audited annual financial statements with Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) in full compliance with all Australian Accounting
Standards and not be eligible for Reduced Disclosure Requirements. Public and
private companies must fully disclose all transactions between trusts or similar
parties that are part of stapled structures or similar corporate structures
where most or all income is earned from a related party and where operating
income is substantially reduced by lease and/or finance payments to related
parties with beneficial tax treatment.
Australia’s
Largest For-Profit Aged Care Companies
In
Australia, non-profit providers collectively operate a majority of residential
aged care beds. However, the market share of large for-profit providers
continues to grow rapidly. Likewise, the influence of for profit providers on
shaping government policy and influencing broader trends in the aged care
sector has never been greater. Ranked by the number of government allocated
residential aged care places (beds) in 2017, the six largest for-profit aged
care companies in Australia are; Bupa, Opal, Regis, Estia, Japara, and Allity.
Combined, they operate over 20% of all residential aged care beds in the
country. These companies continue to expand market share through new
developments and acquisitions. These companies are also expanding to provide
more retirement living and home care services, which allow access to additional
government funding. In the most recent financial year (2016-2017), these six
for-profit aged care companies combined received over $2.17 billion in
government subsidies.4 This made up 72% of their combined total revenue of over
$3 billion.5……
COMPANY
SNAPSHOT
Bupa:
A United Kingdom-based mutual insurance company with global operations
including aged care services. Australia is Bupa’s largest and most profitable
market.
Regis,
Estia, and Japara: Public aged care companies listed on the ASX.
Opal:
A private aged care company owned by subsidiaries of two listed companies, AMP
Capital and Singapore-based G.K. Goh.
Allity:
controlled by Archer Capital, an Australian private equity firm with large
foreign pension fund investors.
Arcare,
TriCare and Signature (formerly Innovative Care): three family-owned,
for-profit aged care companies.
NOTE:
1. The Tax Justice Network -
Australia is the Australian branch of the Tax Justice Network (TJN) and the
Global Alliance for Tax Justice. TJN is an independent organisation launched in
the British Houses of Parliament in March 2003. It is dedicated to high-level
research, analysis and advocacy in the field of tax and regulation. TJN works
to map, analyse and explain the role of taxation and the harmful impacts of tax
evasion, tax avoidance, tax competition and tax havens. TJN’s objective is to encourage
reform at the global and national levels.
Membership of the Network can be found here.
Labels:
aged care,
elder abuse,
government funding,
human rights,
multinationals,
taxation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)