Australian Federal Election 2016: Abbott shafted the frail aged in New South Wales, Turnbull ignores their predicament and now Baird has turned his back

The profits of aged care homes surged 40 per cent in the past year as operators cut hours of nursing care while claiming higher payments from the federal government for servicing more of the most frail patients. The earnings boom in the sector comes after the government introduced widespread reforms of aged care in 2014, including deregulating fees and lifting restrictions on the accommodation bond that nursing homes can levy on residents. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 2016]

In 2014 then Prime Minister Tony Abbott amended the C’wealth Aged Care Act 1997 with the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Act 2013.

The amendments impacted on the requirement under s104 of the NSW Public Health Act 2010 to have a registered nurse on duty at all times in a nursing home.  

The Baird Government initially grandfathered its Public Health Act until December 2015 and then awaited a report by the NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3’s parliamentary inquiry established on 25 June 2015.

On 29 October 2015 the Committee’s Final Report was tabled with the following recommendation:

On Friday 29 April 2016 at 3.15pm the NSW Baird Coalition Government responded to the Final Report’s 17 recommendations by washing its hands of any responsibility for staffing levels NSW nursing homes:

So three days before the 2016-17 federal budget details are revealed, possibly less than 32 days until the federal government enters caretaker mode ahead of a 2 July 2016 double dissolution federal election, and at the end of a working week, this Liberal-Nationals state government announces that it is very willing to place the lives of every frail aged resident in New South Wales nursing homes at significant risk.

Perhaps he and his government are hoping that the media will quickly lose interest and, that older voters and their families will forget that they will now be playing what could possibly be a cruel game of Russian roulette if they decide to spend their remaining years in aged care.

Tweets of the Week

From @Info_Aus:

From @srpeatling, 3 May 2016:

The Lower Clarence Cane Toad Outlier - coming to a venue near you!

Cane Toad photo found at news.com.au

EARTH MATTERS

Monday 16^th May  

The Lower Clarence Cane Toad Outlier - coming to a venue near you!

For over 20 years the small pocket of toads in the lower Clarence has been a source of frustration for many. Many people in Yamba and surrounds are resigned to sharing their properties with toads for the rest of their days. With some of the nation’s most significant wetlands only a few hops away there are a lot of reasons to contain this pest population.  

Nigel Blake who is employed by North Coast Local Land Services will chat about the ongoing toad busting challenge from his perspective as a government employee and fan of the swamps.

You’ll hear about the stories of those involved in the mission to keep the toads out of the homes, National Parks and high ecological value wetlands of the Clarence Floodplain- see the latest weapons, marvel at the haul of toads collected by volunteers and our local contractor, and take part in a brain storm on how to get more troops on the ground to tackle this menace. 

The presentation will be held in the Staffroom at Grafton Public School, Queen Street, Grafton from  

5.30 – 7 p.m.

There will be ample opportunity for questions and discussion.

Refreshments will follow.

For further information, contact Stan Mussared on 66449309

Organised by the

CLARENCE VALLEY CONSERVATION COALITION INC

Po Box 1015 Grafton NSW 2460

and the

CLARENCE ENVIRONMENT CENTRE

Skinner Street South Grafton NSW 2460

Multimillionarie Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's 'churn & burn' path for unemployed, low-skilled youth

Set out below are the official bare bones of the Youth Jobs PaTH  internships for unemployed 17-24 year olds that the Turnbull Government is offering from 1 April 2017.

What these bones both reveal and conceal is that in 2017-18 an est. 30,000 young people jobless for six months or more will be set to work between 15-25 hours a week for 4 to 12 weeks in mainly low skilled jobs in supermarkets, cafés,  newsagents or other businesses in order to receive an additional $100 a week in Centrelink benefits - while the erstwhile ‘employer’ pockets $1,000 upfront for so generously offering to accept free labour arranged through JobActive employment service providers.

Given the minimum wage is $17.29 per hour, a business would save $432.25 if the job seeker was employed as an intern for 25 hours a week rather than as a minimum wage employee. Interns would receive $68.45 per week below the minimum wage and not receive sick leave, superannuation and penalty rates.

With 'churn and burn' already suspected in existing JobActive Australia employment programs, what could possibly go wrong?

==============================================

The Government will provide $751.7 million over four years from 2016‑17 to establish a Youth Jobs PaTH program for young job seekers aged under 25 years to improve youth employment outcomes. The new pathway is designed to enhance young people's employability and provide up to 30,000 young people each year with real work experience. The pathway has three elements:

Industry‑endorsed pre‑employment training (Prepare) — from 1 April 2017, training for up to six weeks will be provided to develop basic employability skills, including those required to identify and secure sustainable employment.

Internship placements of up to twelve weeks (Trial) — from 1 April 2017, up to 30,000 internship placements will be offered each year to enable businesses and job seekers to trial their employment fit. Job seekers will receive a $200 fortnightly incentive payment and businesses will receive $1,000 upfront to host an intern. Placements will be voluntary and will be organised by employment services providers. Job seekers must be registered with jobactive, Disability Employment Services or Transition to Work, and have been in employment services for at least six months to be eligible for the internship program.

Youth Bonus wage subsidies (Hire) — from 1 January 2017, employers will receive a wage subsidy of up to $10,000 for job seekers under 25 years old with barriers to employment and will continue to receive up to $6,500 for the most job‑ready job seekers. Job seekers must be registered with 
jobactive orTransition to Work, and have been in employment services for at least six months for employers to be eligible for the wage subsidy. Funding for this component will be provided from within the existing funding for wage subsidies.

The program will include an employer mobilisation strategy to encourage participation in the initiative by all employers.

As part of this measure, the Government will also achieve savings of $204.2 million over four years. The design of wage subsidies available through jobactive will be improved to reduce red tape for employers, including by simplifying payments and enabling employers to choose more flexible payment arrangements.

==============================================

So how is the Coalition's 'supadupa' Jobactive Australia scheme going?

This is an excerpt from a Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Minister for Employment Senator Eric Abetz, MP for Cowper and Assistant Minister for Employment Luke Hartsuyker joint media release on 31 March 2015:

In 1998, the Howard Government introduced the Job Network and revolutionised the delivery of employment services to job seekers.

Unfortunately, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Government changed the employment services system to reward process over results and encourage training for training’s sake.

The system became mired in red tape, letting down job seekers and employers.

The new jobactive system will be focused on results and reward performance not process.

From 1 July 2015, 66 organisations will deliver one or more jobactive services to job seekers and employers across Australia.

There will be clearer incentives to ensure employment service providers are focused on better preparing job seekers to meet the needs of local employers and helping people to find and keep a job.

Service providers will no longer receive ‘job placement’ payments.

The rules around training have also been tightened to ensure that job seekers are not being sent to training for training’s sake, as is currently the case.

There will be less red tape so that providers can spend more time doing what they do best – helping job seekers find and keep a job.

The new employment services contract will also be extended from three years to five years.

A new regional loading for providers in selected regions will be introduced, recognising that labour market conditions vary across Australia.

The new model encourages young job seekers to take up a job and employers to take on new employees.

The Job Commitment Bonus programme will encourage young, long-term unemployed job seekers aged 18-30 to find and keep a job.

Setting up Jobactive Australia cost an est. $6.756 million according to the Dept. of Employment.

In the first two months it was operating (1 July 2015 to 30 September 2015) those approved service providers billed the Employment Fund General Account a total of $6.170 million predominately for professional services, training, clothing & presentation.

On 17 September 2015 Employment Minister Eric Abetz boasted that Jobactive Australia had reached 50,000 job placements since the start of the scheme. However he was careful not to qualify what comprised a 'placement'.

According to the Dept. of Employment Budget Statements 2015-16 Jobactive Australia was allocated $1.459 billion for that financial year. This budget expense is expected to rise to $1.778 billion in 2016-17, with total employment services expenses expected to total $1.932 billion.

For that amount of money the Abbott-Turnbull Government expects the Jobactive scheme to have placed 380,000 jobseekers in often wage-subsidised employment in 2015-16, at a cost of est.$2,500 per placement covering Employment Fund expenditure, service fees and outcome payments.

Unfortunately 68% of these placements are likely to last only 4 weeks before the person is unemployed once more. I suspect the percentage of temporary jobs is so high because this allows service providers to bill the government again and again for ‘helping’ those same job seekers find other temporary jobs once the initial placement dissolves into thin air and, via the $1.2 billion national wage subsidy pool potentially allows employers to 'churn' new employees on short term contacts so that employers receive financial benefits from the pool but employees are unemployed at contract's end.

None of the departmental employment sustainability measures encompass positions lasting longer than six months, so it is unclear as to whether there is a genuine expectation that job service providers will assist in finding permanent employment for anyone.

In July 2015 when Jobactive Australia commenced, the real national unemployment rate was probably running at est. 8.7% and by March 2016 it had climbed to est.11% according Roy Morgan Research vs ABS Employment Estimates (1992-2016).

In November 2013 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) seasonally adjusted combined unemployment and underemployment rate (underutilisation) was 13.5% and by February 2016 this combined rate was 14.2%.

In September 2013 the average number of weeks an unemployed person spent looking for a job was 39, with an est.134,400 people looking for 52 weeks and over.

Under the Abbott-Turnbull Government by March 2016 the average number of weeks had risen to 46.2, with an est. 181,700 people looking for 52 weeks and over. [Australian Bureau of Statistics, Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Mar 2016] 

In June 2014 an est. 123,800 15 to 24 year-olds were looking for full time or part-time work. By March 2016 the number of young people in this category had risen to 133,000. [ibid]

The Brotherhood of St. Laurence reported on 14 March 2016 that some rural and regional areas weregrappling with youth unemployment rates above 20 per cent.

Richmond-Tweed (including Tweed Heads, Byron Bay, Lismore, Mullumbimby) in the NSW Northern Rivers region had a youth unemployment rate of 14.5% in January 2015 and by January 2016 this rate had risen to 17.4% [Brotherhood of St Laurence, Australia’s Youth Unemployment Hotspots: Snapshot March 2016, p. 3]

Yet on 1 May 2016 Treasurer Scott Morrison was telling The Courier Mail that there had been 50,000 youth jobs created in the past 18 months across Australia. He also was offering no supporting proof for this bold statement covering November 2015 to April 2016 and, as neither ABS labour force nor job vacancy data tracks jobs growth it is hard to see where he finding his figures.

Somehow these statistics engender little confidence that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has taken a genuinely constructive approach to unemployment since winning government in September 2013 – despite that gung-ho media release announcing “jobactive services”.

Social media, advertising, trust and dollars

Excerpt from the Australian Newspaper History Group Newsletter No. 87 May 2016:

87.2.1 Reach and effectiveness of social media

British marketing and branding specialist Mark Ritson will give a series of lectures to the Australian Association of National Advertisers that will challenge some thinking about the reach and effectiveness of social media over established media platforms, such as print. Professor Ritson, who is head of Marketing at Melbourne Business School, will conduct four talks over six dates in Sydney and Melbourne, from 24 May. His first lecture is titled "Marketing Deconstructed: Communications – the death of the digital/traditional divide". Prof Ritson believes the likes of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are over-rated by some marketers, who choose to ignore the proven engagement of traditional media. Prof Ritson says the belief in social media as an advertising platform has become fashionable among some marketing executives who blindly denigrate television and print. To back his position on the strength of traditional platforms, Prof Ritson cited data from Nielsen's global trust in advertising survey published last September. The report showed 63 per cent of people trusted TV advertising, and 60 per cent trusted print ads, but only 46 per cent trusted ads served on social networks (TheNewspaperWorks, 18 March 2016).

87.2.2 Online advertising nears $6bn

Australian online advertising spending climbed to $5.9 billion in 2015, a 24 per cent increase from calendar year 2014, according to the latest Interactive Advertising Bureau/Pricewaterhouse Coopers Online Advertising Expenditure Report. The fourth quarter report is a significant result for the online advertising industry which has achieved double-digit growth of at least 20 per cent since 2010. The report examines advertising expenditure across five advertising categories, each of which experienced significant year on year growth:

 Mobile grew 81 per cent this year to $1.5 billion

 Video grew 75 per cent to $500 million

 General display grew 46 per cent to $2.1 billion

 Classifieds grew 22 per cent to $1.1 billion

 Search and directories grew 14 per cent to $2.8 billion.

Outgoing chief executive of the IAB Alice Manners said, "When the IAB first started recording online ad expenditure in 2003 it was at $1.3 billion and today we are poised to break the $6 billion barrier," she said.

The Turnbull Government and multinational tax avoidance

On 2 October 2014 the Australian Senate referred the matter of corporate tax avoidance and aggressive minimisation to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of June 2015 and, after repeated extensions, on 2 May 2016 the Senate granted the committee a further extension to report by 30 September 2016. 

The committee’s interim reports clearly indicated that the Australian taxation system was being gamed by foreign-based multinationals using aggressive tax practices such as avoidance of permanent establishment, excessive debt loading, aggressive transfer pricing, and the use of tax havens.

On 11 December 2015 the C’wealth Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law (MAAL) came into effect and, its provisions applied from 1 January 2016 to corporations with global annual incomes of AU$1 billion and over and consolidated groups with a parent entity having a global annual income of AU$1 billion and over.

MAAL was designed to counter the erosion of the Australian tax base by multinational entities using artificial or contrived arrangements to avoid a taxable presence in Australia, adding to anti-tax avoidance measures already found in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

However, less than three months later on 26 April 2016, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) discovered that some taxpayers are entering into artificial and contrived arrangements to avoid the application of the MAAL.

On 3 May 2016 the Turnbull Government released a consultation paper on its proposed Diverted Profits Tax (DPT).

The DPT will impose a 40 per cent tax rate on corporations and consolidated groups with global annual incomes in excess of AU$1 billion that reduce the tax paid on the profits generated in Australia by more than 20 per cent by diverting those profits to low tax jurisdictions. The government hopes to have this new law in place by 1 July 2017.

According to the consultation paper both the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law and the Diverted Profits Tax are based on Britain’s diverted profits tax introduced on 1 April 2015.

One can only hope that both these laws will be more effective than the U.K. law on which they are based. Because less than eight months after that law was introduced it was found to be ineffective in stopping large multinationals from diverting profits to low tax jurisdictions. As an example, Google with its U.K. advertising revenue held in low taxing Ireland had not had to make payments under the new diverted profits tax.

There is no way that multinationals operating in Australia will not mount legal challenges if the ATO attempts to impose penalties under provisions in MAAL and DPT. 

To some extent the loser will always be federal government revenue because, successful or otherwise, the corporate millions spent in legal fees fighting the tax man are apparently tax deductible.