Tuesday, 8 May 2018
Ballina not happy with second-rate NBN installation plans
The
Northern Star,
4 May 2018:
BALLINA'S deputy mayor
is calling on residents to speak out against about the NBNCo's plans to deliver
"second class technology" to local residents.
Cr Keith Williams said
he had been contacted by residents in East Ballina, Skennars Head and Lennox
Head to say they would be getting "inferior" fibre to the node NBN
connections.
But he said fibre to the
kerb should be the minimum installation standard across the shire.
"We know that fibre
to the node places more reliance on the copper network, limits potential speeds
and is more expensive to upgrade," Cr Williams said.
"This places a real
limit on the economic potential of the area, not just now, but potentially for
years to come.
"It makes no sense
whatsoever when you consider that all these areas are close to the coast and
more exposed to the effects of salt water.
"This is precisely
the areas where you want less reliance on copper."
Cr Williams said failure
to oppose NBN rollout plans now, risked leaving residents in these areas with a
second class NBN.
"NBN Co have
insisted this is not second class technology, being essentially the same
technology as fibre to the kerb," he said.
"In this they are
correct, but they avoid the central point.
"The greater
reliance on the old copper network means it is a second rate service, slower,
more prone to dropouts and more expensive to upgrade.
"From my enquiries
to date it seems there is no formal mechanism to seek a review of the NBN Co
rollout plans.
"The only way these
things change is by community pressure and adverse publicity.
"I'm asking
everyone in the area to go to the NBN website, check what the rollout plans are
for your house and if it says Fibre to the Node, let NBN Co know that it just
isn't good enough.
"You deserve
better."
Monday, 7 May 2018
Elder abuse and profit shifting go hand-in-hand in the age care sector?
Any
regular reader of online news would have seen mentions of elder abuse, neglect
and sub-standard health care over the years.
hellocaremail.com.au, 2017:
Elder abuse is a
critical issue in aged care homes, with thousands of cases reported to the
Health Department every year…. In 2016-2017, there were 2853 reports of
“reportable assaults’’ and 2463 allegations of “unreasonable use of force”.
Australian
Law Reform Commission, Elder Abuse (DP 83), Abuse
and neglect in aged care, 12 December 2016:
1.34 Stakeholders
reported many instances of abuse of people receiving aged care. These included
reports of abuse by paid care workers[55] and
other residents of care homes[56] as
well as by family members and/or appointed decision makers of care recipients.[57] For
example, Alzheimer’s Australia provided the following examples of physical and
emotional abuse:
When working as a PCA
[personal care assistant] in 2 high care units, I witnessed multiple, daily
examples of residents who were unable to communicate being abused including:
PCA telling resident to ‘die you f---ing old bitch!’ because she resisted being
bed bathed. Hoist lifting was always done by one PCA on their own not 2 as per
guidelines and time pressures meant PCAs often using considerable physical
force to get resistive people into hoists; resident not secured in hoist
dropped through and broke arm—died soon after; residents being slapped,
forcibly restrained and force-fed or not fed at all; resident with no relatives
never moved out of bed, frequently left alone for hours without attention;
residents belongings being stolen and food brought in by relatives eaten by
PCAs.[58]
1.35 The
ALRC also received reports of other forms of abuse, including sexual[59] and
financial abuse.[60] Restrictions
on movement[61] and
visitation[62] were
also reported. Many submissions also identified neglect of care recipients.[63]
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
15 October 2017:
Across NSW, 58 per cent
of aged care workers surveyed said they have not been able to provide the level
of care residents deserved because of budget cuts. Of those, 80 per cent said
staff shortages were the main barrier to providing proper care.
The
Courier-Mail,
19 April 2018:
PROFIT-HUNGRY aged care
companies are charging fat “administration fees” to skim up to 40 per cent of
government payments for in-home nursing care.
More than 100,000
elderly Australians are on a waiting list to receive as much as $50,000 a year
in a “homecare package” to pay for nursing, housekeeping or companionship
at home. But an investigation by The Courier-Mail has revealed
that some home-care companies are pocketing as much as $19,000 of the
taxpayer cash through hefty “administration” or “case management” fees.
The fees are billed on
top of hourly charges for home help – leaving clients with less cash
to spend on in-home care such as nursing. And if clients want to
switch to a cheaper provider, they are being slugged up to $1000 in “exit
fees”.
The Age, 3 May 2018:
Scandals, including a
recent national audit showing 600 aged-care homes failed in the past
five years to provide minimum standards, prompted a government review. The
Coalition, accepting a key recommendation, has ended the ridiculous practice of
alerting operators to spot checks. The review also urged the streamlining and
strengthening of the regulator.
If one does a
simple online search many of the big ‘for profit’ aged care providers are named
in relation to such abuse, neglect and sub-standard health care allegations.
Now in May
2018 the Tax Justice Network[1] is looking at aged care
provision from another angle. One which shows that the budgetary meanness which sees these big companies expect elderly residents to remain in sodden incontinence pads or live-off meagre meal rations occurs in spite of the millions in profit made on the back of billions in taxpayer funding of the age care sector.
It has
released A Tax Justice Network – Australia Report, TAX
AVOIDANCE BY
FOR-PROFIT AGED CARE COMPANIES: PROFIT SHIFTING ON PUBLIC FUNDS.
Sadly, this
report only confirms the fact that corporate greed runs rampant through all major
aspects of Australian life, including aged care.
Executive Summary, Background, p.5:
Older
people are a growing proportion of Australia’s population; in 2016, 15% (one in
seven) Australians were aged 65 years or older. By 2056 this percentage is
expected to grow to 22% (8.7 million).1 The need for aged care services is
increasing. Between 2015– 2016 almost 214,000 people entered aged care in Australia.
On average, older people in Australia spend three years in permanent
residential care, just over two years in home care, and one and a half months
in respite care.2 The Australian tax payer, via the Commonwealth Government
contributes around 75% of the expenditure in aged care in Australia, which is
around 96% of the total funding on aged care from Commonwealth and State
Governments. Government recurrent spending on aged care services in Australia
was $17.4 billion Australian dollars (AUD) in 2016- 2017, with residential aged
care services accounting for 69.3% ($12.1 billion AUD).3 Some of this funding
is provided as subsidies to aged care provider companies including those that
operate for profit. In 2018 the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
(ANMF), Australia’s largest national professional and industrial nursing and
midwifery organisation with over 268,500 members, commissioned the Tax Justice
Network - Australia to analyse possible tax avoidance by for-profit aged care
companies and to provide recommendations for improving transparency on
Government spending on for-profit aged care.
Key points from the
report
*
By number of beds, not-for-profit providers are the largest aged care provider
group in Australia (52% in 2013-2014), however there has been a rapid growth in
the size and spread of for-profit companies; Bupa, Opal, Regis and Estia are
the largest aged care providers nationally. If Japara and Allity are included,
these 6 for-profit companies operate over 20% of residential aged care beds in
Australia.
*
In the most recent year (mostly the 2017 financial year) the six largest
for-profit companies were given over $2.17 billion AUD via government
subsidies. This was 72% of their total revenue of over $3 billion. These
companies also reported profits of $210 million AUD (2016-2018).
*
Companies can use various accounting methods to avoid paying tax. One method is
when a company links (staples) two or more businesses (securities) they own
together, each security is treated separately for tax purposes to reduce the
amount of tax the company has to pay. Aged care companies are known to use this
method as well as other tax avoiding practices. Another practice is by
“renting” their aged care homes from themselves (one security rents to another)
or by providing loans between securities and shareholders.
*
The six largest for-profit aged care providers have enormous incomes and
profits:
* The largest company, BUPA, had
almost $7.5 billion in total income in Australia (2015-16) but paid only $105
million in tax on a taxable income of only $352 million.
* BUPA’s Australian aged care business
made over $663 million in 2017 and over 70% ($468 million) of this was from
government funding.
* Funding from government and resident
fees increased in 2017, but BUPA paid almost $3 million less to their employees
and suppliers.
* The second largest, Opal, had total
income of $527.2 million in 2015-16 but paid only $2.4 million in tax on a
taxable income of only $7.9 million.
* 76% ($441 million) was from government
funding in 2016.
*
Allity had total income of $315.6 million in 2015-16 and paid no tax.
* 67% ($224 million) of Allity’s
revenue was from government funding in 2016-17.
*
Regis, Estia, and Japara are listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)
but appear to be using methods to reduce the amount of tax they pay while
earning large profits from over $1 billion of government subsidies.
*
Family owned aged care companies (Arcare, TriCare, and Signature) receive
between $42-$160 million each in annual government subsidies but provide very
little public information on their operations and financial performance and may
use accounting methods to avoid paying tax.
* (All figures quoted above are in AUD)
*
The Australian Government and the Federal Opposition (the Australian Labor
Party) have proposed several ways to fix the problems with companies avoiding
tax by using trust structures and other methods but there are still loopholes.
*
It is difficult to get a detailed and complete picture of the full extent to
which these heavily subsidised aged care companies are avoiding paying as much
tax as they should, because Australian law is not currently strong enough to
ensure that their financial records and accounting practices are publicly
available and fully transparent.
Conclusion
The
six largest for-profit aged care providers in Australia received over $2.17
billion AUD in annual tax payer funded subsidies which provided after tax
profits of $210 million AUD. The actual operating profits were much larger.
These providers only paid around $154 million AUD in tax in 2015-16. Companies
that receive millions of tax payer dollars via Australian government subsidies
must be required by law to meet higher standards of transparency in financial
reports and be publicly accountable. The report calls upon the Government,
Opposition, and cross-bench Senators to work together to make laws to stop aged
care providers from avoiding the taxes they should pay and provide clear
records of their business dealings.
The
Tax Justice Network – Australia strongly supports recent government legislation
that has been introduced to close loopholes in the Multinational Anti-Avoidance
Law and government reforms to stapled structures. However, there is still a
need for additional transparency measures. The Tax Justice Network – Australia
also strongly supports a policy proposed by the Australian Labor Party to
introduce minimum taxation of discretionary trusts. These reform measures are
examined in more detail by this report in the section: Current Reform Measures.
This
analysis of tax payments and corporate structures of the largest for-profit
aged care companies provides clear evidence that simple common-sense reforms
are needed immediately to restore integrity to the tax system and to ensure
public accountability on billions of dollars in government spending.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE REPORT
Any
company that receives Commonwealth funds over $10 million in any year must file
complete audited annual financial statements with Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) in full compliance with all Australian Accounting
Standards and not be eligible for Reduced Disclosure Requirements. Public and
private companies must fully disclose all transactions between trusts or similar
parties that are part of stapled structures or similar corporate structures
where most or all income is earned from a related party and where operating
income is substantially reduced by lease and/or finance payments to related
parties with beneficial tax treatment.
Australia’s
Largest For-Profit Aged Care Companies
In
Australia, non-profit providers collectively operate a majority of residential
aged care beds. However, the market share of large for-profit providers
continues to grow rapidly. Likewise, the influence of for profit providers on
shaping government policy and influencing broader trends in the aged care
sector has never been greater. Ranked by the number of government allocated
residential aged care places (beds) in 2017, the six largest for-profit aged
care companies in Australia are; Bupa, Opal, Regis, Estia, Japara, and Allity.
Combined, they operate over 20% of all residential aged care beds in the
country. These companies continue to expand market share through new
developments and acquisitions. These companies are also expanding to provide
more retirement living and home care services, which allow access to additional
government funding. In the most recent financial year (2016-2017), these six
for-profit aged care companies combined received over $2.17 billion in
government subsidies.4 This made up 72% of their combined total revenue of over
$3 billion.5……
COMPANY
SNAPSHOT
Bupa:
A United Kingdom-based mutual insurance company with global operations
including aged care services. Australia is Bupa’s largest and most profitable
market.
Regis,
Estia, and Japara: Public aged care companies listed on the ASX.
Opal:
A private aged care company owned by subsidiaries of two listed companies, AMP
Capital and Singapore-based G.K. Goh.
Allity:
controlled by Archer Capital, an Australian private equity firm with large
foreign pension fund investors.
Arcare,
TriCare and Signature (formerly Innovative Care): three family-owned,
for-profit aged care companies.
NOTE:
1. The Tax Justice Network -
Australia is the Australian branch of the Tax Justice Network (TJN) and the
Global Alliance for Tax Justice. TJN is an independent organisation launched in
the British Houses of Parliament in March 2003. It is dedicated to high-level
research, analysis and advocacy in the field of tax and regulation. TJN works
to map, analyse and explain the role of taxation and the harmful impacts of tax
evasion, tax avoidance, tax competition and tax havens. TJN’s objective is to encourage
reform at the global and national levels.
Membership of the Network can be found here.
Labels:
aged care,
elder abuse,
government funding,
human rights,
multinationals,
taxation
Early end to NSW North Coast shark nets trial and Berejiklian Government urged not to reinstate the controversial strategy.
Echo
NetDaily, 3
May 2018:
Local Greens MP Tamara
Smith and animal rights activists have welcomed the early end to the North
Coast shark nets trial and urged the State Government not to reinstate the
controversial strategy.
NSW Primary Industries
Minister Niall Blair announced on Wednesday that the nets would begin coming
out immediately owing to the early start of the whale migration season in the
region.
The migration officially
started on May 1, a month earlier than last year.
Ms Smith said on
Thursday that the cessation of the trial should be permanent, and that other
measures should be used to enhance community safety.
‘There is no scientific
evidence and little community support for putting shark nets back in the waters
off the North Coast,’ Ms Smith said in a press release.
‘The data from the North
Coast Shark Net Trial is yet more evidence that the shark netting program in
NSW does little to keep people safe in the water but takes a terrible toll on
local marine life.
‘I support shark
spotting by trained personnel such as Shark Watch volunteers or Surf Life
Savers, using binoculars and drones.’
According to
departmental statistics from the trial, just two of the 132 marine creatures
caught in the nets between November 23, 2017 and March 31 this year was a
target shark.
Among the other animals
caught were a small number of threatened species, including Green Turtles and
Great Hammerhead sharks, as well as 23 rays.
Forty-nine of the
animals caught in the nets were killed…..
If any reader has a mind to support the permanent removal of these shark nets they can write, phone or email:
NSW Premier Hon. Gladys Berejiklian
GPO Box 5341
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SYDNEY NSW 2001
PH (02) 8574 5000
Email Contact the Premier
NSW Deputy Premier Hon. John Barilaro
GPO Box 5341
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SYDNEY NSW 2001
PH (02) 8574 5150
NSW Minister for the Environment Gabrielle Upton
GPO Box 5341
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SYDNEY NSW 2001
PH (02) 8574 6107
Sunday, 6 May 2018
"We don't have old buildings, we have old trees": the fight to save a 200 year-old Lennox Head fig tree continues
Echo
NetDaily, 30 April
2018:
Ballina
Council has offered a temporary reprieve for the 200 year old Moreton Bay fig
tree in Castle Drive Lennox Head. Photo Jenny Grinlington.
Ballina’s Deputy Mayor,
Keith Williams, has thanked locals campaigning to save a
200-year-old Fig Tree at Lennox Head.
He said community
pressure had contributed to a rethink from the mayor that resulted in a last
minute rescission motion to temporarily save the tree while further
investigation is undertaken.
The motion signed by
Mayor David Wright, Cr Williams and Cr Meehan calls an Extraordinary Meeting to
consider further technical reports on the causes of cracking in an adjoining
house.
‘A number of highly
qualified arborists have written to Council urging further investigation of the
tree roots and claiming that soil moisture issues under the house are a more
likely source of the damage than the tree. This warrants further investigation,
said Cr Williams.
‘This tree predates the
arrival of European settlers in the area. Apart from items such as centuries
old fish traps, these ancient trees are some of the most significant heritage
items in the shire. They should be protected on that basis.’
‘I think all councillors
are mindful of the fact that our insurer has accepted a claim for damage and
denied future liability unless this tree is removed. But if that assessment is
wrong, we should challenge it on behalf of our community’, said Cr Williams.
He told Echonetdaily it
was ‘a difficult issue – we’ve been placed in a difficult position with our
insurer. They don’t value heritage. This in my view this is a significant item
of heritage – we don’t have old buildings, we have old trees.
While the date of the
extraordinary meeting is still to be determined by the general manager, Cr
Williams said he expects it to be ‘within next couple of weeks’.....
Labels:
Ballina Shire Council,
trees
Problems with the Murray-Darling Basin plan just keep mounting and the NSW Northern Rivers needs to make sure these problems don't become ours
When it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin river systems there is never any really good news - we go from reports of town water shortages, pictures of permanently dry river beds and allegations of widespread water theft to the possibility of a fundamental legal
error in the master plan circa 2012.
The
Guardian, 2
May 2018:
One of Australia’s
foremost lawyers has issued an extraordinary warning that the Murray-Darling
basin plan is likely to be unlawful because the authority overseeing it made a
fundamental legal error when it set the original 2,750-gigalitre water recovery
target in 2012.
Bret Walker QC, who
chairs the South Australian royal
commission into the Murray-Darling basin plan, issued the warning
in a
second issues paper. He also spelled out the far-reaching implications of
the plan being unlawful.
Not only does it mean
that the original water recovery target of 2,750GL was likely to have been set
too low to deliver the environmental goal of the Water Act and
could be challenged in court, but it also means that amendments to the plan now
being debated by the Senate are likely to be invalid as well.
These include a
plan to trim 70GL from the northern basin water recovery targets and a suite
of projects, known as the sustainable
diversion limit adjustment projects, which would be funded in lieu of recovering
605GL in the southern basin.
Both are being strongly
criticised by scientists and environmentalists because they believe that they
further undercut the environmental outcomes of the plan.
The Murray-Darling
Basin Authority (MDBA) says it has relied on the best available
science in recommending the changes.
The new uncertainty over
the validity of the amendments will make it difficult for crossbenchers to
support them as the Coalition government has urged.
Walker has provided a
roadmap for environmental groups or an individual affected to challenge the
plan in court.
At the heart of his
advice is his view that the Water Act directs the MDBA to ensure environmental
outcomes are achieved when it set the environmentally sustainable level of take
(ESLT) from the river system. This is the flipside of setting the water
recovery target.
But instead of
considering the environmental outcomes only, the MDBA applied a triple bottom
line approach, giving equal weight to social and economic impacts of water
recovery.
“The MDBA also appears
to have approached the word ‘compromise’ in the definition of ESLT in a manner
involving compromise between environmental, social and economic outcomes rather
than in relation to the concept of ‘endangering’ or ‘putting in danger’
environmental criteria such as key environmental assets, and key ecosystem
functions,” the SA royal commission said.
“The commissioner is inclined to take the view
that this approach to the word ‘compromise’ in s4 of the Water Act is not
maintainable, or alternatively that he is presently unable to see how it is
maintainable,” the paper says.
“There is also evidence
that recovering an amount of water for the environment of 2,750GL does not, as
a matter of fact, represent an ESLT in accordance with the definition of that
term under the Water Act.”
Walker pointed to
numerous reports, including a 2011 CSIRO report which said modelling based on a
2,800GL recovery target “does not meet several of the specified hydrological
and ecological targets”.
There is also evidence
that the MDBA received legal advice on more than one occasion, consistent with
the commissioner’s concerns.
The issue of
water sustainability in the Murray-Darling Basin affects not just those living
in the basin and the economies of the four states this large river system runs
through – it also affects the bottom line of the national economy and those
east coast regions which will be pressured to dam and divert water to the Basin
if its rivers continue to collapse.
One such
region is the Northern Rivers of New South Wales and in particular the Clarence
River catchment area and the Clarence Valley Local Government Area.
Almost every
year for the past two decades there have been calls to dam and divert the
Clarence River – either north into south-east Queensland or west over the
ranges into the NSW section of the Murray Darling Basin.
The latest
call came last month on 18 April from Toowoomba Regional Council in south-east Queensland:
The response came on 24 April via NBN News and it was a firm NO:
NO TO CLARENCE WATER DIVERSION via @nbnnews https://t.co/w6DcTaIt4M— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) May 1, 2018
However, because
communities in the Murray-Darling Basin have for generations refused to face
the fact that they are living beyond the limits of long-term water
sustainability and successive federal governments have mismanaged water policy
and policy implementation, such calls will continue.
These calls for water from other catchments to be piped into the Basin or into SE Queensland are not based on scientific evidence or sound economic principles.
They are based on an emotional response to fact that politicians and local communities looking at environmental degradation and water shortages on a daily basis are still afraid to admit that they no longer have the amount of river and groundwater needed to maintain their way of life and, are wanting some form of primitive magic to occur.
These calls for water from other catchments to be piped into the Basin or into SE Queensland are not based on scientific evidence or sound economic principles.
They are based on an emotional response to fact that politicians and local communities looking at environmental degradation and water shortages on a daily basis are still afraid to admit that they no longer have the amount of river and groundwater needed to maintain their way of life and, are wanting some form of primitive magic to occur.
The Clarence
River system is the most attractive first option for those would-be water
raiders, but experience has shown the Northern Rivers region that once a formal
investigation is announced all our major rivers on the NSW North Coast become
vulnerable as the terms of reference are wide.
The next National General Assembly of Local
Government (NGA) runs from 7-20
June 2018.
If Toowoombah
Regional Council’s motion is placed on the assembly agenda it is highly likely
that a number of councils in the Murray-Darling Basin will announce their support of the proposal.
Northern Rivers
communities need to watch this NGA closely.
Saturday, 5 May 2018
Tweet of the Week
You can tell how visionless a party is by how many Australian flags they set up behind them on a stage. Victoria: you have a total vision vacuum with this clown by the looks of it. pic.twitter.com/TfULJm9XGj— Nathan Lee (@NathanLee) April 29, 2018
Quote of the Week
“One
of the distinguishing traits of the troll-style politics that dominates
Trump-era conservatism is the utter disregard for any values outside of winning
at all costs and, perhaps even more importantly, defeating liberals. Decency,
political norms and truth itself are all treated as acceptable casualties in
the endless quest to fuck with the left.
But while many of
the excesses of the right seem new, the reality is that the Trumpian right is
just the outgrowth from roots laid years, even decades ago, in the American
right. The racism and sexism, the conspiracy theories, the harping about
political correctness? All of it goes back decades and is only exploding out of
control now because the right wing political infrastructure has let these foul ideologies
and stupid ideas flourish for so long.” [Author Amanda Marcotte, Troll
Nation: How The Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set On Rat-F*cking
Liberals, America, and Truth Itself, 2018]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)