The Morning After: a brief look at Turnbull Government's Budget 2017-18

ABC News, 9 May 2017:

* Most taxpayers will soon be paying more tax. The Medicare Levy is set to increase by 0.5 percentage points — from 2 to 2.5 per cent of taxable income — to help fund the $22 billion National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and avoid future budget black holes.

If it's passed by Parliament, the change will kick in on July 1, 2019.

* Welfare payments are being consolidated and some new welfare recipients will be subject to random drug testing. People deemed to be at risk of substance abuse will be required to undertake random saliva, urine or hair follicle tests for drugs in three locations from next year. Jobseekers who test positive to drugs will have their payments quarantined. About 450 people each year will be blocked from claiming the Disability Support Pension on the basis of drug and alcohol abuse alone.

Newstart and Sickness Allowance recipients will be moved to the new JobSeeker Payment, which pays the same. Jobseekers aged up to 49 will now have to undertake 50 hours of approved activity a fortnight. There will also be longer waiting periods for those with liquid assets.

* The Cashless debit card will be introduced in two new locations.

* Older people on welfare will lose out — the over-60s will now have to complete 10 hours of approved activity a fortnight, which can include volunteering.

* Superannuants, as the major shareholders in banks, could bear the brunt of the new levy faced by the five biggest financial institutions. Economists say any reduction in the banks' profits will ultimately impact the share price and therefore the banks' shareholders.

* University fees are on the rise. Students will have to pay an extra $2,000 to $3,600 for a four-year course. That's a fee increase of 1.8 per cent next year, and 7.5 per cent by 2022.

The income level at which you will have to start repaying your HECS debt will also be reduced. Currently, you only have to repay your debt when you earn over $55,000. From July next year, you'll have to repay it once you hit $42,000.

Universities are also facing a 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend. The only win for university students is the introduction of Commonwealth Supported Places in sub-bachelor programs like diplomas.

* People who use roll-your-own tobacco or smoke cigars might feel some pain after the budget. Those products are set to be taxed more, bringing them into line with the tax rates on cigarettes.

In addition, elsewhere the mainstream media reports:

* Negative gearing remains, a measure which allows investors such a large share of the housing market and which drives up housing costs. As lip service to community anger it will now disallow deductions for travel expenses related to inspecting, maintaining or collecting rent for residential rental property.

* Universities face a funding cut of est. $2.5 billion due to efficiency dividends.

* The national affordable housing agreement that provides $1.3 billion a year to the states and territories will be replaced with a new set of agreements, with no additional funding. These new agreements require states to deliver on housing supply targets and reform their planning systems. In particular the Turnbull Government will push to have planning regulations eased in 8 Western Sydney local government areas.

* The Turnbull Government will spend $374.2 million over the next two years creating an electronic health record by default for every Australian citizen. Enabling legislation has already been introduced into parliament.

* Cashless debit card trials in SA & WA will be extended until June 2018.

* 5,000 Jobseeker applicants will be identified for inclusion in the two-year drug testing trial by a data-driven profiling tool which identifies ‘relevant’ characteristics which indicate risk of substance abuse. These Jobseekers will also be subject to random Dept. Human Services appointments administered by a third-party contract supplier.

* Widow Allowance, Bereavement Allowance, Sickness Allowance and the Wife Pension will end in March 2020 and recipients moved onto Jobseeker allowance.

* People claiming welfare will have provide their tax file number to Centrelink on request to make it easier to access their income information.

* All information held by Dept. of Human Services will be allowed to be used in criminal proceedings as part of welfare fraud prosecution of an individual.

* Families on family tax benefit will lose 30 cents of their benefit for every dollar they earn over $94,316 from July 2018 due to an income taper test. This is likely to affect 100,000 families.

* $170m has been allocated to hold the divisive same sex marriage plebiscite in the face of the electorate’s clear preference for the matter to be decided by parliamentary vote.

* $4.68 million over five years will be cut from funding of onshore asylum seekers.

* The Turnbull Government has allocated $86.3m over four years to increase gas production and overcome state government and landholder opposition to the development of new domestic gas reserves.

* Net government debt is expected to stand at A$375.1 billion in 2018-19.

* The government credit limit has been raised to $600 million – that is the amount of debt it can incur via Commonwealth government securities issued.

Turnbull Government identifies a new source of revenue and there are no prizes for guessing from whom

Now that the Turnbull Government has embraced big data and begun collecting and collating information on all citizens across multiple agency platforms, there is a temptation to explore all the money-making potential of this data.

In March 2016 Treasurer Scott Morrison requested that the Productivity Commission:

Examine the benefits and costs of options for increasing availability of public sector data to other public sector agencies (including between the different levels of government), the private sector, research sector, academics and the community. Where there are clear benefits, recommend ways to increase and improve data linking and availability.

Upfront the aim to gather more information, limit ownership rights of citizens with regard to their own personal information and to sell-on data it collects on citizens is apparent, however it takes a few pages of the Commission’s report to discover that it probably also intends to make additional money out of the ordinary individuals who have been forced to supply government agencies with this same detailed data.

If the Commission recommendation (that a charge can levied by an agency when a citizen requests access to their data) is accepted then, by way of example, the door will have been opened to charge a cost to welfare recipients who request Centrelink statements of income required twice-yearly by social housing agencies, or who request their Basic Card transaction records for a specific period if there is a concern relating to a pension/benefit/allowance periodic payment or who request that data held in e-Health records be edited/corrected if it contains erroneous information.

Of course, this being a report whose terms of reference reflect the wishes of a right-wing federal government - the intention appears to be that all business or government agency charges to supply the individual with his or her own data will be set by those same businesses or agencies with little or no limit on the size these fees.

Australian Government Productivity Commission, Inquiry Report, Data Availability and Use: Overview & Recommendations, 31 March 2017:

Knowing when your data has been sold

One of the most potentially pernicious practices with data is the onward trade or disclosure of data to third parties, leaving consumers unaware of who knows what about them. The damage is often not so much in monetary terms but in the feeling of exploitation. This has great capacity to undermine social licence over time, if misused. Around half of all Australians surveyed by Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) have expressed concern about unknown organisations having obtained their personal information.

We do not propose that consumers be advised on each occasion data is traded or otherwise disclosed to a third party — the burden on businesses using contractors and outsourcing aspects of their operations could be enormous. Moreover, consumers in some areas could be inundated. But advising on which organisations data has been traded or disclosed to is a reasonable expectation of what is, after all, a joint right to data. You should surely be informed that something in which you now have a joint right is traded or disclosed to a third party.

Accordingly, entities should inform consumers about their data being traded or disclosed by including in their privacy policies, terms and conditions or on their websites, a list of parties to whom consumer data has been traded or otherwise disclosed over the past 12 months. Such lists should easily accessible to consumers and updated in a timely manner.

Consumers may also be at risk of loss of data access on the wind up of a firm. In such circumstances, consumers should always be advised of who now holds their data if it is transferred (as an asset) by the insolvency practitioner; or dataset owner if the data is separately sold.

Costs, timeliness and transition

We recognise that there may be costs to business associated with their adherence to the Right. There are a number of aspects of the recommendation that seek to ensure these are manageable.

First, as noted above, it is expected that industry sectors themselves would determine the scope of data to be transferred, subject to approval by the ACCC.

Second, businesses and government data holders would be able to charge for costs reasonably incurred in transferring consumer data. We fully expect that there may be a tiered approach to such charges, namely that some digital data that is of high quality, readily available, and clearly identifiable with a particular individual (such as transactions data), should be made available at low or no cost and at relatively short notice. Data stored on different (yet still digital) systems, or that is of lesser quality may require additional effort to provide in a usable format and therefore could attract a higher charge and take longer. This would be for data holders themselves to determine and explain.

Our intention in recommending the creation of this Right is to enhance consumer outcomes, as a contribution to sustaining community support for the role data will play in the future. Business and governments as data holders would need to adjust to this Right. Neither should have interests in creating a process that was so costly as to prohibit its take up by most if not all consumers, as this would be counter to enhancing consumer outcomes and may eventually undermine the quality of data collections.

To make the process manageable, it is surely preferable to offer the parties affected in incurring expense the chance to meet the intent of the Right, namely enabling consumers to use their data. This is likely to involve degrees of iteration and transition. But the clear expectation is that there would be transparency on the part of businesses and agencies. Over time as systems evolve, the time taken and the cost involved should fall as these processes become part of each firm growing its business or government agency keeping faith with its clients, and while volume of data transferred might reasonably be expected to grow.

Similarly, it is expected that businesses and government data holders themselves would likely reap benefits from system transformation and better data management, such that all of the costs would not reasonably fall to consumers availing themselves of the Right.

Support for consumers in exercising their new Right

The ACCC would be the primary government entity charged with ensuring consumers are able to transfer their data and exercise their new rights. Specifically, any charges levied by data holders for access, editing, copying and/or transferring of data should be monitored, with the methodology used by a data holder recorded, transparent (such as on the data holder’s web page) and reviewable on request by the ACCC.

While recourse for consumers not satisfied with the way their new Comprehensive Right can be exercised could primarily be through the ACCC, we recognise there are other bodies — industry-specific ombudsmen, State and Territory fair trading offices, and the OAIC — that may have industry-specific skills and knowledge to deal with particular complaints. There should be a ‘no wrong door’ approach to this. This means the key regulators need to implement systems that enable consumer concerns to be handled with efficacy — not leave the consumer straddling a regulator abyss.

While the changes proposed aim to enable consumers to exercise more control over the collection and use of their data, the onus remains on individuals to make responsible choices regarding to whom they provide personal information in the first instance and for what purposes.

Trump supporter's call to "kill the globalists" at CNN

A contributor on the unofficial version of Trump TV issued an on air call to "kill the globalists" at CNN https://t.co/BlCMwh4jjs pic.twitter.com/i0wyIh0H0O

— Media Matters (@mmfa) April 24, 2017

Meet the new 'welfare bashers' on the block

North Coast Voices readers who follow Twitter may have noticed the account @creatingparity which is pushing the idea of a national Cashless Debit Card (CDC) for welfare recipients which will severely restrict an individual's choice in how they bank and spend any fortnightly/periodic payment or lump sum – only allowing access to an inadequate amount of cash in hand for bus, rail, taxi  fares and purchases from stores/businesses which don't accept debit cards outright or only accept cards if their own minimum purchase price is reached.

Creating Parity

On 4 May 2017 Whois listed Neil Pope as the registrant contact person of creatingparity.org.au. Mr. Pope is Technology Manager at the Minderoo Foundation.

Minderoo Foundation Pty Ltd (formerly known as the Australian Children's Trust Pty Ltd) is a 15 year-old WA-based corporation purporting to benefit "The general Australian public" which is run by The Trustee for The Minderoo Foundation Trust (service address swells@minderoo.com.au) with the following people at the helm:

Andrew Forrest BA Chairman (billionaire architect of the cashless debit card aka "Healthy Welfare Card" proposal)

Nicola Forrest BA Chief Executive Officer

Grace Forrest BA Director

Herbert Elliott AC MBE Director

Tony Grist BCOM, FINSIA, AICD Director

The Honourable Malcolm McCusker AC CVO QC (millionaire former Governor of Western Australia)

Tonya McCusker Alternate Director

Allan Myers AO QC Director

According to the foundation In the 2015 financial year the Minderoo Foundation contributed over AU$28 million across its philanthropic focus areas.

In 2016 financial year it declared Total Comprehensive Income of $15.353 million and spent a total of $19,356,519 on projects and partnerships with Arts, Culture & Community, Forrest Research Foundation, GenerationOne, Thrive by Five and Walk Free.

Minderoo is Forrest's go to name when forming corporations and at last count he had at least fourteen active corporations and business names registered with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission which included that word. 

So why is this self-styled philanthropic organisation on Twitter indulging in the favourite far-right pastime of 'welfare bashing':

Creating Parity‏ @creatingparity  11:52 AM 4 May 2017

The CDC tackles the problem that current welfare policies are a systemic enabler of illicit drug use, alcohol abuse and free-range gambling.

@creatingparity also promotes www.cashlessdebitcard.org.au - a website created by the Minderoo Foundation as a propaganda vehicle for introduction of the cashless debit card.

So who is silvertail grazier and mining billionaire John Andrew Henry Forrest and why is he insisting that his grand plan to control the banking options and spending practices of literally millions of Australian citizens is one that the nation needs to have imposed on it by the federal government – and why is it this aim needs to be helped along by a privately funded, misleading advertising campaign?

Well, Wikipedia has a highly sanitized version of his life at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Forrest and the unauthorised biography Twiggy: The High-Stakes Life of Andrew Forrest apparently expands on his exploits – including allegedly using complex dealings with a charity he founded and controlled to reduce his tax liabilities.

However, the bottom line is that Non-Executive Chair of Fortescue Metals Group Ltd and principal shareholder Andrew 'Twiggy' Forrest is an extremely rich, privately educated, professed Christian with pronounced paternalistic tendencies and a strong sense of entitlement, who apparently believes the poor and vulnerable are a class of moral degenerates incapable of functioning without lifelong, punitive governmental control.

And his bully boy mission in life is to make sure that control is imposed.

And for some Budget 2017-18 early news........

@CathyWlcox1

Turnbull Government Budget 2017-18 when and where to find details

http://www.budget.gov.au/

@Treasury_AU

House of Representatives chamber documents

ABC News Budget 2017

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newschannel/

A chilling set of statistics the Turnbull Government tries hard to pretend it can't see

Sadly what these figures tell us is that the unequal status of women and their daughters in Australian society persists and there is still not enough political will (especially amongst members of the Liberal and National parties) to seriously address the issues.

Proof of this can be found in first the Abbott Government and now the Turnbull Government failing to adequately fund existing programs and new initiatives.

The Daily Telegraph, 29 April 2017:

RISING divorce rates, skyrocketing rents and the gender pay gap have combined to create a new homeless epidemic in which women in their 50s and 60s are the victims.

Social workers warn Australia is facing a generational “tsunami” of this older demographic in coming years as a lack of super, casual jobs and high-priced housing take their toll.

Charities are reporting increases of up to 44 per cent in the number of older women seeking homelessness services in the past five years and government stats are showing half a million women will fall into housing stress over the next two decades.

Those same organisations say the increasing number of older women arriving at Sydney’s homeless shelters have led “traditional” lives, been housewives or worked part time, but with the death of a partner or divorce, are shocked and bewildered to find themselves virtually on the streets.

Apart from later life divorces and sky-high rents, the predicted explosion in the population aged over 65, domestic violence, a lack of super and increased casual jobs have also been blamed for driving the phenomenon.

And along with the growth in lone-person households comes loneliness.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies research shows 26 per cent of people living alone report feeling lonely often, compared with 16 per cent of people living with others.

“They may have once owned a house, but lost it through relationship breakdown, domestic violence, business failure or sheer bad luck.”

Western Sydney Women co-founder and women’s business advocate Annabelle Daniel says there has been a “massive increase” in homelessness among older women.

“We’re talking about a generation who have been mums and housewives and may have had a divorce and now they have nothing. Or they have left a domestic violence situation, and now have nowhere to go.”……

The society’s NSW president Denis Walsh said: “We are hearing more and more stories from women over 50 who, after many years of loyal service, are made redundant and can no longer afford to pay high private rentals.”

Ageing and women’s advocate and former MP Susan Ryan says many of these women would not be eligible for public housing in NSW, yet faced “catastrophic” circumstances.

Years ago, more women retired with a house, Ms Ryan says, but that’s become less common, forcing them into expensive rental markets, where the average rental for a one-bedroom apartment outside the Sydney CBD is now $447 a week.

“The shocking aspect of this new face of poverty is that most of the women involved have not experienced long-term serious illness and have worked most of their lives, often in good, middle level jobs,” she said……

Destroy the Joint, Counting Dead Women, 29 April 2017

At least seventeen women in the first sixteen weeks of 2017 died violently in Australia.

All but one of these deaths were allegedly by the hands of men either belonging to the same family group as the women or thought to be known by the women.

Although this is six less deaths than recorded by Destroy the Joint in mid-April 2016, there are still too many women being brutally killed and too many being badly injured.

ABC News, 12 August 2015:

Brain Injury Australia executive officer Nick Rushworth said it was "a matter of current public attention that one woman is killed every week by her partner or ex-partner".

He said he now wanted to draw attention to those women who had to live with chronic brain injury.

"Three women are hospitalised each and every week in this country with a traumatic brain injury — the result of an assault by her partner or ex-partner," he said.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) & Flinders University, 19 April 2017:

Just over 20,000 people (20,111) were hospitalised in Australia in 2013–14 as a result of an assault, of which 31% (6,293) were women and girls. The overall rate of assault injury among women and girls was 56 cases per 100,000 population, compared with 121 for men. Rates of assault among women and girls were higher in age groups from about 15–19 to 50–54 years and the age group with the highest rate of assault was 30–34 years (113 cases per 100,000 population).

More than three-quarters (76%, or 4,788) of records of cases of assault against women and girls contained information about the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim. Where specific information about the perpetrator was available, ‘spouse or domestic partner’ was the most commonly reported perpetrator of assault among women and girls (59%, or 2,843 cases). ‘Parents’ (195 cases) and ‘other family members’ (726 cases) accounted for nearly half of the remaining cases where the type of perpetrator was specified.

Over half (59%, or 3,685) of all women and girls hospitalised due to assault were victims of an Assault by bodily force. A further quarter of all hospitalised assault cases against women and girls involved a blunt (17%, or 1,048 cases) or sharp object (9%, or 551 cases).

Open wounds (22%, or 1,400 cases), fractures (22%, or 1,375) and superficial injuries (19%, or 1,194) accounted for almost two-thirds of the types of assault injuries sustained by women and girls. For assaults by bodily force and involving sharp and blunt objects, the majority of injuries were to the head and neck area (63%, or 3,328).