Political Cartoon of the Week

http://www.glenlelievre.net/

So you think gas exploration in the NSW Northern Rivers region is conducted in a safe and environmentally sustainable way?

The CSG industry uses international standards and is highly regulated

CSG operations will not threaten water supplies

Metgasco is committed to conducting all of its activities in an environmentally sustainable way

All activities will be planned and managed to ensure minimum environmental impact

[Metgasco Limited 2013]

Think again……..

Metgasco Limited Drilling Incidents*

Some of the descriptive terms used in relation to incidents: severe water losses, gas bubbling was observed in hole, well caving, major problems, water inflow, 380m drill string and 33m bore hole assembly abandoned in the well, fault intercepted, “returns gained but big water losses”, leaking, hole collapsed from 16m, gas metre went into alarm mode “off scale”; hole spurting air and water; volumes of gas, cemented but would not hold pressure, well failed to clean up properly, caving clay & sand well collapsed, “gas detector not functioning but hydrocarbons can be smelled in the shaker area”, gas entering the mud column, presence of methane in mud returns, mud pits collapsing and losing mud, fracture stimulation, drilled into old river bed, “explosive cutters” required to remove casing.

Note

NSW Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham has lodged a notice of motion in the Legislative Council and posted a YouTube video here.

The document above appears to be one on which he may have based some of the details contained in his motion.

* Author unknown

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.