AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION 2022: #ScottyFromPhotoOps strikes again

 

“Personal Responsibility”pic.twitter.com/XNUfCgkVuq

— Mark Humphries (@markhumphries) February 19, 2022

 

So what do you know about the people behind management of the Morrison Government's punitive Cashless Debit Card? Perhaps it's time to meet Indue Limited's board of directors & their industry partners

 

IMAGE: news.com.au, 30.01.2019

Just as night follows day, if Scott John Morrison and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition win the federal government election, by the last quarter of 2022 he will announce all government cash transfers to citizens will in future come via the highly restrictive and punitive cashless debit card scheme.

So who has been milking the cash cow as they constructed the mechanism for Morrison's dream of a frightened, deprived and suppressed working class he could strut before?

Well that an easy question to answer - just hit this link 

https://www2.indue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J0982-Indue-Annual-Report-2021_WEB.pdf  and scroll down to pages 14-15 to see their six self-satisfied faces along with a brief bio.

A bit of background......

Sometime in early 2016 the Australian Government through its agency the Dept. of Social Services entered into a contract with Indue Limited, currently valued at $70,340,628.60 (original value: $7,859,509). This contract period now extends from 26-Feb-2016 to 31-Dec-2022.

Indue Limited documents clearly state that its investors-shareholders are “the owners of the company” and that those who contract the company’s services are its “clients” or “customers”.

In relation to the cashless debit card scheme it administers, it appears that the relatively large class of mandatory users of this card during this extended trial period & the somewhat smaller number of voluntary users are simply end product consumers.

How Indue Limited sees itself:……..

Indue Limited ABN 97 087 822 464 (“Indue”) is a bank and Authorised Deposit-Taking Institution (“ADI”) that is regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Indue is owned by financial institutions, each of which is also an ADI. Indue provides transaction processing and settlement services to credit unions, building societies, church funds, mortgage originators, commercial clients and the Australian government. Many clients would be too small individually to be able to provide a competitive alternative financial services offering without Indue.

Indue has over 40 years’ experience in the payments industry and as a financial product issuer since 1992. Indue is a principal member of Visa, MasterCard and eftpos, and holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). It is also a reporting entity pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) legislation. [Submission to the Australian Treasury. 7 September 2018, excerpt]

Indue Limited has 7 major partners which includes it being a principal member of Visa licensed to issue all Visa card products including credit, debit, prepaid, commercial and premium cards; ia member of eftpos and licensed to issue eftpos card products. These cards may be used in ATMs and eftpos terminals throughout the domestic Australian eftpos network; and, ia member of BPAY allowing us to offer both payer and biller facilities to clients.

2019-20

Indue’s vision is to be the leading partner of payment solutions to our customers. Indue’s mission is to drive competitive advantage for our customers by helping people pay….

Wholly owned Group

The Company does not have significant restrictions on its ability to access or use its assets and settle its liabilities other than those resulting from the supervisory frameworks within which Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions operate.

Transactions with related parties are conducted on an arm’s length basis….

Against this backdrop [global COVID-19 pandemic] Indue delivered a before tax profit of $3.127 million, a solid result given the prevailing headwinds…..

Events Subsequent to Balance Date

At the date of approving these financial statements, the Directors are of the view the effects of COVID-19 do not change the significant estimates, judgements and assumptions in the preparation of the financial statement…..

Likely Developments

Information on likely developments in the operations of the Company and the expected results of operations have not been included in this annual financial report because the Directors believe it would be likely to result in unreasonable prejudice to the Company. [NOTE: Likely relying on s299A(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in order to conceal expected future progression of the federal government cashless debit card scheme]

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2019-2020]

2020-21

It is pleasing to report a lift in profit, despite the ongoing influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. ….

A more positive outlook has contributed to our improved performance, with a Profit Before Tax (PBT) result of $3.6 million, an increase of 24% over the previous year….

An operating profit after tax of $2.583 million (2020: $2.091 million) was achieved this year….

Indue’s capital position remains sound. Our Tier 1 ratio rose to 15.5% at the end of FY21, an increase of 35 basis points on last year.

In relation to dividends, we have a good record of rewarding owners for providing investment capital. With an improved economic outlook and stronger financial performance, we are pleased to be able to declare a fully franked dividend of $7.50 per share for FY22….

After nearly 50 years, our partnership with Westpac is coming to an end in 2022. We are moving to become a Tier 1 provider for Direct Entry services, which is well-aligned to our strategy. We look forward to continuing to support our clients in this important payment channel.

Our core focus continues to be delivering sustainable value for our clients and shareholders….

We will continue to support our clients, so they can focus on growing their businesses – while we navigate the changed world of payments on their behalf….

The constitution of the Company provides for two Groups of Directors, both elected in accordance with the constitution. Group One Directors, referred to as ‘Industry Directors’, must be officers, employees or associates of a member. Group Two Directors, referred to as ‘Independent Directors’ must not be officers, employees or associates of a member. Industry Directors are not remunerated by the Company. Independent Directors are remunerated by the Company, with shareholders determining the maximum annual aggregate amount of remuneration that may be provided to them ….

The following persons were Directors of Indue Ltd during the financial year:

Chair – Non executive [Independent]

F[rank] Gullone (appointed 28 August 2020)

R Burns (resigned 27 November 2020)

Non executive Directors [Independent]

S Collier (resigned 27 November 2020)

M[ichael Francis] Currie

P[eter Robert] Townsend

P[eter Hooper] Wright

A[nthony] De Fazio

S[usan] Rix (appointed 8 January 2021) [my yellow highlighting]

A Cheadle (appointed 8 January 2021, resigned 27 May 2021)....

The Company’s Authorised Share Capital is $17.265 million. All issued shares [total of 126,182] are fully paid ….

In August 2021 Indue entered into a share buyback arrangement for a small number of issued shares….

Total Contributed Equity, Reserves, Retained Earnings, Balance at 30 June 2021 = $58,650,000 ” …..

Government grants

Government grants, including JobKeeper, are recognised when there is a reasonable assurance that the Company will comply with the conditions attached to the grant, and the grant will be received.

The Company became eligible for JobKeeper in June 2020 after meeting the specific obligations, and remained eligible until September 2020. All expected grant payments were received by October 2020…...

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2020-2021, excerpts]

The Guardian, 4 November 2021:

*The company contracted by the federal government to run the controversial cashless debit card claimed $2m in jobkeeper payments before increasing its revenues during the pandemic.

Payments firm Indue, which was handed a $26m, two-year extension to its contract to keep running the scheme late last year, received about $2.1m in jobkeeper wage subsidies in total. That comprised $632,700 in June 2020 and $1.49m between July and September 2020, according to its annual report.

The company’s revenue increased in 2019-20 and 2020-21, leading to profit of $2.1m and $2.5m, the report shows.

Under the jobkeeper program, businesses were required to estimate whether their turnover would decrease by 30-50% when compared to the previous year, depending on their size. There is no suggestion Indue did not qualify for the payments under the rules of the scheme.

Controversially, the government elected not to include a clawback provision to recoup money from those companies that outperformed expectations…..

https://www.scribd.com/document/538531113/INDUE-LIMITED-Current-Historical-Company-Extract

Echoes of Northern New South Wales' past and a timely reminder of its present potential to resist bad government policy

The Echo, on 7 October 2021, reminding the Northern Rivers region from Clarence Valley right up to Tweed on the New South Wales-Queensland border that our combined voices followed up with action are powerful:

Ian Cohen surfing the nose of
a nuclear armed warship
Photo: Robert Pearce

Following the Nuclear Disarmament Party’s close loss with front man Peter Garrett in 1984, nuclear issues were at the forefront of people’s minds. We extended our influence far beyond our Shire. The pending arrival of nuclear armed warships sent the local region into overdrive. Benny Zable from Nimbin rolled out his ‘radioactive’ barrels for street theatre. Dean Jefferys based in Brunswick Heads came with his ultralight, Hoss (Ian Hoskens) of Main Arm with his megaphone voice and me with my surfboard. 

September 1986 heralded the arrival of the largest assembly of international ships in Sydney Harbour’s history. Many were nuclear armed. 

Our north coast contingent was vital to the success of the protest actions. Driven by a reckless, but heartfelt, desire to impact on the nuclear arms race and send a direct message to US President Ronald Reagan and USSR’s Yuri Andropov. 

The mad concept of surfing the nose of a nuclear armed warship was mine, but Sydney Morning Herald photographer, Robert Pearce, from a media barge directly in front of myself and the warship, captured the image of a vulnerable surfer hanging onto the nose of a nuclear armed destroyer that went global.

Dean backed it up with a paint bomb delivered from his ultralight. It missed, (fortunately it was water based paint). He was more accurate several days later delivering a bouquet of flowers from the air into a missile silo as the HMS Illustrious departed. Dean landed himself in jail.

Channon local, Ian Gaillard, worked with the anti-nuclear vessel Pacific Peacemaker and crewed it on the long haul through the Pacific to confront the launch of the world’s largest nuclear submarine in Seattle. They travelled through the Pacific garnering local support along the way.

During the 1980s Jim Mitsos had moved to Byron and bought up most of what is now Suffolk Park. A Communist developer, creating real affordable housing he was also a tireless anti-nuclear campaigner promoting the concept of Nuclear Free Zone signs in Byron that spread to councils throughout NSW. He laid the groundwork of awareness for follow up actions. Perhaps we need those signs again?

Ian Cohen surfing the nose of a nuclear armed
warship. Photos Robert Pearce

In 1995 I was the first Green elected to NSW Parliament. With the efficient support of Byron’s future mayor, Jan Barham, I spent the first break organising an international contingent of politicians to be part of a flotilla of ships to descend on Papeete (Tahiti) and support islanders in their opposition to upcoming nuclear tests at Moruroa. We learnt much about the global phenomenon ‘Ships of Shame’ where seafarers are abused and exploited, the impossibility of chartering a flotilla, and decided to fly 30 Australian politicians over to Papeete.

Meetings under the palms with President Oscar Temaru, inspired, along with marches and forums in Papeete, the contingent of politicians including Richard Jones MLC, another Byron Shire local, who met with the French Ambassador to deliver thousands of petitions.

Greenpeace had other ideas for a small crew. A private boat was organised to transport an international selection of politicians to Moruroa 1,150km away. In my last interview before our departure I was informed that the French had announced a $150,000 fine and 12 months in jail for anyone entering the exclusion zone.

Halfway there an international news broadcast announced the French had detonated the first bomb in the series on Moruroa. The little boat continued on course, without deviation, as we sailed into the eye of the global nuclear storm. That was the last French nuclear test in the Pacific.

Times change, but some things regarding the nuclear industry and international political posturing remain the same.

Our PM, Scott Morrison, struts the world stage, vilifies China (some of it deserved), but in the process is locking in Australia’s subservience to US foreign policy while guaranteeing increased US troop access and US spy stations on Australian territory for the future. Add to this the crippling cost of procurement of nuclear powered subs and the possible return of Donald Trump to ‘guide’ our nation into the future.

This sabre rattling at an external enemy will allow Morrison some catch up in the polls while the ALP is wedged. The huge crime here is to make a decision without debate in the Federal Parliament. An external enemy worked for Thatcher (Falklands War). In Australia we had weapons of mass destruction touted in Iraq while George W Bush labelled Howard a ‘Man of Steel’ for sending our young soldiers to war.

Whilst recognising the repressive political leadership in Bejing, there is a better road to peace through diplomacy, and when necessary, trade sanctions.

In the depth of the Cold War nuclear capable warships, either conventional or nuclear powered, did not cruise the world’s oceans unarmed and race back to San Diego or Hawaii in an emergency to load. In the 1980s their mantra was; ‘We neither confirm or deny these ships have nuclear weapons on board’. Today, nuclear weapons have been removed from surface ships. They are still on nuclear submarines. Just what arsenal will Australia obediently accept when it hires or purchases US submarines?

In 1975 there were 6,191 US nuclear weapons afloat. Arms control agreements have reduced the number of weapons deployed at sea to 1,000 in 2015.

Morrison’s recent ‘All the way with USA’ is cementing increased US control over future Australian Foreign Policy. We do not benefit from this association. In fact, we as a nation are making ourselves a target.

As for their vulnerability in port, we need to look no further than 9/11 in New York, the US heartland.

Team Morrison and The Voter in 2021

 

The Shot, 21 September 2021:

Great Scott: the grand narrative of Scott Morrison

...On one end of the scale, we have the people who believe the entire charade of politics is made up and if it’s not made up then the “mainstreameeja” must all be in on it with them, sort of like fake moon landers but without the flags. On the other end are the people who let information flow over them like a long shower, obliviously taking it all in, the type who truly believe Scott Morrison once saved a lady from near death on a Sydney beach because 2GB said so…..

What Team Morrison want you to think over and above anything else, above the policy and the pressers and the talk of Oh-My-God nuclear submarines and the twitter chatter, what they want you to think when you think of Scott Morrison, when you talk to your friends in the supermarket checkout or swap the goss in your Facebook groups, when you go to vote, they want you to think that Scott Morrison is a strong leader, a hero of our times. They want you to feel it and know it deep to your bones.

They want you to think that Scott Morrison is our own powerful leader, the one that will lead Australia out of this mess, and they want that image embedded deep down into your subconscious, without any annoying detail to bother you or meddle with your own private photo album.

How they do that is by casting a vast, barely tangible net up into the sky, a grand narrative net, one that says: “Scott Morrison is strong. Scott Morrison is a hero. Scott Morrison will save you.”

The way they keep that imagery afloat is by pumping it full of air and reinforcing it all the time, constantly, every day of every week of every month in every way. Scott is strong. Scott is our hero. Scott will lead us all to safety.

Think of Scott Morrison holding up a plane in Kabul to save a woman and her baby. Or at least that’s what the Daily Telegraph told us. I’m going to ignore the dry retching noises coming from the audience, you ungrateful cynics. What’s that? It didn’t happen? Of course, it didn’t happen.

Sometimes, the truth has nothing to do with pumping the net up. Sometimes it does. As De Niro snaps in Wag The Dog,“What difference does it make if it’s true?” If you learn anything from our imaginary TED Talk, learn that reality, like detail, has no real place in the political grand narrative…...

The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 September 2021:

Scott Morrison’s momentous national security announcement last week should have been a turning point for him and the government. Instead, because he delayed making one tough call, leaving himself open to accusations of backstabbing and deception from a great friend and ally, he robbed himself of a much-needed reset.

A few days later he again squibbed what should have been a straightforward decision involving a senior colleague, on a matter which goes to the heart of transparency and probity.

The way Scott Morrison dealt with the French, and Christian Porter, says much about his management style.CREDIT:DIONNE GAIN

Both were about trust. Both provided insights into the most troubling aspects of Morrison’s character and management style. Both have left a very bad smell.

The first was the big-bang unveiling of the new Anglospheric alliance – upending decades of diplomatic endeavours in Asia – which included the planned acquisition of nuclear submarines from the US or the UK.

By waiting until the night before the announcement to advise President Emmanuel Macron (Morrison’s office refuses to answer when asked if they actually spoke) he was torpedoing the $90-billion contract with France for conventional submarines, he guaranteed they went nuclear.

The second sounded like a transmission from a parallel universe. Morrison presented Christian Porter’s resignation from Cabinet as industry minister after refusing to disclose names of anonymous donors as the action of a man upholding standards.

At the end of March, Morrison could have, should have, relegated Porter to the backbench until his personal problems were resolved, rather than try to maintain the fiction the issue was fixed by his removal as attorney-general.

The fiction was compounded after Porter released his updated register of interests, then said he could not name donors to a blind trust helping pay the costs of his defamation suit against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan over the airing of historic rape allegations, which Porter vehemently denied.

Desperate to get some clear air for his major strategic announcement, soon befouled by the French, Morrison had tried to buy time by asking his department head, Phil Gaetjens, to advise on the bleeding obvious – whether Porter had conformed with the ministerial code of conduct.

Then on Sunday afternoon, without waiting for Gaetjens, Morrison hastily called a press conference to announce Porter had upheld those standards by opting to resign from the ministry.

He could have, should have, said Porter’s actions did not conform to the high standards expected of a member of his government and sacked him. But he didn’t. He also said Porter had disclosed the amount he had received. He hadn’t.

Incredibly, when asked whether Porter should remain in Parliament while in receipt of the money (given the disclosure rules which apply to all parliamentarians, requiring them to fess up to everything including freebie footy tickets), Morrison protested that had nothing to do with him because he was no longer Porter’s boss.

Of course. He is only the Prime Minister, the leader of the government and the leader of the Liberal Party…..

The Australian, Newspoll, 19 September 2021:

Well it didn't take long the undeclared federal election campaign to sink down to the lowest common denominator - abuse of a journalist during an interview

Well it didn't take long for the undeclared federal election campaign, begun in earnest this month, to get nasty after the Liberal Party began to white ant basic rules. 

It's the fact that a general election has not yet been called - which  means that the rules for publicly funded information campaigns still have to be obeyed to the letter - which will cause problems.

Stating a clear intention to go to the polls has never suited the Prime Minister's preference for conducting most of an election campaign before setting a date (which triggers an AEC timeline) so he can milk the public purse for millions of dollars in campaign expenses.

The guidelines and underlying principals are clear.....

https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/campaign-advertising-guidelines.pdf

The underlying principles governing the use of public funds for all government information and advertising campaigns are that:

a. members of the public have equal rights to access  comprehensive information about government policies, programs and services which affect their entitlements, rights and obligations;

b. governments may legitimately use public funds to explain government policies, programs or services, to inform members of the public of their obligations, rights and entitlements, to encourage informed consideration of issues or to change behaviour; and  

c. government campaigns must not be conducted for party political purposes. [my yellow highlighting]

For some reason the Minister for Health and Aged Care & Liberal MP for Flinders Greg Hunt - a veteran of seven federal election campaigns to date - decided to make it glaringly obvious that he intended to rack up as much free advertising as possible and well as bill personal campaign expenses to the public purse through his taxpayer funded media team. 

He did this by putting the Liberal Party logo on paraphrased text from a 4 February 2021 Australian Dept. of Health announcement - which skated on thin ice when it comes to publicly funded information campaigns but didn't quite break the rules.

It didn't break the rules because the only place the logo appeared was in visual material on Greg Hunt's free social media accounts, which are officially authorised as the Liberal Member for Flinders even though they carry little local electorate content being primarily geared to display content associated with his ministerial role.  

On the advice of the Scientific Industry Technical Advisory Group on Vaccine lead by Professor Brendan Murphy, the Australian Government has secured an additional 10 million doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. pic.twitter.com/OHGZ0eepUx

— Greg Hunt (@GregHuntMP) February 4, 2021

.@mjrowland68 asks Federal Health Minister @GregHuntMP why he attached a Liberal Party logo to a Government announcement about COVID-19 vaccines. pic.twitter.com/ccbwfrvAXk

— News Breakfast (@BreakfastNews) February 9, 2021

In the end it was Hunt's arrogance and nasty name calling which gave the game away. As for the justification he gave - it was nothing but arrant nonsense.

The NSW Nationals are being a touch more circumspect in tying past federal government grants to the undeclared federal election campaign.  They offered over-egged comment only, which didn't have to skate over any ice at all.

The Grafton Regional Livestock Selling Centre has been given a million-dollar grant by the NSW Nationals in the federal government.https://t.co/bKsImtxQcj

— NSW Nationals (@NSWNationals) February 10, 2021

BACKGROUND

The problems with abuse of process in relation to federal government advertising has been recognised but unfortunately not resolved.

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Government Advertising: June 2015 to April 2019, 26 August 2019:

13. The Australian Government’s campaign advertising framework was introduced in 2008 with the express purpose of providing confidence that taxpayer funded campaigns are legitimately authorised, properly targeted and non-political. A decade on, this area of government administration remains contested, with an ongoing focus on the discretion inherent in the framework and the long-term trend of increased campaign expenditure before elections. The persistence of debate over the use of public resources for certain government campaigns indicates that the framework has not achieved its primary purpose of building confidence and is therefore ineffective in respect to this outcome. In these circumstances, there would be merit in the Parliament and Australian Government revisiting the framework. This audit report includes recommendations aimed at improving both the selected entities’ administration and the framework’s transparency. The recommendations reflect the findings of this audit and four previous ANAO audits conducted since the framework’s introduction. Framework-level recommendations focus on: clarifying mandatory requirements to reduce the large measure of discretion which is a feature of the framework; strengthening the third-party compliance advisory function to enable it to review campaigns at any stage of development; improving the transparency of approved campaign budgets and annual expenditure reporting; and applying certification processes to media releases associated with launching a campaign. [my yellow highlighting]