Was there really a typical Australian in 2016? The Australian Bureau of Statistics thinks so

This month the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its first taste of data from the 2016 national census and rather bravely decided it should be a profile of The ‘Typical’ Australian.

I’m just wondering how reliable this profile is, given the number of people who either stated an intention to or admitted on social media platforms that they falsified some or all of the information they entered on the compulsory census form as a privacy safeguard against personal information data retention and the creation of longitudinal data every Australian.

As the exact number of deliberately falsified forms cannot be known this casts some doubt on census data available to statisticians.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census 2016, 11 April 2017:

     ______________________________________________________

The 'Typical' Australian Median Age 38 Sex (Mode) Female Country of Birth of Person (Mode) Australia Country of Birth of Parents (Mode) Both parents born in Australia Language Spoken at Home (Mode) English Ancestry 1st Response (Mode) English Social Marital Status (Mode) Married in a registered marriage Family Composition (Mode) Couple family with children Count of All Children in Family (Mode) Two children in family Highest Year of School Completed (Mode) Year 12 or equivalent Unpaid Domestic Work: Number of Hours (Mode) 5 to 14 hours Number of Motor Vehicles (Mode) Two vehicles Number of Bedrooms in Private Dwelling (Mode) Three bedrooms Tenure Type (Dwelling Count) (Mode) Owned with a mortgage Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people Median Age 23 Sex (Mode) Female Persons born overseas Median Age 44 Sex (Mode) Female Country of Birth of Person (Mode) England Language Spoken at Home (Mode) English Note: * The mode is the most commonly occurring value in a distribution. * Statements of typical age in this release are median values. The median is the middle value  in distribution when the values are arranged in ascending or descending order. * The most common response for each data item is calculated independently. For example, if  the 'typical' person is male and the 'typical' person does 5-14 hours of unpaid domestic work per  week, this does not imply that the 'typical' male does 5-14 hours of unpaid domestic work per week. * No detailed Census data will be issued with this information. Datasets for the above characteristics  will be released as part of the main release of 2016 Census data on Tuesday, 27 June 2017.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 April 2017:

The census preview showed that NSW has become more culturally diverse over the past decade.

The typical person in the state now has at least one parent born overseas. In 2006 and 2011, the typical person in NSW had both parents born in Australia. This change also suggests NSW is more culturally diverse than the rest of the nation – the "typical Australian" still has both parents born in Australia.

It's a diversity well masked by averages.

"In my social circles, yes, I guess I'd say I feel very typical but my work is a completely different place," Mrs Purvis says.

"Most of the people I work with speak another language. Their parents weren't born in Australia. A lot of them are younger people who don't have children … and are either still living at home with their parents or renting."

The preview also highlighted the shifting ancestry of the state's migrants. In 2016, the state's typical migrant was a Chinese-born female, aged 44. A decade ago, the typical migrant in NSW was a 45-year-old female born in England.

The state's typical Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person was a female aged 22.

Uncovering the building blocks of Donald Trump's Muslim Ban may be coming a step closer?

North Coast Voices readers may recall a November 2016 post mentioning then U.S. president-elect Donald J. Trump holding a transition meeting at one of his golf courses with Secretary of State for Kansas and counsel for the Immigration Law Reform Institute, Kris Korbach.

Carolyn Kaster / AP

Image enlarged, rotated and cropped

Much of the content of the cover page was clearly visible and included:

1. Update and reintroduce the NSEERS screening and tracking system (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) that was in place from 2002-2005. All aliens from high-risk areas are tracked.

2. Add extreme vetting questions for high-risk aliens: question them regarding support for Sharia law, jihad, equality of men and women, the United States Constitution.

3. Reduce intake of Syrian refugees to zero, using authority under 1980 Refugee Act.

This document was noticed by the plaintiffs in a case which has been before the U.S. District Court of Kansas since 18 February 2016, challenging the Kansas Documentary Proof of Citizenship (“DPOC”) law and a related regulation under the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) and the United States Constitution.

It has been included in a group of documents that the defendants now have to produce.

Excerpts from STEVEN WAYNE FISH, et al, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v KRIS KOBACH, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, Order:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: Defendant’s objection based on the scope of the Sixth Request is overruled. Defendant shall submit the two identified documents to the chambers of the undersigned by 5:00 p.m. on April 6, 2017. The submission may be made by e-mail, in person, or by a certified mail service.

Dated April 5, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.

James P. O’Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge

If the court decides that the document submitted is not covered by executive privilege the world may discover more than Trump would like about the planning behind his Executive Order 13769 otherwise known as the Muslim Ban.

UPDATE

Fish v Kobach was still before the court in October 2017 when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)  published this update, Unsealed Documents Show That Kris Kobach Is Dead Set on Suppressing the Right to Vote which contains a link to a Kobach deposition filed on 26 October 2017.

On 3 January 2018 President Donald Trump announced that the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity had been dissolved allegedly due to a refusal on the part of a number of states to supply the commission with voter registration details rather than an obvious failure to find evidence of voter fraud during the past seven months.

2018 also sees Trump's Muslim Ban still being contested before US courts.

Turnbull denies government is looking to cancel all welfare payments which are worth below $520.53 a year to a Centrelink recipient

Only 25 days until welfare recipients find out whether Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was telling the truth or a big fat political lie........

Images via @samanthamaiden

The Courier Mail, 19 March 2017:

WELFARE recipients would lose their concession cards and up to $49.10 a fortnight under secret budget savings costed by the Turnbull government.

A leaked document reveals the federal Government looked at scrapping all welfare payments below $20.02 a fortnight as part of the May budget……

“The objective of this proposal is to simplify administration of the payments system by setting a consistent floor below which payments would not be made, to avoid making small fortnightly payments,” the costings document said.

In its advice, the department warned the government those affected by the change would include “some who have experienced substantial reductions in payments as a result of recent policy changes” such as the ­assets test.

The document said the plan may cause “concern among affected age pension recipients”.

Despite costing the policy, Social Services Minister Christian Porter said the government had “no plans” for a minimum payment across all welfare ­categories.

Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) chief executive Dr Cassandra Goldie warned the government against welfare changes, saying Australia already has one of the most targeted system of ­income support.

She said the costed proposal would put pressure on “people who are trying to make ends meet”……

“Once again, this kind of proposal targets people on low and modest incomes to make savings,” Dr Goldie said.

“Pensioners, people on allowances and single parents stand to be affected if they are getting a small part of their overall income from income support.

The Australian, 19 March 2017:

The executive summary in the Department of Social Services costings document states: “As part of Budget Repair, it is proposed that from 1 July 2018, the minimum amount payable to social security payments recipients would be $20.02 a fortnight.

“If, after the application of the income and assets tests, a recipient’s notional fortnightly entitlement would be less than $20.02 but greater than $0, they will not receive a payment,” it says….

Mr Turnbull this morning issued a series of tweets, disputing that there would be any cut to aged pensions, but notably not addressing the claim that the proposal was costed.

“A report today that the government is cutting the aged pension is false and we outright reject it,” the Prime Minister tweeted. “I can assure all aged pensioners the measure reported will NOT be in the Budget.

“We assured the journalist too, but she insisted on writing the story. And sadly, I can also assure you that you can always rely on Bill Shorten to lie.”

Fair Work Commission 2017 Minimum Wage Review - heads workers lose, tails workers lose?

Fair Work Commission (FWC) website 10 April 2017:       

Every year an Expert Panel of the Fair Work Commission must review modern award minimum wages, and set a national minimum wage order for employees not covered by enterprise agreements or modern awards.

Each national minimum wage order made in an annual wage review comes into operation on 1 July in the next financial year, and continues in operation until the next national minimum wage order comes into operation.

The minimum wage hourly rate currently stands at $17.70 – and yes, we all probably know of an adult who is not even receiving this.

The  FWC Annual Wage Review 2016-17 (C2017/l) is being conducted by:

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

COMMISSIONER HAMPTON

MR COLE

PROFESSOR RICHARDSON

MR GIBBS,

MELBOURNE, 7 APRIL 2017

The 2017 final minimum wage decision will be handed down in sometime in June coming into effect on 1 July.

Here is the preliminary hearing dealing with transitional instruments and relevant to annual wage reviews and existing arrangements for employees with disability DECISION.

Shorter version of this decision is:

go away little low-skilled people and don’t expect a minimum wage rise larger than that which we gave you in 2013, 2014, 2015 or 2016 - if you are lucky it will be somewhere between 41-50 cents an hour for an estimated 196,300 low-paid workers;

as for workers with a significant disability - too hard, we’ll pass the buck.

Of course if Justice Iain Ross, Adam Hatcher et al listen to the business sector this year then these 196,300 workers will only receive about a 20 cents an hour increase.

Tossing a silver coin in the air right now……….

Turnbull Government dragging its heels on legislation to protect vulnerable workers?

The Age, 6 April 2017:

The peak body for the $150 billion franchise sector has launched an intense behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to convince MPs to water down Turnbull government legislation designed to prevent future worker exploitation scandals.

Spearheaded by former Liberal minister Bruce Billson, the Franchise Council of Australia is targeting the government, opposition and crossbenchers as it seeks to pressure Employment Minister Michaelia Cash into changing course on the bill.

It has also directed its members - which include 7-Eleven, Pizza Hut, Caltex and other companies accused of underpaying their workers - to bombard MPs with calls and letters about the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill.

The campaign comes as petrol giant United Petroleum became the latest company to be embroiled in an exploitation scandal, with the workplace regulator blasting it for rampant underpayment of workers across its franchise network. United Petroleum is not listed as a FCA member.

Mr Billson personally pressed the franchisor case with visits, calls and texts to MPs during the most recent parliamentary sitting fortnight in Canberra.

And in emails that have begun arriving in MP's inboxes in recent days, franchisors argue it is "unreasonable" to single out the franchising sector.

"The real issue here is that the risk of worker underpayment exists across the economy," the missives read.

The government's bill was introduced into Parliament last month but subsequently disappeared from the agenda, fuelling speculation from the Opposition that the council's campaign was succeeding.

However Senator Cash said the government remained "firmly committed to this policy"…..

The Franchise Council originally sought to kill off the bill entirely, warning it would lead to unavoidable unintended consequences.

It is now arguing for extensive amendments and is particularly concerned about the world-first "joint liability" provisions, claiming they will negatively impact investment, growth and employment.

It also wants courts and regulators to be explicitly forced to take a businesses size and resources into account, and further clarity about what "reasonable steps" actually means….

Franchises employ close to 500,000 people across 73,000 outlets across Australia and contribute up to 10 per cent of Australia's GDP.

The Age, 7 April 2017:

Shocking cases of wage fraud in the big brands of 7-Eleven, Domino's, Caltex and United Petroleum, ricochet across the country, prompting all sides of politics to promise new legislation to rein in systemic wage fraud.

Or so we thought.

In the weeks before the election the Turnbull government promised to change the law to make franchisors jointly responsible with their franchisees for workplace abuses if they have significant control or influence on the franchisee……

But the sector decided to have none of that.

Enter Bruce Billson, the former small business minister who became chairman of the franchise lobby group just before the last election. His role as chairman of the Franchise Council of Australia has been to tell anyone who will listen that the proposed laws are too draconian.

It was a smart move by the FCA. In one newspaper article Billson described the new laws as "a media-inspired regulatory misadventure to introduce unprecedented laws that fit up the franchisor for the Fair Work Act breaches of their franchisees where they have had no actual involvement".

The article worked itself up into a fervour, arguing that the laws represent an "existential threat" to the successful franchise model of enterprise.

The reality is convenience store giant 7-Eleven became embroiled in a systemic wage fraud scandal in August 2015. It shocked the nation. The business model was flawed and head office agreed to repay exploited workers. More franchisors should follow its lead.

The Protecting Vulnerable Workers Bill was designed to do just that. It was introduced on March 1, with the legislation listed on March 20.

But it quietly disappeared from the program last week with two other Fair Work Bills listed in its place, without explanation.

When it will be re-listed is anyone's guess but it is unlikely to be the next sitting as it will be dominated by the federal budget.

According to the Australian Parliament website the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017: "amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to: increase maximum civil penalties for certain serious contraventions of the Act; hold franchisors and holding companies responsible for certain contraventions of the Act by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them; clarify the prohibition on employers unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments in relation to the performance of work; provide the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) with evidence-gathering powers similar to those available to corporate regulators such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and prohibit the hindering or obstructing of the FWO and or an inspector in the performance or his or her functions or powers, or the giving of false or misleading information or documents.”

On 23 March 2017 this bill was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Submissions were invited but none are listed on the Inquiry’s webpage to date. Public hearings are being held in Canberra on Wednesday 12 April and in Sydney on Thursday 13 April 2017.

Those giving evidence before the Senate  inquiry are:

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)

Council of Small Business Australia (COSBOA)

Franchise Council of Australia

National Retailers Association

The Australian Industry Group (AIG)

McDonalds Australia

Department of Employment

Fair Work Ombudsman

Fair Work Commission

West Justice (Western Community Legal Centre)

Prof. Andrew Stewart

Gerard de Valence

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA)

One other to be announced

           

The Committee is due to report to Parliament on 9 May 2017.

Australian Dept. of Human Services and Centrelink sink to a new low

An automated Dept. of Human Services-Centrelink debt recovery system that launched an est. 230,000 investigations into client welfare paymentsin 2016-17, then used an error-prone “income averaging” method to decide that more than 133,000 clients had incurred a debt owed to Centrelink and sent them a bill which included a recovery fee.

If that wasn’t bad enough, around 43 per cent of these debts were immediately referred to heavy-handed private sector debt collectors working on commission.

During this entire debacle spokespersons for the Turnbull Government, the Department and Centrelink have attempted to mislead and misinform welfare clients, mainstream media and the general public.

Now we have been told that for months, perhaps years, the software program being used by Centrelink to run its access to online services portal left users vulnerable to phishing attacks which can steal their credentials including names, addresses, bank account details.

If this is yet another example of the innovative and agile government information technology Liberal and National Party MPs boast about - then gawd help us all!

Comment  on office of the Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge

By an IT consultant.......

Senate Standing Committees On Community Affairs, Inquiry Into Design, Scope, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Contracts Awarded And Implementation Associated With The Better Management Of The Social Welfare System Initiative, Excerpt from Submission 38:

That Victorian Legal Aid saw it necessary to update its advice to clients to warn them that their personal information is no longer safe with the Department is an extraordinary situation. This is not advice from tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. This is sober advice from legal professionals that a major part of the Australian Government cannot be trusted. I cannot stress enough how bad this is.

This behaviour from the Department has had a chilling effect, as I believe it was intended to. This chilling effect is not theoretical. I have personally spoken to individuals who have been reluctant to speak out against the Department, either to the media or to this Inquiry, because they fear repercussions from the Department as they are dependant in some way on income support.

At one point I discussed these matters with the office of the Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge, and was alarmed to discover that his office did not share my view that the Department has an asymmetric power advantage over individuals. They were of the view that if an individual is critical of the Department in the media, they become fair game.

The attitude from Mr Tudge’s office appeared to be one of a siege mentality where they were at a substantial disadvantage despite the vast array of resources at their disposal, particularly when compared to an individual reliant on income support. They felt that there had been a lot of false information being reported in the media and that it was time for them to “start fighting back.” This adversarial attitude, coupled with the astounding levels of secrecy from the Department, indicates major cultural issues in the Department and in the responsible Minister’s office.

The Department of Human Services exists to serve the humans in our society. The clue is in the name of the department. If individuals within the Department are unhappy with their role, then they should be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere.

By a Queen's Counsel.......

ABC News, 3 April 2017:

One of Australia's leading criminal barristers believes Human Services Minister Alan Tudge — or one of his staff — may have broken the law by supplying a journalist with a Centrelink client's personal information.

Robert Richter, a Queen's Counsel and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, believes the disclosure could lead to a prison sentence if it is tested beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court.

Mr Tudge has dismissed the legal advice, saying the disclosure was approved by his department's lawyers and was necessary to correct misleading public statements.

"I received clearance to release the information from the Chief Legal Counsel of the Department of Human Services, who is intimately across the details of the case and the relevant laws."

Mr Richter's advice was commissioned by Labor MP Linda Burney and his findings were based on public information, rather than inquiries with Mr Tudge's office.

In his opinion, it is "reasonably clear that either the Minister or one of his office's staff had committed an offence".

"We cannot presently put it higher without knowing precisely the content of the information that was disclosed and by whom it was disclosed," Mr Richter said……

See that furtive chap in the dark glasses? He's a negative gearer!

Just a reminder of the cost to the rest of us of the out-of-control negative gearing of investment properties.     

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2016:

The re-analysis of the 2013-14 tax data, the latest available, shows that each negative gearer claimed an average loss of $8722 per year. Seven out of 10 had income before deductions in the top or second-top tax bracket. The average amount of tax saved by each of the 1.2 million negative gearers was $2900 per year.

Spread over the remaining 11.7 million taxpayers, the average cost was $310 each. The total, $3.646 billion, is about as much as the government spent on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spent on assistance to indigenous Australians.

Haven't heard any negative gearer bragging about this around the barbeque lately.