Abbott Government's mindless obeisance to foreign-owned multinational commercial fishing corporations has had the inevitable result

The 100% Dutch-owned subsidiary of Parlevliet & Van der Plas Beheer B.V. the Australian registered Seafish Tasmania and its super trawler hired from the parent company, the now rebranded Geelong Star, have been found to have committed the inevitable environmental crime associated with large factory ships – killing prohibited species as part of their by-catch.

The Abbott Government would have been well aware that classifying commercial fishing trawlers on length of vessel and not freezer storage capacity would lead to adverse environmental impacts but, in its mindless rejection of any measure put in place by the former federal Labor government, Tony Abbott & Co have shown that far-right ideology is more important that preserving sustainable food resources and biodiversity of marine life for the benefit of present and future Australian citizens.

The Guardian, 3 May 2015:

The Australian environment minister, Greg Hunt, has condemned as “unacceptable and outrageous” the killing of a dozen dolphins and seals by a factory fishing trawler.

The Geelong Star, a ship that environmental groups and some MPs wanted banned from fishing Australian waters, voluntarily returned to its home port after catching four dolphins and two seals on its second local outing.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) had previously said the ship would face stricter controls after it also caught and killed four dolphins and two seals in its nets on its first trip.

Hunt released a statement on Sunday saying he was “absolutely appalled” by the news, ABC reported.

Hunt said he would write to the AFMA and to Tasmanian senator Richard Colbeck, the parliamentary secretary for fisheries and a strong defender of the trawler’s methods.

The Geelong Star has factory freezer capabilities but escapes a permanent ban on so-called super trawlers because at 95 metres it is under the 130-metre size limit.

Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson said the government should cancel the trawler’s fishing licence and management plan immediately.

“They’ve failed twice. The regulator has failed in its job to protect dolphins and seals and who knows whatever other marine life and the boat needs to go home,” he told ABC.

Colbeck released his own statement saying the further deaths of marine mammals was “very bad news and is not welcomed by anyone”.

He said the decision of operators Seafish Tasmania to “voluntarily return to port is appreciated”….

Basic building blocks of the Australian superannuation rort

Superannuation is generally taxed more concessionally than some other forms of saving, such as bank deposits, in recognition of the fact that superannuation saving cannot be accessed until retirement.

 * Pre-tax contributions of up to $30,000 pa ($35,000 for those aged 50 or over) into superannuation funds are taxed at a flat rate of 15 per cent in the fund.

 * It is also possible to make post-tax contributions of up to $180,000 per annum.

 * Superannuation fund earnings in the accumulation phase are taxed at 15 per cent, while superannuation fund assets that support a retirement income stream are tax exempt.

 * Most superannuation benefits to those aged over 60 are tax exempt. [Intergenerational Report 2015]

The quote above lays out the basic outline of concessional arrangements attached to the national mandatory superannuation scheme.

How does it work in real life?

In the 2012-13 financial year 9.3 million employers contributed $54 billion to their employees' superannuation funds and 1.7 million employees contributed $27.8 billion to their superannuation funds.

Of these 1.7 million employees, 571,575 individuals earn less than $37,001 a year. Currently the federal government contributes an annual lump sum payment (equal to 15 per cent of an individual's annual superannuation contributions) to a low income employee's super fund. However, from 1 July 2017 the lump sum payment will cease and the annual superannuation contributions of these same employees will be taxed at the rate of 15 per cent.

In 2012-13 there were also 183,975 non-employee individuals (or individuals receiving only a small proportion of income from work as an employee), with income derived from a personal business/self-employment, investments, government pensions/allowances, super, partnership/trust distributions, and/or a foreign source, who made personal superannuation contributions totalling $2.9 billion. These super contributions could be claimed as tax deductions.

Of these ‘non-employees’, 26,980 had annual taxable incomes of over $180,000 and made personal superannuation contributions totalling $603.07 million. Which equates to income of $22,352 per person per annum on which little or no tax is paid.

When will the Abbott Government address the imbalance in the national superannuation scheme, where the working poor are penalised and wealthy rewarded for their participation?

Some of Australia's richer citizens in 2012-13, not content with legally rorting the superannuation scheme, took their sense of entitlement to levels undreamed of by ordinary workers, as this observation in The Sydney Morning Herald on 30 April 2015 demonstrates:

Fifty-five of Australia's highest earners paid no income tax at all during 2012-13, not even the Medicare levy.

All earning at least $1 million, they managed to write their taxable incomes down to below the $18,200 tax-free threshold, although for most the exercise was expensive.

Tax statistics released Wednesday reveal that 40 of them claimed an extraordinary $42.5 million for the "cost of managing tax affairs" meaning they each paid an average of $1 million to an adviser prepared to help to bring down their taxable income, which is itself a tax deduction.

Between them they reported earning $129.5 million, an average of $2.3 million. By the time their accountants had finished with them they reported losing a combined $12.8 million.

The implausibility of someone earning $2.3 million and paying half of it to a tax adviser suggests some may be understating​ their earnings.

A tax office spokeswoman said there were "legitimate reasons why a wealthy taxpayer might not pay tax in a particular financial year".

These included tax losses through poor business performance, tax losses in previous years which could be carried forward indefinitely and dividend imputation credits.

She said the majority of wealthy Australians paid the right amount of tax.

Most of the 55 were either ungenerous or modest when it came to giving, claiming nothing for gifts. However 10 of the 55 gave between them $10.4 million, also suggesting their incomes were higher than reported. The gifts may not have all gone to charities. The Tax Office also allows deductions for gifts to political parties.

Fifteen were unsuccessful in business, losing $2.7 million between them. They carried over previous losses of $22.5 million.

They were more successful when it came to investing, receiving $8.8 million between them in so-called 'franked' dividends, and only $839,000 in unfranked dividends. Franked dividends allow the recipients to cut their taxable incomes to take account of company tax already paid.

They were also surprisingly successful landlords. Whereas 1.3 million Australian landlords claimed between them losses of $12 billion, the 15 of the 55 millionaires who rented out properties made a combined $1.6 million dollars……

Australian Prime Minister Abbott nine days before Budget Night 2015

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott

It is looking suspiciously like childcare subsidies are only guaranteed long enough to take the Abbott Government through the next federal election campaign and, those older Australians whose sole income is the age pension will still be (perhaps somewhat more creatively) diddled out of adequate annual pension rises.

Of course, being Abbott, the means-tested childcare-preschool subsidy will now be paid directly to the business operating the centre and comes with an activity test for the child's mother. Show us you are working/training/studying or your child misses out.

Extract from Joint Doorstop Interview, Jordan Springs, Western Sydney on 3 May 2015:

QUESTION:

Prime Minister, why is the funding for preschools only for the next two years?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, we want to ensure that there is certainty going forward. Obviously, we have a federation reform whitepaper and that will look at the question of who is going to take primary responsibility for preschool going forward. The important thing, as far as this Government is concerned, is that every Australian four year old should have access to preschool and we are ensuring that for the next two years, that will be the case, and the difference between this Government and our predecessor is that our predecessor government made the commitment that everyone should have access – but it didn't make the money available. It wasn't in the contingency reserve. The money wasn't in the forward estimates. We have provided the money to ensure that every Australian four year old will continue to get a guarantee of access to preschool.

QUESTION:

In terms of changes to the childcare subsidies, why is the Government moving to give the subsidies to childcare providers and how will that make families better off?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, what we want to do is to ensure that childcare is affordable and accessible. We want to have a better childcare system. We’ve made this commitment to the Australian people at the election. We said that, first of all, we'd have a Productivity Commission report and then we would put the appropriate policy in place to implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission. Now, we've taken those recommendations. We've subjected them to pretty fair consultation and scrutiny and we'll have some very good announcements to make in the Budget which I think the Australian people will welcome.

QUESTION:

Why do parents earning over $250,000 still qualify for a subsidy under this plan?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I'm not going to get into the detail of what will be in our package, but I do want to say that it is important that childcare is seen not as welfare but as a way of strengthening our economy, because the more people we can get who are contributing, well, the better for everyone. The more people that we can have participating in the economy, if that's their choice, the better for everyone because, obviously, there's the fulfilment which comes from being able to combine work and family, and then there's the general strengthening of the economy that you get when you have as many people as possible in the workforce. So, I think it is a very good announcement that we'll be making soon and it is going to enhance the quality of our society as well as the strength of our economy.

QUESTION:

In terms of the pension, why you have abandoned those changes to the pension indexation?

PRIME MINISTER:

I’m not going to comment on what is just speculation. You wouldn't expect me to comment on pre-Budget speculation, except to say that I’m absolutely determined that the measures in this Budget will be responsible and fair. That's the thing about this Budget: I am absolutely convinced that on Budget night it will be seen as responsible, measured and fair. It is a Budget which is going to deliver jobs, growth and opportunity. It's a Budget which is going to make Australians feel more optimistic and confident about their future. We are a great country. We have fundamental strengths. Yes, our economy was damaged by six years of debt and deficit under Labor and in some respects it is a long hard road back, but we are well and truly embarked on the road back. Our country is coming back. Our economy is strengthening and I think people will be more confident and optimistic on Budget night.

* Photograph of Tony Abbott found at Google Images

Another step down the path to fascism in Abbott's Australia

In Abbott’s Australia indirect government control of media and investigative journalists - through fear of arrest, trial and gaol sentence – is becoming entrenched through federal legislation.

The Guardian 27 April 2015:

Journalists who report on serious wrongdoing by Australian intelligence officers may still face prosecution under new national security laws, according to the commonwealth director of public prosecutions (CDPP).

Australia’s acting independent national security legislation monitor, Roger Gyles QC, is considering the impact of a new section inserted into the Asio Act in 2014 – section 35P – which would criminalise disclosure of information that relates to a “special intelligence operation”.

Gyles was scheduled to hold hearings on Monday as part of his inquiry into the laws, which were passed by the federal parliament with Labor’s support in 2014.

The new section has sparked concerns among news organisations, human rights groups and some opposition politicians. Journalists and whistleblowers may face jail for up to 10 years if they breach the disclosure offence.

There is no public interest consideration or defence that would allow a journalist to report on intelligence matters. But for a prosecution to be initiated by the CDPP, a public interest test must still be applied. The federal government relied in part on this check to reassure journalists who were critical of the new laws.

Unusually, the CDPP outlines two hypothetical scenarios that reporters might be placed in to consider whether it would proceed with a prosecution in a submission to Gyles’s inquiry.

In one scenario a journalist receives information about “serious wrongdoing by a commonwealth officer in the course of a special intelligence operation”. The journalist contacts Asio, which refuses to confirm or deny whether a special intelligence operation is under way, and eventually the journalist publishes the information.

While the CDPP indicates the public interest considerations would not favour a prosecution, it indicates that it might still consider the possibility.

“This scenario may well be one in which the public interest considerations either favour no prosecution taking place, or are ‘finely balanced’. As stated above the matters that will be taken into account in assessing whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest will be different in every matter,” the CDPP submission said.

The admission is likely to raise further concerns about the potential chilling effect the disclosure laws could have on the media.

ABC The Drum 17 March 2015:

The Coalition's push to save and search all of our metadata for at least two years will have a chilling effect on press freedom.

Journalists' sources will be compromised by metadata collection. Without the ability to interact with confidential sources without the government finding out, journalists may as well give the game away.

Even with the yet-unseen government amendments proposed yesterday, after negotiations with the Opposition, Australia is going in the opposite direction of our two closest allies the United States and the UK.

Requiring a warrant before searching journalists' metadata sounds like a modicum of protection. The public discussion around it indicates it will just be a "tick and flick" approach and won't give journalists or media organisations the right to argue their case.

The warrants will be obtained in secret and media organisations will be none the wiser.