A hard choice for low income families and welfare recipients?

So which would you rather see happen – the Abbott Government continue with policies dismantling Australia’s ‘safety net’ welfare system (including Medicare) budget cut by budget cut or this federal government reduce superannuation tax concessions for the wealthy and very comfortably well-off?

I suspect Australians on Aged and Veterans Affairs pensions, the sick, those with disabilities, the unemployed and low income households generally would not find this choice a hard one to make.

A tax expenditure arises where a provision of the tax law causes a deviation from the standard tax treatment that would apply to an activity or class of taxpayer: that is, from the benchmark tax treatment [Australian Government, 2014-14 Budget Papers, STATEMENT 5: REVENUE]

According to an Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) paper presented at the National Tax Forum 2011:

* low income earner are penalised by the tax system for employer superannuation contributions, with zero tax support for these contributions, compared with a tax 
break of 32 cents per dollar contributed on behalf of a high income earner;

* almost 20% of superannuation tax concessions go to the top 2% of income earners (those over $150,000) almost 50% go to the top 12% of income earners;

* income over $180,000 per year attracts a flat tax rate of 15% (or 30 cents per dollar less than the marginal tax rate) on employer superannuation contributions;

* income attracting the top marginal tax rate of 45% results in tax concessions on superannuation of up to 30%; and

* Treasury research estimates that on average, high income earners receive a public subsidy for their retirement incomes (through tax breaks) over their lifetimes that exceeds the cost of paying them the age pension.

www.budget.gov.au/2014-15/content/bp1/download/BP1_BS5.pf

By the time the full raft of Abbott Government budget measures have come into effect, total superannuation tax concessions over the next four financial years will be in excess of $171 billion.

The next time someone tries to publicly argue that the Abbott Government, from Prime Minister through to lowly backbenchers, is not conducting class warfare I am going to (metaphorically speaking) spit in their eye if I see them in the street.

Do Clarence Valley shire councillors know what is being done in their names?

Sometimes NSW government websites appear to list matters that Clarence Valley residents and ratepayers – and I suspect even elected local government councillors – know little or nothing about.

I wonder how much money the Clarence Valley Council general manager expended on the original investigation outlined below and, did Council In The Chamber or Committee ever endorse this monetary outlay?

One also has to wonder if councillors were aware of Clarence Valley Council's refusal to follow the Information Commissioner's recommendation to allow a staff member access to information in a report on his conduct (which found no corrupt conduct), when in February 2014 at Item 14.005/14 they unanimously agreed to change the wording of the existing April 2013 Privacy Management Plan so that it appears to significantly depart from the Model Plan supplied by the NSW Division of Local Government.

Excerpts from a public document displayed on the Information and Privacy Commission New South Wales website:

Review Report under the  Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009

Applicant: Mr Jon Hallam

Respondent: Clarence Valley Council

Report date: 8 November 2013

IPC reference: IPC12/R000150

Catchwords: Government information – public interest test – personal

information – contravene an Information Protection Principle –

false or unsubstantiated allegations - defamation

Government information – access refused

Summary

1. Mr Hallam applied to Clarence Valley Council (the Council) under the

Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) for access to

specific information.

2. The Council decided to not disclose the information to Mr Hallam.

3. The Information Commissioner makes the following recommendations in relation

to the Council’s decision:

a. pursuant to section 93 of the GIPA Act, the Council make a new decision,

by way of internal review within 15 working days of this report (subject to

any extensions available in the GIPA Act).

b. pursuant to section 95 of the GIPA Act, the Council revise its procedures

for information access requests so that future notices of decision comply

with the requirements of section 61 of the GIPA Act.

Background

4. On 29 October 2012, Mr Hallam applied under the GIPA Act to the Council for

access to the final investigation report into allegations of misconduct against

him (Mr Hallam).

5. In its decision issued on 30 November 2012, the Council decided to not

disclose the report to Mr Hallam.

6. In seeking a review of the decision by the Information Commissioner, Mr

Hallam confirmed that he was seeking access to the report.

Decisions under review

7. The decision under review is the Council’s decision to not disclose the report to

Mr Hallam.

The public interest test

8. Mr Hallam has a legally enforceable right to access the information requested,

unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosing the information

(section 9(1) of the GIPA Act). The public interest balancing test for determining

whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure is set out in

section 13 of the GIPA Act.

9. The general public interest consideration in favour of access to government

information set out in section 12 of the GIPA Act means that this balance is

always weighted in favour of disclosure. Section 5 of the GIPA Act establishes

a presumption in favour of disclosure of government information.

10. Before deciding whether to release or withhold information, the Council must

apply the public interest test and decide whether or not an overriding public

interest against disclosure exists for the information.

11. Section 13 requires decision makers to:

a. identify relevant public interest considerations in favour of disclosure;

b. identify relevant public interest considerations against disclosure; 

c. attribute weight to each consideration for and against disclosure; and

d. determine whether the balance of the public interest lies in favour of or

against disclosure of the government information.

12. The Council must apply the public interest test in accordance with the principles

set out in section 15 of the GIPA Act……….

21. Clause 3(e) of the table at section 14 as a public interest consideration against

disclosure states:

There is a public interest consideration against disclosure of information if

disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to reveal false

or unsubstantiated allegations about a person that are defamatory.

22. In order to establish that this consideration applies, the Council must satisfy

each element of the consideration. The elements are:

a. that the disclosure of the report would reveal information;

b. that the information revealed contains false or unsubstantiated

allegations about a person; and

c. those false or unsubstantiated allegations about a person are

defamatory

23. When addressing the first element the Council should be mindful of the

definitions of ‘reveal’ and ‘government information’ in the GIPA Act. The issue

for the Council is not whether the report (a written document) has already been

revealed, but whether information in any form contained in the report has

already been revealed or is otherwise available. If information from the report

has already been revealed or is otherwise available it cannot be revealed by

the disclosure of the report and therefore the first element cannot be satisfied.

The Council’s notice of decision does not address the issue of whether any of

the information in the report has already been revealed.

24. When addressing the second element the Council must identify the information

that contains allegations against a person and demonstrate that those

allegations are either false or unsubstantiated. The Council engaged an

independent consultant to undertake an investigation and prepare a report. It is

clear from the context of the notice of decision that the investigation is into an

allegation that Mr Hallam engaged in corrupt behaviour. The notice of decision

states that ‘the report does not make findings of corrupt conduct’. This indicates

that the report may contain allegations that were not substantiated. However,

the Council has not identified which information in the report is subject to the

consideration.

25. In its notice of decision the Council did not explain how the allegations against

a person are defamatory and therefore have not adequately addressed the

third element. In order to satisfy the third element the Council must consider the

allegations according to the general principles of defamation law and determine

whether the allegations are defamatory. If the Council determines that the

allegations are not defamatory then the third element of the consideration

cannot be satisfied. The reasoning for this determination should be included in

the notice of decision.……..

Findings

51. I find that the Council has not satisfied its obligation under section 97(1) of the

GIPA Act because it has not justified its decision to not disclose the information

requested by Mr Hallam.

52. In summary the Council has not correctly applied the public interest test found

at section 13 of the GIPA Act and therefore has not justified its decision

because it:

a. did not demonstrate that it weighed the public interest considerations for and

against disclosure of the information. The Council’s notice of decision does

not identify any public interest considerations in favour of disclosure or

provide any explanation of how the public interest considerations for and

against disclosure were weighed in order to reach the decision.

b. relied on considerations that are not valid public interest considerations

against disclosure under section 14 of the GIPA Act when applying the public

interest test.

c. did not demonstrate that each element of the public interest considerations

against disclosure had been satisfied and therefore it cannot rely on them.

d. did not demonstrate that each public interest consideration against disclosure

that it relied upon applies to all of the withheld information.…

Recommendations

53. Pursuant to section 93 of the GIPA Act, the Information Commissioner

recommends that the Council make a new decision in regards to Mr Hallam’s

request for access to information, by way of internal review within 15 working

days of this report (subject to any extensions available in the GIPA Act).

54. Pursuant to section 95 of the GIPA Act, the Information Commissioner

recommends that the Council revise its procedures for information access 

requests so that future notices of decision comply with the requirements of

section 61 of the GIPA Act.

55. In making a new decision, the Council should have regard to the matters raised

and guidance given in this report.

56. We ask that the Council advise Mr Hallam and us by 22 November 2013 of the

actions to be taken in response to our recommendations………

What the Information and Privacy Commission does:

Under the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 any person may complain about an agency’s conduct in relation to its functions under the GIPA Act.

If the Information Commissioner decides to deal with the complaint, the aim will be to help the parties resolve the complaint using any measures considered appropriate including bringing the parties together for conciliation. The Commissioner may also conduct investigations into a complaint and, in certain circumstances, report the matter to the Minister responsible for the agency. 

Complaints about agencies can be lodged with the Information Commissioner….

Excerpt from MODEL PRIVACY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

3.6 Information Protection Principle 6 - Information held by agencies 

Section 13 Information about personal information held by agencies 

A public sector agency that holds personal information must take such steps as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to enable any person to ascertain: 
(a) whether the agency holds personal information, and 
(b) whether the agency holds personal information relating to that person, and 
(c) if the agency holds personal information relating to that person: 
(i) the nature of that information, and 
(ii) the main purposes for which the information is used, and 
(iii) that person's entitlement to gain access to the information. 

NOTE

That original council investigation is apparently also connected with an expensive 'operational' decision which saw Clarence Valley Council appear before the NSW Industrial Commission in December 2013, resulting in a dismissed staff member regaining employment with council. A fact reported in the local media.

Rural Doctors Association says Medicare co-payment turns rural doctors into tax collectors bogged down in red tape

Media release

Tuesday 20 May 2014

Co-payment to turn rural doctors into tax collectors,

create more red tape

The Rural Doctors Association of Australia (RDAA) says the Federal Government’s proposed Medicare co-payment will see the already significant pressure on rural doctors increase as they are forced to collect the co-payment on behalf of the Government, meet red tape requirements associated with it, and be called more frequently to their local hospital to treat patients who can’t afford to pay it.

RDAA is also concerned that rural doctors and patients will be caught in the crossfire as the federal and state governments step up their fight over health funding post-budget.

“At a time when the Federal Government is talking about the need to ensure doctors are spending their time treating patients and not filling out endless paperwork, last week’s Medicare co-payment announcement is irony…in capital letters and underlined” said RDAA President, Dr Ian Kamerman.

“Rural doctors and their practice staff will now be forced to negotiate the Medicare co-payment with nearly all the patients they see—including those in nursing homes and from disadvantaged backgrounds—causing yet more stress on doctors and staff, more time lost due to government red tape while waiting times get longer, and quite possibly more financial stress as doctors opt to lose money rather than charge the co-payment to needy patients.

“Then there’s the increased pressure not only on rural hospital emergency departments, but also on the rural doctors who are called to the hospital—at all times of the day and night—to treat patients who can’t afford to be seen by the very same doctor at their general practice due to the co-payment.

“The doctor, already working long hours, may then also need to assess whether they must charge the patient a co-payment at the hospital.

“And once they treat the patient, and finally get to return to their practice or get home from the hospital, they will no doubt need to fill in more forms explaining why they did or did not charge the patient co-payment and the reasons for this.

“There is a real danger that the introduction of co-payments will discourage more doctors from staying in rural practice, and place a further bureaucratic load on those doctors remaining in the bush.

“Coupled with the Federal Government’s decision to scrap the very successful Prevocational General Practice Placements Program (PGPPP)—which many rural doctors have found to be a great way of attracting more doctors to rural practice—this budget risks negating the gains made in rural practice in the past ten years.

“While we appreciate a number of initiatives for rural practice that have been funded in this budget—namely additional funding for those practices teaching medical students and young doctors, and additional funding to support rural practices in building infrastructure to enable that teaching and training to occur—the introduction of the Medicare co-payment and scrapping of the PGPPP has real potential to undo the good work.

“We urge the Federal Government to reconsider the Medicare co-payment proposal and keep the PGPPP. And we urge the federal and state governments to be very mindful of the tremendously damaging impact that any horse-trading around health funding could create for rural practices, rural doctors, rural communities, and rural patients.”

________________________________________________________________________

http://www.rdaa.com.au/

Treasurer Joe Hockey claims he is suing Fairfax because "as a result of the articles, published on May 5, he has been "greatly injured, shunned and avoided and his reputation has been and will be bought into disrepute, odium, ridicule and contempt"*

 "his reputation has been and will be bought into disrepute, odium, ridicule and contempt"*

Gee, and I thought I felt that way about Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey because of the House of Representatives’ Hansard record for 13 May 2014, contents of the 2014-15 Budget Papers, his post-budget speech at the National Press Club and later performance on the ABC TV program Q&A.

* Joe Hockey claims Fairfax articles defamed him 21 May 2014

Ain't that the truth

In a judgment handed down in the NSW District Court earlier this year the judge's opening remark was

This is the twentieth year in which I will make the observation that nothing excites the zeal, the ardour and the passion of the legal profession than an argument about costs.

Read the judgment here.

How does Prime Minister Abbott compare with Gillard, Howard and Keating immediately after their first budgets?

In an effort to minimise the Australian Coalition Government's post-budget polling disaster there appear to have been efforts to insert a little spin into how the media reported the facts.

This was Prime Minister Tony Abbott in The Sydney Morning Herald on 19 May 2014:

"I think the last government which brought down a very tough budget – the Howard government in 1996 - took a big hit in the polls too.”

This was Channel 9 News on 20 May 2014:

Tony Abbott may not be Australia's most popular prime minister following the release of the Federal Budget but he's still less despised than Paul Keating and Julia Gillard…

But are these statements true when comparing like periods in office?

Using one opinion poll in order for maximum similarity in survey methodology, below are the satisfaction results for Keating, Howard, Gillard and Abbott from the first Newspoll after they became prime minister to the Newspoll immediately after they delivered their first budgets.

It is obvious that after his first budget was delivered on 18 August 1992 Newspoll respondents were only 7 percentage points more dissatisfied with Keating’s performance as prime minister than they were with Abbott’s performance five days after his 13 May 2014 first budget.

Howard after his first budget of 20 August 1996 was streets ahead of Abbott - with those satisfied with his performance coming in at 51% compared with Abbott’s 30% and, those dissatisfied being 34% compared with Abbott’s 60%.

After her first budget on 10 May 2011, Gillard outperformed Abbott with regard to the number of respondents satisfied with her as prime minister (34%) and the lower number dissatisfied with her performance (51%).

PAUL KEATING

JOHN HOWARD

JULIA GILLARD

TONY ABBOTT

So how much budget pain is the Abbott Coalition Government inflictng on Clarence Valley residents?

Millionaire Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann 

enjoying their cigars in a Parliament House courtyard, May 2014

The absence of any estimates of distributional impacts for different household types in the Abbott Government's 2014-15 Budget Papers means that there is no collated reference point one can go to in order to easily evaluate how progressive or regressive this federal budget is and, I suspect that this is a deliberate attempt to make the facts as difficult to find as possible for both voters and the media.

However, this post is an attempt to broadly outline how some of the budget measures are likely to impact on the 51,043 people living in the Clarence Valley on the NSW North Coast. [Profile.id,Clarence Valley Estimated Resident Population, 30 June 2013]

In the Clarence Valley there are up to an estimated 330 individuals who may possibly have personal taxable incomes (as opposed to gross incomes) above $180,000 per annum and therefore over the next four years may be subject to the 2% ‘deficit’ levy on their taxable incomes in excess of that amount. This is likely to total between $400 to $10,000 per person by 2017-18, with the majority probably paying under $3,000. [Australian Tax Office, 2011-12 Individual Tax Table 6, updated April 2014]

However, there are an est. 8,248 individuals receiving Centerlink or Veterans Affairs age pensions and an est. 3,711 receiving disability support pensions who will see changes to eligibility, indexation and deeming rules for these pensions under recently announced budget measures. [Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Regional Profiles by LGA 2007-2011]

The new pension indexation will see the real value of these pension payments fall by an est. $4,352 to $5,853 per person between 2017-18 and 2020-2 if the Abbott Government is re-elected. [Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW, media release, 15 May 2014]

Further, there are an est. 5,459 individuals under 30 years of age living in the Clarence Valley and many of these people may not be eligible for unemployment benefits for up to six months if they lose their jobs after 1 January 2015, as well as an estimated 3,906 one income families receiving Tax Benefit B who will have their payment frozen at 2014 levels for the next two years and who lose this payment after June 2015 if none of their children is under 6 years of age or their annual income is above $100,000. [Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Regional Profiles by LGA 2007-2011]

From 1 January 2015 unemployed people under 25 will get Youth Allowance not Newstart. This is a reduction in unemployment benefit of $96 per fortnight for a 22-24 year old single person with no children and $93 per fortnight for a married couple with no children in that same age group. [Australian Dept. of Human Services, 28 March 2014]

Single income families with a disposable income of $2,014 per week in 2016-17 will lose between $18 to $82 per week due to new budget measures, depending on the number of children in the family. [Whiteford, P & Nethery, D, Sharing the budget pain, May 2014]

Finally, every household receiving the renamed energy supplement will find it permanently frozen at the 1 July 2014 payment level, even though household energy costs are still predicted to rise over time.

When one adds increased medical/pharmaceutical costs, reduced Medicare rebates on a number of services, loss of some other tax and welfare related concessions, then the est. 73.6% of the local population with incomes under $46,000 per annum (and the 50% of households with weekly incomes under $769 per week) will be doing it hard under this Federal Government. [Profile.id, Clarence Valley Community Profile, individual incomes 2011 and Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011 Census QuickStats - Clarence Valley]

Background:

2014-14 Budget Papers