Australian Federal Election 2016: Kristina Keneally's open letter to Cabinet Secretary Senator Arthur Sinodinos

The Guardian, Open letter to Senator Arthur Sinodinos, from Kristina Keneally, 29 April 2016:

Woody Allen said 80% of life is showing up. 

Every single day of my ministerial career I showed up. I did my job. I answered the hard questions. I faced the opposition, the media and the public.

Ask any NSW press gallery journalist. As premier I ended every media conference by asking, “Are there any more questions?”, and the journalists answering no.

Ask your fellow Coalition colleagues in NSW. Every time they called an inquiry, no matter how politically motivated, I showed up. An upper house inquiry into the murder of Michael McGurk: I showed up. An upper house inquiry into the sale of electricity assets: I showed up. 

After Barry O’Farrell was elected he instituted a second electricity transactions inquiry, conducted by Justice Tamberlin. I volunteered to show up to that as well, but was never called.  

Not one of these inquiries made adverse findings. If anything, these processes vindicated my actions. Tamberlin found my government acted with probity in regard to the electricity transactions and achieved the best possible result for taxpayers.   

As for planning, there was absolutely no evidence uncovered of any planning official involved in McGurk’s murder. Later Icac found no evidence of corruption in the NSW planning system while I was minister. 

So why won’t you turn up to the Senate and answer questions about the fundraising activities of the NSW Liberal party in the 2011 NSW state election?

Did you know the Free Enterprise Foundation was taking funds from prohibited donors and sending them to the NSW Liberal party? If you didn’t know, why not? You were the honorary treasurer and finance committee chair, after all. 

Who conceived this scheme? What legal advice did you receive? What advice did you give to candidates in regards to NSW fundraising laws and prohibited donors? Was O’Farrell aware of the washing of funds from prohibited donors? 

Here’s the question I really want you to answer: why the hell did the Liberal party undertake such stupid, questionable and potentially illegal acts in that election? I led a 16-year-old government that was trailing some pretty high profile scandals. Surely you could have just passed the plate for gold coin donations at the Ku-ring-gai and Manly Liberal party branch meetings and still won the election. 

Was it hubris? Was it immaturity? Was it carelessness? Was it idiocy?

Your party’s fundraising tipped more money into key seats and likely ended the careers of several good, hardworking Labor MPs who were simply outspent in the campaign. Now we know why. The funds were ill-gotten. The NSW Liberal party subverted democracy. Do you care?

I know you are at both the beginning and the end of your political career. After years of supporting others as an adviser, you finally have your chance to be the man, to make the decisions, to run the show and be seen to run the show.  

But this is also the end. You aren’t young. This is your second chance. There won’t be a third go. You are likely terrified this is how your whole career will be defined. 

You seem willing to do whatever it takes, including disrespecting the Senate when it exercises its proper authority, in the hope you can avoid the tough questions. 

You can’t. Not forever. 

I didn’t always believe in karma, but that bottle of vintage Grange a few years ago reminded me that people, more often than not, reap what they sow. 

Show up. 

STATE OF PLAY: Liberal Senator Arthur Sinodinos' career path

The Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee currently comprises five Labor senators, three Liberal senators and three Greens senators.

Its Chair is Senator Jenny McAllister (ALP, NSW) and its Deputy Chair Senator is Cory Bernardi (LP, SA).

After the Australian Electoral Commission withheld $4.4 million in public funding from the Liberal Party of Australia due to political donation disclosure irregularities, the Senate by a vote of 32 to 30 on 19 April 2016 ordered an inquiry into this matter and, further ordered Cabinet Secretary, former Liberal Party president and former honorary treasurer of the NSW division of the Liberal Party, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, to attend.

The Committee issued an Interim Report after Senator Sinodinos refused to appear before the inquiry in a letter written on 27 May 2016 and leaked to the media sometime that same day – presumably by someone close to the senator.

Remarkably forgetful during his testimony before the NSW Independent Commission against Corruption in 2014, as well as in his 2011 mandatory member's interests disclosure to the Australian Parliament, Senator Sinodinos has again made a dubious career move ahead of the expected 2 July 2016 federal election.

_________________________________________

Interim Report

1.1        On 19 April 2016, the Senate referred the following matter to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee (committee) for inquiry and report by 4 May 2016.

(a) Commonwealth legislative provisions relating to oversight of associated entities of political parties, with particular reference to the adequacy of:

i the funding and disclosure regime relating to annual returns;

ii the powers of the Australian Electoral Commission with respect to supervision of the conduct of and reporting by associated entities of political parties; and

iii any related matters; and

(b) Senator Sinodinos appear before the committee to answer questions.[1]

1.2        The committee has decided to table this interim report in order to report non‑compliance of the Senate order by Senator Sinodinos to the Senate.

Steps taken by the committee

1.3        Following the referral on 19 April 2016, Senator Sinodinos' office was contacted informally by the secretariat on the morning of 20 April 2016 in order to obtain details of a contact for correspondence and to indicate the possible hearing dates under consideration by the committee in order to provide early advice of those dates. No issues with the possible hearing dates were raised with the secretariat.

1.4        Following a committee meeting later that day, formal correspondence was sent to Senator Sinodinos (at Appendix 1) indicating the hearing dates agreed by the committee and indicating that the secretariat would work with his office to find a suitable time. The committee asked for a response by midday 22 April 2016. Despite the secretariat following up with phone calls to his office and an email to the contact officer, the committee received no response to this correspondence.

1.5        On 26 April 2016, the committee considered the lack of response from Senator Sinodinos and agreed to send a further letter advising him of the time for him to appear on 28 April (at Appendix 2). Again the committee received no response.

Receipt of the response

1.6        The committee received a response from Senator Sinodinos to the secretariat in hard copy at approximately 4.45pm on Wednesday 27 April 2016. The response was provided to the Chair and not distributed to the committee until the next morning on 28 April 2016. However, the letter appeared in media in the evening of 27 April 2016. Under Standing Order 37 the 'evidence taken by a committee and documents presented to it, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not, unless authorised by the Senate or the committee, be disclosed to any person other than a member or officer of the committee'. As there appears to be a prima facie case of unauthorised disclosure, the committee is investigating the matter.

Committee view

1.7        The committee notes that in his response Senator Sinodinos cites his unavailability on the hearing dates. This was never conveyed to the committee. If the Senator was unaware of the inquiry agreed by the Senate on 19 April 2016, there were two and a half days between initial contact with his office and the initial deadline and over a week from the initial contact with his office until the actual response was received. The committee finds the lack of a timely response to a Senate Committee conveying an order of the Senate disappointing.

1.8        The committee notes that the week starting 26 April 2016 was originally scheduled to be a sitting week [2] and as such senators would have been expected to have commitments to the chamber in Canberra. 

1.9        The committee further notes the short inquiry timeframe set by the Senate for the committee to work within, resulting in limited flexibility to rearrange hearings to accommodate witnesses. In this case, the committee offered to work with Senator Sinodinos to find a suitable time for his appearance during the days that the committee had set aside for hearings. It is important to note, Senator Sinodinos' attendance was not requested by the committee: it was directed by the Senate. The onus is on Senator Sinodinos to make himself available to appear at the public hearing, not for the committee to reschedule its hearing to accommodate Senator Sinodinos.

1.10      In his response, Senator Sinodinos concedes that hearing dates and availability aside, he does not intend to comply with the order of the Senate.

1.11      This action by way of the Senate order is clearly provided for in the standing orders of the Senate (SO 177(3)).

1.12      The committee notes the following possible responses available to the Senate, including motions:

* requiring Senator Sinodinos to attend the Senate chamber in order to explain the reasons for his non-compliance to the Senate;

* directing Senator Sinodinos to attend a further hearing of the committee;

* referring the non-compliance with a senate order to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges, consistent with Parliamentary Privilege Resolution 6(8);

* to censure Senator Sinodinos;

* to consider whether a contempt has been committed, under Standing Order 82; and

* to pursue other remedies which may be available under the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987.

Senator Jenny McAllister
Chair

_________________________________________

Australian Federal Election 2016: bolting to the ballot box before arrests are made?

It is looking more and more as if Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to go to the polls early has less to do with so-called Senate obstruction and a lot more to do with a number of allegedly criminal skeletons in Liberal and National Party closets……..

ABC News 29 April 2016:

Australian Federal Police (AFP) have ramped up their investigation into the copying of former speaker Peter Slipper's diary.

The ABC has been told the AFP has made an application to the Federal Court, which, if granted, would allow police to use evidence from an earlier civil case in a criminal prosecution.

That evidence includes text and picture messages exchanged between Mr Slipper's former staffer, James Ashby, and Liberal National Party MP Mal Brough.

Mr Brough is under investigation by the AFP, who executed a search warrant at his Queensland home last year as part of that probe.....

Now the AFP has asked the Federal Court to grant it permission to use the material harvested from Mr Ashby's phone, including excerpts from Mr Slipper's diary sent by Mr Ashby to Mr Brough.

In its application, the AFP has said the messages will be used in the current investigation, and any subsequent prosecution.

Permission is necessary because the exhibits were originally only to be used in the civil case.

Mr Ashby's sexual harassment suit was rejected by a Federal Court judge, who said Mr Ashby had been part of a "combination" including Mr Brough, which had used the legal action as a political weapon against Mr Slipper.

Mr Ashby then appealed and the original judgement was set aside, but Mr Ashby later dropped the case.

However, it subsequently emerged the AFP is investigating whether Mr Brough committed a crime by encouraging Mr Ashby to copy pages of Mr Slipper's diary.

Mr Brough stood down from his role of Special Minister of State in December, saying he would not contest the upcoming federal election.

COAL SEAM GAS: NSW Baird Government coming after the Northern Rivers once again with the support of Parliamentary Secretary for the North Coast Chris Gulaptis

NSW Nationals MP for Clarence and NSW Parliamentary Secretary for the North Coast, Chris Gulaptis, has endorsed the Baird Government's North Coast Regional Plan – stating in the foreword in this planning document:

The Draft North Coast Regional Plan is our proposed blueprint for the next 20 years and it is a plan for both the Mid North Coast and the Far North Coast. The draft Plan outlines a vision, goals and actions that focus on a sustainable future for the region as it grows that protects the environment, builds a prosperous community and offers attractive lifestyle choices for residents.

Unfortunately he and the state Liberal-Nationals government of which he is a member see the future of the region as being one in which the gas industry is again a major player.

Excerpts from NSW Coalition Government's 100-page Draft North Coast Regional Plan, March 2016:

Biophysical Strategic Agricultural Land on the North Coast was also mapped in 2014 as part of the NSW Government's Strategic Regional Land Use Policy. This land is capable of sustaining high levels of production for a variety of agricultural industries due to its high-quality soil and water resources. More than 248,000 hectares of this land has been mapped on the North Coast. The policy requires that any significant mining or coal seam gas proposals on this land have to be scrutinised through the independent Gateway process, before a development application can be lodged….

The North Coast also includes areas of the Clarence-Moreton Basin, which has potential coal seam gas resources that may be able to support the development and growth of new industries and provide economic benefits for the region….

The NSW Department of Industry is mapping coal and coal seam gas resources in the region. Once completed, this information will inform future regional and local planning by providing updated information on the location of resource….

The NSW Government will:….. identify and plan for the infrastructure needs and requirements of the resources and energy sector….

NOTE:

The Gateway process which the Plan mentions was in place from 2012 onwards. A period in which Metgasco Limited's plan to create gasfields and at least one gas production facility on regionally significant farmland (with high fertility soils) in the Northern Rivers was supported by both Coalition state and federal government.

Neither the toothless Gateway process nor the Mining and Petroleum Gateway Panel (both parts of the wider Strategic Regional Land Use Policy) appear to have applied the brake to any Metgasco development applications lodged and approved in order to sink coal seam gas test wells and, under Part 3A of the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 inhibit progress the now defunct West Casino Gas Project.

The Federal Government's 2014 Catalogue of potential resource developments stated:

All developments within the Clarence‑Moreton bioregion are currently at the pre‑environmental impact statement (EIS) stage. However, subject to regulatory approval, the West Casino Gas Project may move towards an EIS within the time frames considered by the bioregional assessment.

Australian Federal Election 2016: is there an ounce of humanity left in Liberal, Nationals and Labor politicians? *WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGE*

Enough is enough. It’s time cease off-shore detention on Nauru as well as close the centre on Manus Island and face up to our collective responsibilities under international law.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 April 2016:

Pregnant asylum seekers detained on Nauru could be exposed to the Zika virus, with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection confirming there had been cases of the mosquito-borne disease on the island nation.

The revelation was made in the department's submission to the Senate inquiry into the treatment of asylum seekers at Australia's regional processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island.

Detainees have been issued with heavy-duty insect repellent in order to fend off the virus, which has been linked to a serious birth defect of the brain called microcephaly.

The Australian government's smartraveller website currently recommends women who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant should consider postponing travel to any area where Zika virus is active.

"If you do decide to travel, talk to your doctor first and strictly follow steps to prevent mosquito bites during your trip," it says.

On Wednesday evening, Australian Medical Association (AMA) vice-president Stephen Parnis said pregnant asylum seekers on Nauru needed to be protected, assessed and "not exposed to any risk". He stopped short of saying whether the woman should be removed from the island.

The admission that Zika is present on Nauru comes in the same week senior doctors, including the AMA, raised grave concerns about the standard of medical care available to asylum seekers held in offshore detention, which they said would not be accepted in Australia.

In its submission, the department said "every precaution" was being taken to stop transferees contracting the Zika virus. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 April 2016:

The source said the man spoke to UNHCR representatives of "the intolerable mental and physical pressure on refugees and particularly on himself, who [is] imprisoned at Nauru."

UNHCR regional representative Thomas Albrecht said his organisation was concerned about the "grave mental state of asylum seekers and refugees" and urgent action was needed to prevent further suffering and address worsening mental health.

The UNHCR had been in Nauru since Sunday conducting a monitoring mission of arrangements for asylum seekers and refugees transferred from Australia.

A refugee advocate who is in close contact with those at Nauru said tensions were high after the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled the Manus Island detention centre was illegal, opening up the prospect that detainees there could be released.

"People are thinking 'what about us'. They are feeling desperate," the advocate said, adding she believed the man had burns to 80 per cent of his body.

The incident follows a Nauruan court decision in February to convict and fine a refugee for attempted suicide in a move authorities said was designed to "stamp out the practice".

Dept. Immigration and Border Protection, media release, 29 April 2016:

A 23-year-old Iranian man who set himself on fire in Nauru has tragically died today from his injuries.

Appropriate support is being provided to his wife and friends.

The man was taken to Republic of Nauru Hospital for medical treatment by the Nauruan authorities. He was then transferred to Australia by air ambulance for medical treatment. The man passed away this afternoon in a Brisbane Hospital.

The Department expresses its sympathies to his wife, family and friends.

The death will be reported to the Queensland Coroner. No further comment will be made at this time.

Facebook:  Doctors4refugees, 29 April 2016

The death of Omid once again exposes the lie that people offshore have the same medical care as those in the Australian community.
We know that the Nauru hospital staff struggled with maintaining an adequate airway and had difficulties accessing an intravenous line. These are quite difficult to do in a severe burns victim and needs a specialised team immediately. Some parts of remote Australia may also not have this expertise but he would have been airlifted out to a tertiary hospital in a matter of hours.
When he got to Brisbane we [sic] was grossly oedematous (swollen) from the loss of vital proteins and had fluid leaking into his lungs, further impairing his breathing. Much of this was clearly compounded by the early lack of adequate oxygenation.
It is not an unusual complication; it’s entirely predictable in a person with this level of burns
This tragic outcome once again demonstrates the complete impracticality of accommodating these highly vulnerable people so far from Australia.

"Omid" set himself alight on 27 April, was airlifted to a Brisbane hospital sometime on 28 April – approximately 22 hours after self-harming. He died on 29 April 2016.

He appears to be the third asylum seeker who has died after setting themselves alight since June 2014 and the eighth offshore detainee who has died since August 2002.

UPDATE

ABC AM, 2 May 2016:

Shocking video and new details have emerged that raise questions about the standard of medical care given to the asylum seeker who set himself on fire on Nauru last week. Omid Masoumali died on Friday in a Brisbane hospital, two days after his injuries. His grieving wife Nana has told doctors on the mainland that while on Nauru, Omid was without a doctor's care for two hours at the medical facility and lay in agony a further eight hours before morphine was administered….

Omid Masoumali's body will be flown back to Iran.
His family have been asked to pay the $17,000 cost.

The Guardian, 3 May 2013

The young Somali woman who set herself alight on Nauru – the second refugee in a week to do so – has been taken to Australia by air ambulance, but her situation remains critical.

Hodan, 21, doused herself and set herself alight inside the OPC1 section of the detention centre on Nauru.

According to reports, she suffered severe burns to most of her body. One person reported “all of her clothes were burned off”.

Australian Federal Election 2016: Turnbull's federal plan for your pearly whites

Excerpt from Australian Dept. of Health statement, 23 April 2016:

Through the 2016–17 Budget, the Government is introducing the new national Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme from 1 July 2016. This Scheme will replace the Child Dental Benefits Schedule and the National Partnership Agreement on Adult Dental Services.

Under the Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme, over 10 million Australians will have access to Federal Government subsidised public dental care. We expect that an extra 600,000 public dental patients will be treated each year through this Scheme.

The Government will spend $2.1 billion in the five year National Partnership Agreement for the new Scheme. This represents the largest-ever Commonwealth investment in public dental coverage –– which, for the first time, will be enshrined in legislation to provide long-term certainty.

Overall, we will spend a total of about $5 billion over the next four years in improving dental outcomes, including through the Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme, private health insurance rebate, the Commonwealth's contribution to in-hospital dental services, and dental infrastructure in rural and remote Australia.

Public dental services will be improved with better funding. Over time, people's dental health issues will be tackled earlier, with the focus shifting from restorative to preventive dental care, avoiding tooth decay, and alleviating more significant health problems and expense.

The new Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme lays the foundations for a fair and equitable national scheme for children and adults that Australia can afford now and into the future. This reflects the Government's broader integrated approach to health reform, improving oral health, and contributing to better overall health.

Sky News, 23 April 2016:

As part of the $5 billion plan, $2.1 billion will go to the states and territories, who can use the money to pay for private dentists "where service gaps arise" Ms Ley said.

The Australian Dental Association (ADA) has described the new scheme as "smoke and mirrors".

Axing the children's dental scheme is the wrong approach to a serious problem, and money is being taken out of dental care, dentists say.

"Let's see this for what it is. This is a 'budget saving' that results in a reduction of about $200m per annum for dental care," ADA president Rick Olive said in a statement.

"Let's not be fooled. This is a measure that just won't deliver."

The Turnbull Government announcement reveals that the new dental health scheme is directly funding public dental health to the tune of $2.9 million over five years, with approx. $415 million available in 2016-17 or an average of around $51.8 million for each state and territory.

In its 2014-15 Budget the Abbott Government deferred the National Partnership Agreement for adult public dental services and ceased the Dental Flexible Grants Programme – saving $609 million over four years. In that budget government also expected to achieve savings of up to $35.7 million over four years by deferring indexation of Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) dental and allied health provider payments to 1 July 2016.

In its 2015-16 Budget the Abbott Government expected to save $125.6 million over four years from 2015‑16 by broadly aligning indexation arrangements for both the benefits payable and the benefits cap under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule with indexation arrangements for other health benefits programmes. In that budget government stated it would provide $155.0 million in 2015-16 for a one year agreement to replace the existing National Partnership Agreement on Adult Public Dental Services and that the agreement would support the provision of dental health services to adults who rely on the public dental system.

Public dental health schemes across the country have been under intense strain since at least July 2014 even when eligibility for these schemes was targeting low-income households. Now the Turnbull Government has decided to open the floodgates by removing means-tested eligibility.

There is a subsidy cap per eligible individual of $1,000 every two years in the existing federal scheme and I presume that this cap will remain in the new scheme.

With the $2.1 billion divided between eight states and territories over a five year period only 1.74% of the Australian population, or a total of est. 52,500 people in each state/territory, will potentially be able to access this scheme every two years via a participating private dentist before the money runs out.

The remaining 40% of adults and children the Turnbull Government calculates may wish to access this national public dental scheme will be obliged to seek treatment from the public dental heath schemes in their respective states or territories.

However, if the Turnbull Government subsidises dental treatment at a lower rate that the existing scheme then the number of individuals who receive adequate treatment by way of state and territory public dental health schemes may drop dramatically.

All those accessing state public dental schemes will be faced with waiting lists.

At the end of December 2015 there were 9,203 children and 104,156 adults who were waiting for public general dental care in NSW – 11% of the children and 32% of adults had been waiting for periods exceeding clinically acceptable benchmark times.

An est. 15,507 individuals on the waiting list were in the Mid-North Coast and Northern NSW regions.

Given past reports of waiting times, it is not outside the realms of possibility that approximately 25% of those who have been waiting for public general dental care in NSW have been waiting for up to one to two years.

In September 2015 the population of NSW was 7.64 million people. All of these people are now potentially eligible for public general dental care under the Turnbull Government's Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme once they reach two years of age and over.

Does Prime Minister Turnbull seriously believe that his est. $5 billion cut eight ways will stretch that far?

Australian Federal Election 2016: who else is tired of Liberal-Nationals political lies concerning negative gearing?

Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs recently observed that Australian politicians were generally ill-informed and uneducated.

She was speaking in reference to democracy, human rights and international law.

I am beginning to suspect her observations may apply to almost any matter that is placed before them for consideration or action.

When it comes to negative gearing, Liberal and Nationals federal politicians have obviously not read beyond those party talking points released as the federal election campaign heats up and, I suspect their ignorance is wilful. 

Readers have probably already noticed how many of them have declared investment properties and accompanying mortgages in the current Register of Members’ Interests?

So in an effort to balance the one-eyed view of negative gearing held by those with vested interests, here are some facts and observations……

What is negative gearing?

This is how the Direct Property Network (Denuo Pty Ltd) website describes negative gearing:

Negative gearing: cost of the property is greater than the income generated. e.g. total cost is $2,000 per month (includes loan, council rates, real estate management fees etc) less the incoming rent $1,500/month rent received. The difference is $500 per month or $115. 38/week, which costs the investor.

The benefit of negative gearing is the cash loss is offset against income from other sources, thus reducing your taxable income, and hence the amount of tax you have to pay (compared to the tax you'd pay without the investment).

The effects of this cash loss are buffered or absorbed by the tax system.

Because of the tax effects your loss is reduced.

Simply put: the tax man and the rental income pays for your investment property!!

And this is what the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) says about negative gearing:

A rental property is negatively geared if it is purchased with the assistance of borrowed funds and the net rental income, after deducting other expenses, is less than the interest on the borrowings.

The overall taxation result of a negatively geared property is that a net rental loss arises. In this case, you may be able to claim a deduction for the full amount of rental expenses against your rental and other income (such as salary, wages or business income) when you complete your tax return for the relevant income year. Where the other income is not sufficient to absorb the loss it is carried forward to the next tax year.

If by negatively gearing a rental property, the rental expenses you claim in your tax return would result in a tax refund, you may reduce your rate of withholding to better match your year-end tax liability.

If you believe your circumstances warrant a reduction to your rate or amount of withholding, you can apply to us for a variation using the PAYG income tax withholding variation (ITWV) application (NAT 2036).

Advice from domain.com.au on how to negatively gear your own holiday house so that the taxman pays for your weekends away and annual holidays.

Who negatively gears investment properties?

Business Insider reported on 16 February 2015 that:

The richest 40% of Australians carry 80% of the investor housing debt.

According to the Grattan Institute on 8 March 2016:

Data is not directly available on what proportion of home purchases are made by investors. Data on new home lending from The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Lending Finance figures indicates that between one-third and half of new lending is to investors. And ABS census data shows that just under a third of existing properties are owned by investors.

But not all of them negatively gear. Some do not borrow, and others do not borrow enough to be negatively geared: that is, their rental income is greater than the expenses and loan interest. The tax stats show us that about two-thirds of all housing investors are negatively geared. This suggests that around 20% of housing buyers are negatively geared investors.

In 2015 Australians borrowed a total of $73.54 million in housing finance [ABS, 5671.0 - Lending Finance, Australia, Dec 2015].

These figures indicate that in 2015 negatively-geared investors borrowed an est. total of $14.7 million in housing finance.

It appears that many investors who negatively gear property have borrowed up to 50 to 80 per cent of the purchase price of their investment.

This is a breakdown of who these investors are thought to be, according to Grattan Institute spokespersons writing in The Conversation on 8 March 2016:

Click on images to enlarge

That graph is supported by a second based on ATO data:

Executive Director of The Australia Institute Ben Oquist stated in The Sydney Morning Herald on 16 February 2016:

"In total, these concessions [negative gearing, capital gains tax discount & superannuation tax concessions] are worth more than $37 billion, yet the young receive only $2.4 billion of their value…

"The capital gains tax discount and negative gearing are particularly unfair for the young, with the under 30s taking approximately 1 per cent of the benefit of tax breaks worth $7.7 billion a year and climbing.

The NATSEM research also shows that 73 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount, flows to the top 10 per cent of income earners.

The Sydney Morning Herald also reported on 13 November 2015 that:

According to Tax Office data, nearly 30 per cent of anaesthetists negatively gear their properties, compared to just 3.6 per cent of cleaners.
Surgeons (27.7 per cent), finance managers (23.4 per cent), mining engineers (22.2 per cent), and lawyers (22.1 per cent) are also far more likely to use the strategy than people in lesser-paying jobs, the data shows.

Sales assistants (3.7 per cent), hairdressers (5 per cent), nurses (9.6 per cent) and teachers (12 per cent) are much less likely than surgeons and lawyers to use negative gearing…..

Click on images to enlarge

Data shows the average tax benefit that surgeons received from negatively geared property was $4161 in 2012-13, followed by anaesthetists ($3353), lawyers ($1788), mining engineers ($1336) and finance managers ($1247).

But cleaners only received an average tax benefit of $41, while sales assistants ($42), hairdressers ($167), nurses ($254) and teachers ($327) fared little better…..

Data for the 2013-14 financial year confirms the same professional occupation mix as benefiting most from negative gearing tax concessions.

It comes as no surprise that an electorate with some of the wealthiest people in Australia - the Liberal Party electorate of Point Piper held by Malcolm Bligh Turnbull MP - is also the electorate which claims the most in average rental losses from negative gearing:

ABC News, 27 April 2016, ATO (2014) and NATSEM

According to the Brisbane Times on 1 May 2016:

New research by the Parliamentary Library has found that of the 6071 people in Mr Turnbull's postcode who submitted a tax return in 2014, 592 claimed the tax deduction to the tune of almost $18 million - or $30,278 each.

That works out at about $582 a week.

Nor does it come as a surprise to find some Turnbull Government ministers have one or more geared investment properties, such as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton, who in December 2015 purchased a $2.235 million two-story beach-front house at Palm Beach QLD with money borrowed from the ANZ Bank. He and his wife appear to own four other properties - two of which are also listed as investments.

In fact an est. 1 in 3 federal politicians own rental properties and ownership by party breaks down like this:

Qld Nationals senator Barry O'Sullivan reportedly owns 41 of these properties, Nationals MP David Gillespie 18 properties, Palmer United Party MP Clive Palmer 12 properties and Country Liberal Party MP Natasha Griggs 12 properties.

So why does multi-millionaire Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull insist that removal of the negative gearing would hurt mum and dad investors ie those with taxable income incomes at or below $80,000pa?

Well, the first point to remember is that people with genuine and 'unmassaged' taxable incomes below $80,000 per annum are more likely to be receiving negative gearing tax concessions worth less than $800 per year.

The second point is that Labor is only talking about removing the negatively gearing option from old housing stock that is not already negatively geared.

Current investment properties - no matter who they are owned by - will be exempt from proposed negative gearing changes.

Basically, removing negative gearing from old housing stock purchased after 30 June 2017 would predominately affect that section of society which seeks to aggressively avoid tax and accrue wealth by property speculation.

The simple answer to the question of why Malcolm Turnbull has taken his contrary stance is that this is a federal election year and the country is probably heading to the polls in less than six weeks - therefore both Liberal and National ministers, senators and MPs all need to keep their political donors, personal support bases and the property, banking and finance industries firmly on their side if they are to retain their seats and win the Abbott-Turnbull Government a second term in office.

I suspect that small-time investors did not genuinely factor into Turnbull’s decision to leave negative gearing arrangements well and truly alone, no matter what he argues between now and 2 July 2016.

After all, before this election year dawned negative gearing was open to debate in his own party. As the departing treasurer Joe Hockey demonstrated in Hansard on 21 October 2015 at Page 11952 when he appeared to be agreeing with an element in Labor’s draft affordable housing policy:

JOE HOCKEY: We should be wiser and more consistent on tax concessions to help pay for that. In particular, tax concessions on superannuation should be carefully pared back. In that framework, negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so that there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property. 

In an effort to paper over Turnbull Government unwillingness to look taxation inequities squarely in the eye, Liberal and Nationals politicians are apparently blaming ordinary Australians and their supposedly shaky levels of confidence, if The Saturday Paper of 30 April 2016 is any indication:

Coalition sources say concerns about the impact on consumer confidence of big changes to the tax system – along with the assessment that the boost to growth was too small to justify the upheaval – were behind the decision to abandon an increase in the goods and services tax. 

Similar concerns also fed into the decision not to fiddle with negative gearing.

The online newspaper went on to say:

The Saturday Paper has been told cabinet took its decision to retain negative gearing some weeks ago and that it was a political – and not an economic – move.

The policy decision was made to form part of the government’s armoury in the lead-up to the election…..

What do ordinary people think of negative gearing?

According to The Australia Institute less than 9 per cent of the Australian population owned investment properties in 2012, so it is unsurprising to find this online poll in The Daily Examiner (Clarence Valley) on 29 April 2016:

Conclusion?

Putting it quite frankly;  protecting current negative gearing tax concessions for an estimated less than 9 per cent of the population (whose cumulative tax minimisation/avoidance is by most accounts distorting the property market) at the expense of the remaining est. 91 per cent is bad taxation policy.

Favouring this less than 9 per cent, during a federal government term which saw first Abbott then Turnbull rip into the fabric of health, education and welfare safety nets protecting over 23 million people because tax revenue is not keeping pace with government spending, is mindlessly destructive politics.

A fairer approach to taxation concessions - particularly those on self-managed superannuation funds, investments and capital gains realized - which does not encourage aggressive tax minimisation/avoidance at the expense of the common good is not the bogeyman vested interests are making out.