Just because it is beautiful......(4)

Purple  Hairstreak (Atlides halesus) Butterfly Eggs On Mistletoe

by David Millard

A hint of what the Australian Federal Police know concerning the Ashby-Brough affair

What Senate Estimates tells us this month: 

* Liberal MP for Fisher Mal Brough has been formally interviewed by federal police at least once; 

* hundreds of thousands of emails, documents and images have been seized from the homes of Mal Brough, James Ashby, Karen Doane and elsewhere; 

* the official charge being considered is unauthorised disclosure¹; 

* federal police have read “Ashbygate” by Ross Jones; 

* the Kingston Hotel in Canberra is well-known in Senate circles; and

* LNP Senator Ian Macdonald has no understanding of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates (Public) Tuesday, 9 February 2016:

[Labor, Victoria] Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I would like to ask some questions about the status of the AFP investigation into the theft of the official diary of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. I appreciate the sensitivity of the matter, as the investigation obviously remains on foot, so I will be attempting to ask some fairly factual questions, but please let me know if you think it is inappropriate, given that the investigation is on foot. It has been reported publicly that the AFP raided the homes of Mr Brough, Mr Ashby and Karen Doane, looking for evidence in relation to the theft of the former Speaker's diary. Are those reports accurate?

[Australian Federal Police Commissioner] Mr Colvin: The way that you have characterised them, Senator, I guess is relevant to the investigation. We are making an investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of and access to the diary. I would draw a distinction between that and theft. I just want to be very careful about what we say.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. So you do not think it is appropriate to discuss at this stage whether you have raided the homes of those people?

[Federal Attorney-General] Senator Brandis: Senator Collins, I think the point Mr Colvin was making to you is that there is no investigation into theft.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay. What language would you like to use, Mr Colvin?

Mr Colvin: We refer to it as unauthorised disclosure.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: All right, we will use that language and I will ask the same question.

Mr Colvin: Yes. I am not trying to be picky on that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is fine.

Mr Colvin: In relation to matters that we have or have not done, some aspects of this investigation are already in the public arena, and I am happy to confirm matters that are in the public arena. But, to the extent that matters are not, it is not our normal course, as you would appreciate, to talk about what we may be doing. Deputy Commissioner Close has the details.

[Deputy Commissioner, Operations] Ms L Close: Senator, I can confirm that the search warrants were executed on premises for the three people that you have just mentioned.

Senator COLLINS: Are there any other search warrants that are fitting in with Mr Colvin's point and that are a matter of the public record?

Ms L Close: No, there are none on the public record.

Senator COLLINS: Am I correct in concluding that you do not want to discuss any that may have occurred but are not on the public record?

Ms L Close: That is correct.

Senator COLLINS: Okay. What is the current status of the investigation into Mr Brough's conduct?

Ms L Close: The investigation continues. As you can understand, we are relying heavily on electronic records, which we have obtained from various entities. Because of the complex nature of this matter we have also had to obtain legal opinion in respect of search warrants and other avenues of inquiry. Just to demonstrate, some of the investigation time frames are quite lengthy, because we have recovered, to date, in excess of 7,600 emails, 141,000 documents, 116,000-plus images and thousands of email attachments. That just highlights for you the extent of the investigation we are undertaking. 

Senator COLLINS: Are you able to tell me when you expect to be able to finalise the investigation?

Ms L Close: No.

Senator COLLINS: Does all that material you just referred to cover the book Ashbygate?

Ms L Close: No.

Mr Colvin: No.

Senator COLLINS: What are the possible outcomes of the investigation? What will happen when you conclude all of that work?

Ms L Close: We then make an assessment as to whether we believe there is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to have a prima facie case to put to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The Commonwealth DPP will then make a determination of whether there are any charges to be laid in respect of any people.

Senator COLLINS: And at this point in time you are not able to advise me of the time frame on which you think you will conclude your review of the material?

Ms L Close: Not at this point, no. 
Mr Colvin: Further to that, there are aspects of all investigations, and this one is no different, that are out of the control of the organisation. We are in the hands of processes, and sometimes individuals, that mean that we cannot give you a time frame with any degree of certainty.

Senator COLLINS: Mr Brough has remarked that he is willing to be interviewed by the AFP in relation to the criminal accusations that have been made against him. Has that interview occurred?

Ms L Close: We have spoken to Mr Brough, and that is on public record.

Senator COLLINS: When was that, and where did the interview occur?

Mr Colvin: I think in fairness to Mr Brough, if he wishes to make some of that material public then he may do that. We have not said that publicly and I do not think it is appropriate. We would not normally make that public. That is a matter for Mr Brough, if he wishes to.

Senator COLLINS: When you say, though, that you have spoken to Mr Brough, is that what would be regarded as an interview? Or have you a need for further interview?

Ms L Close: It really will depend on the analysis of all the material that I outlined to you earlier as to whether we need another interview or not.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Okay, but in terms of you looking at all the material before you, it was not just simply a preliminary discussion.

Ms L Close: We have had preliminary discussions—

[Nationals, Queensland] Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, could I just raise a point of order? I am struggling to see the relevance of this in the context of estimates. I would understand if the senator were pursuing details about the cost of these investigations, the volume of resources and the like. But we have quite literally hundreds of investigations underway at the moment that would have a political interest, and the trade movement and the like. We could spend the next week here examining the AFP's involvement. I just do not understand the relevance, and I would like you just to consider it and perhaps rule on it.

[LNP Queensland, Senator Ian Macdonald] CHAIR: It is relevant to the expenditure on wages and equipment.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, if the questions were that, I would understand that, but that is not—

CHAIR: Well, that is not how they are being used, I guess, but I would allow it at this time.

Senator Brandis: I think the point is that Mr Colvin and Deputy Commissioner Close have made it clear that they cannot go beyond that which is on the public record, and that which is on the public record is already on the public record. So, I just wonder what it profits us to ask questions to which we already know the answer, since only matters to which we do already know the answers are appropriate objects of inquiry.

CHAIR: It is really up to the senator to use her time in whatever way she seems fit. As you say, even if the information is already there, if the senator wants to keep asking the same questions and gets the same answer, that is really up to her.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Thank you.

Mr Colvin: In answer to your question: I do not wish to discuss investigational strategies. Whether we decide to re-speak to Mr Brough in a formal or informal capacity, they are all matters that my investigators will make a judgement on depending on where the investigation takes them, and it is not something I wish to discuss openly.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, and that was not really the point of my question. I was simply seeking to establish whether we were both talking about an interview, which is what Mr Brough had referred to, as opposed to some preliminary conversation to establishment.

Mr Colvin: I will leave that for Mr Brough to talk about, not us.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It has been reported that Mr Ashby has offered to provide the AFP with a copy of the document which he says proves that Wyatt Roy instructed him to steal the former Speaker's official diary. For example on 1 December—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That is an emotively embedded question when the commissioner has made it very clear to you that there is no investigation on foot regarding theft. At least keep your language in accordance with the fact that have been presented to you in the evidence.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I suggest you go back to the buffet.

CHAIR: You have made your point of order on that one.

Senator Brandis: Mr Chairman, on the same point, if I may—and I know Senator Collins is a serial offender here—but if words are to be attributed to someone then the precise words they use, not a paraphrase of them, has to be put to the witness. On numerous occasions, in this forum and in the chamber, it has been discovered after Senator Collins has put a paraphrase of words to a senator or a witness that what she has put to the senator or the witness was not an accurate rendering of what they said.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: That is simply untrue.

Senator Brandis: On numerous occasions I have caught you out doing this.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, that is untrue. On numerous occasions you have practised malapropism, because you do not know how to apply words that you think are big and attractive. Senator Brandis: If you are going to attribute words which bear a very, very important insinuation against somebody's reputation then in fairness both to the witness and to the person whom you are trying to smear—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: 'Smear' now? Stop imputing improper motives.

Senator Brandis: please put the direct speech to the witness or not at all.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Your behaviour is outrageous. I really do not know how Mr Turnbull puts up with you.

CHAIR: A point of order was raised and I am ruling on it. There is no point of order—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, there is not. That is right.

CHAIR: but I am sure Commissioner Colvin will take the warning and will, himself, be cautious in how he answers the questions, as he always is, of course.

[Labor, Tasmania] Senator BILYK: It is all very draining now.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I mentioned that it had been reported and I was about, if I had been given one extra moment of oxygen, to quote that report. If Senator Brandis wants to take issue with the quotation he is encouraged to take issue with the ABC.

Senator Brandis: Then you will be kind enough to provide us with the source from which you are quoting.

CHAIR: The ABC.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Certainly, which I just did.

CHAIR: That is a reliable source. We can all rest assured now that this will be accurate.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: On 1 December last year the ABC reported that: Mr Ashby has also claimed today that Assistant Minister for Innovation Wyatt Roy advised him to copy Mr Slipper's diary. CHAIR: And the question is?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: No, I am going to go through the full quote, because I do not want to— Senator Brandis: Are you reading from the report or are you reading from words attributed in direct speech to Mr Ashby?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I am about to go to words directly attributed to Mr Ashby now, in The Australian newspaper.

Senator Brandis: In direct speech?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Chair, can we have a copy of this while this is happening so we can keep it in context and so we can follow the senator's efforts here?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Sure. In quotation of Mr Ashby: "Wyatt said he didn't really know how to advise me and said he wanted to speak with Christopher Pyne," Mr Ashby told The Australian newspaper. Again in quotation of Mr Ashby: "He then called me back and I went and saw him in his office and he presented me a sheet of paper with instructions of what I should do, and one of the first steps was to get a copy of the office diary." Still in quotation: 'That is how I came to be printing off a copy of the digital diary. It was evidence in my case.' That is the end of the quote. This is still from the ABC, though: Mr Ashby confirmed the quotes on Macquarie Radio this morning and said the sheet of paper would have Mr Roy's fingerprints on it. Finally, referring to Mr Ashby: 'And Wyatt's never denied giving me any assistance in the beginning,' he said. Following that public reporting, has Mr Ashby provided a copy of this set of written instructions to the AFP?

Mr Colvin: I am not aware of that particular report. I know it is not necessarily relevant to your question, I just think it would be very unwise for me to give an indication to the committee while this matter is still ongoing. That is directly relevant to the ongoing nature of the investigation, and it is just not something I am prepared to talk about publicly.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Hear, hear.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: I appreciate that. Senator O'Sullivan, maybe you were still down at the King O when I started these questions—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You do not know where I was, and your comments are offensive and you should keep them to yourself.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: We do know where you were.

CHAIR: Senator Collins, that is an offensive comment on a Senate colleague. I will not ask you to withdraw—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: For the record, I was not at the Kingston Hotel.

CHAIR: You do not have to say where you were.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, but I am just sick of this.

CHAIR: You should desist from that, though, because otherwise people will say you are always permanently drunk, Senator Collins, and that does not get us anywhere.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: They are welcome to say that. It would not have much credibility.

CHAIR: Well what you are saying about Senate colleagues does not have much credibility either.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The issue is that I said at the outset of this discussion, and Mr Colvin remembers that because of the response he just made—

CHAIR: You made a snide comment to another senator, which should not happen. Go on with your question.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: If you defended me as adequately as you are now him, obviously people would not feel encouraged to respond to poor behaviour. I understand that Mr Colvin does not want to respond to that question, and I accept his explanation of that. My next question—

Senator Brandis: I think Mr Colvin said it would not be appropriate to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Yes, and I said that I accept that.

Senator Brandis: You said that he said he did not want to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Will you stop being such a pedant? Seriously.

Senator Brandis: I think there is a difference.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: It is very late at night, and your behaviour is very draining.

Senator Brandis: There is no reluctance on the part of these witnesses to respond to questions to which they feel they can respond appropriately. When the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police says that it is not a question to which he can appropriately respond, then that is the ground on which the question has not been answered—not because he does not want to provide the committee with all the information he appropriately can.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Senator Brandis, no one implying any differently. You are just making this tedious.

CHAIR: Let us move on. Your time has finished, but we can come back to you, Senator Collins. I will go to Senator O'Sullivan, but, before I do, as part of Senator O'Sullivan's time, could I just ask if the offence being considered or investigated is unauthorised disclosure? Is that right?

Mr Colvin: The circumstances that we are investigating is the unauthorised disclosure of the former speaker's diary. The offence that we may end up considering as the most appropriate—if we even get to that point—is still to be determined.

CHAIR: It is what?

Mr Colvin: It is still to be determined. We have a range of—

CHAIR: There is no technical offence of unauthorised disclosure, is there? That is not a criminal offence.

Mr Colvin: There are offences of unauthorised disclosure.

CHAIR: Where do they rate in the scale of offences? Are they like murder? Terrorism? Rape? Robbery?

Mr Colvin: Chair, that is very difficult for me to answer, because it depends upon the circumstances—for example, are there aggravated circumstances. All offences have penalties that the court can impose, and, clearly, unauthorised disclosure has a very different penalty to what a terrorism offence would.

CHAIR: There was a lot of discussion earlier about the cost and your resources and all this, and I was absolutely gobsmacked to hear Ms Close say that you have investigated thousands and thousands of emails and documents. I can well appreciate the questions on the use of your resources, when you are clearly involved in a huge amount of effort. Is someone, or are several people, going through every one of those emails, every one of those documents, with a magnifying glass, considering each aspect?

Ms L Close: Yes, we have investigators looking at every document that we have seized in relation to this matter.

CHAIR: That would be a very time-consuming exercise, I take it.

Ms L Close: Yes.

CHAIR: For something that I would have thought—and you can tell me I am wrong—in the course of criminal activities that the AFP look at would rank pretty low: unauthorised disclosure.

Mr Colvin: There are a few things there to consider. One is: the court will make determinations in terms of penalty of what gravity of offence the court may consider if somebody is convicted. But there are broader considerations for the AFP than just the penalty of the offence. It is the circumstances and the public interest in the matter. I am probably better off just leaving it at that.

Senator Brandis: I think, if I do not misunderstand what is being said, that it is actually not the offence of unauthorised disclosure; it is the offence of procuring another person to have unauthorised access. I do not think it is being suggested that Mr Brough himself had unauthorised access. I think it is being suggested by some that Mr Brough encouraged somebody else to have unauthorised access.

CHAIR: That would take it to being an even lesser matter, but I take Commissioner Colvin's point and will not pursue that. I hesitate to ask for this on notice, but can someone tell me the penalties that have been imposed on the last successful convictions for procuring someone to have unauthorised disclosure?

[Australian Greens, Tasmania] Senator McKim interjecting—

CHAIR: It is wasting resources, is my point, when we are dealing with criminals, thugs, rapists, murderers, and we have the AFP looking through hundreds of thousands of documents and emails for an offence which, even on conviction, I guess would get a good behaviour bond or something. That would be my experience of how lenient the courts are these days. How difficult would it be to get me some examples of the last time someone was convicted for procuring someone else to make an unauthorised disclosure? Would that be difficult to find?

Ms L Close: I am not aware of the last matter where a person was convicted, so we will have to take that on notice and do some research.

CHAIR: I do not want you to do too much research, because I for one appreciate that you have far more important things to do. But if it is easy to get the last couple of times there were convictions—if there have ever been any in the history of the Criminal Code of the Commonwealth—I would be interested to see when they were, what the penalty was and how many there were. With that, I will pass to Senator O'Sullivan.

1. Section 70—disclosure ofinformation by Commonwealth officers

3.91       Section 70 of the Crimes Act is the only provision remaining in pt VI of the Crimes Act.[125] A version of s 70 was included in the original Crimes Act in 1914, and was based on a provision of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).[126] This original version of s 70 was repealed and replaced in 1960 to extend the prohibition on the unauthorised disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers to include former Commonwealth officers.[127] While minor amendments have been made to s 70 on three occasions since 1960,[128] the substance of the provision has not changed since that time.

3.92       The effect of s 70 is to apply criminal sanctions to the breach of secrecy obligations by public officials.[129] Section 70 provides that:

(1)  A person who, being a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, except to some person to whom he or she is authorized to publish or communicate it, any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer, and which it is his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)  A person who, having been a Commonwealth officer, publishes or communicates, without lawful authority or excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him or her), any fact or document which came to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of having been a Commonwealth officer, and which, at the time when he or she ceased to be a Commonwealth officer, it was his or her duty not to disclose, shall be guilty of an offence....

What kind of information is protected?

3.100   Section 70 of the Crimes Act makes it an offence for a Commonwealth officer to disclose ‘any fact or document which comes to his or her knowledge, or into his or her possession, by virtue of being a Commonwealth officer’. On its face, s 70 could apply to the disclosure of any information regardless of its nature or sensitivity.

An example of conviction for unauthorised disclosure: R v Scerba (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 359 (5 November 2015)

Decision:

1.                   Michael Scerba be convicted of unauthorised disclosure of information by a Commonwealth officer. 2.                   Michael Scerba be sentenced to twelve months imprisonment to commence today, 5 November 2015. 3.                   On 4 February 2016, after serving three months imprisonment, and upon giving security in the sum of $500, Michael Scerba be released on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 4.                   Pursuant to s 23ZD of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and upon application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the following items, seized by members of the AFP during the execution of a search warrant at [redacted], Richardson in the ACT on 21 October 2012, be forfeited to the Commonwealth: a.                   All hard drives contained in the black ‘ANTEC’ computer tower (item no 001 recorded on property seizure record A228052); and b.                  5 x shards/pieces of compact disc (item no MS/ET/45 recorded on property seizure record A228055)

Commissioner For Chilled Martinis wants to enter federal politics

“The work we have done at the Commission is very important. The role of Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner is to start these conversations. It is up to the Parliament to finish them. It’s also the role of the Parliament to deal with many other issues that I am passionate about.

That’s why I am announcing today my intention to resign the office of Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner effective from Friday, 19 February to seek preselection to be the Liberal Party’s candidate for the Federal Electorate of Goldstein.

This is a tough decision for me, but the right one. The people of Goldstein deserve someone who will fight for them.

This is not a time to be timid. It’s a time to be bold. Our country faces big challenges: debt and deficits, high taxes and youth unemployment, to name a few.

We need people in Parliament who are prepared to take responsibility, make tough decisions and work to fix problems. I am ready to take that responsibility to protect this nation’s promise for future generations.

I’m a born and bred Melbournian. I’ve lived in Melbourne all my life; I’ve been an active Liberal Party member for nearly two decades. I’ve lived in Goldstein. I have served on the Board of the local hospital. Much of my family lives in Goldstein.

Under Liberal Party rules I can offer no further comment on seeking preselection.”  Tim Wilson

I suppose it had to happen. Finding the world was taking as much notice of him as Human Rights Commissioner as it did when he worked for the far-right Institute of Public Affairs, Tim Wilson has decided to remedy this situation by standing for Liberal Party pre-selection in the safe seat of Goldstein currently held by retiring former Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb.

If he wins preselection then he will have all the free publicity he craves for the remainder of the year and, if the voters in Goldstein are silly enough to elect him then I confidently predict he will be constantly in all our faces.

Pushing his unfettered free markets-rich is what God meant conservative men to be-private property comes before all propaganda for all he's worth.

Twitter in a more optimistic mood has an alternative mapped out for Tim if he loses preselection: Then Freedom Boy can spin his way back into the IPA and endless textual analysis of "The Virtue of Selfishness"  [Mark Pesce]

While a senior Liberal was less than impressed with his shenannigans: The former Liberal leader also criticised the outgoing Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who did a round of media interviews yesterday, confirming his plan to resign at the end of the week to nominate for preselection in Goldstein.

Party rules do not allow candidates to promote themselves publicly.

Mr Wilson was careful to focus on the job he was leaving, although he did speak about why he wanted to enter Parliament.

He also spoke about his view that the Parliament, rather than a plebiscite, should decide on same-sex marriage — contrary to the Government's position.

Mr Kennett accused him of "playing on a technicality" for taking the opportunity to do interviews, before he rejoins the Liberal Party and lodges his nomination.

"I think that is probably unfair to the others and not in the spirit of the rules that govern the way members operate," Mr Kennett said.

Clarence Valley Council: do as we say, not as we do

Clarence Valley residents have the magnifying glasses out and are playing a bit of a guessing game with the three illegally parked cars in the photo below.

I’m guessing two councillors and one general manager are in the mix.

The Clarence Forum can be found here.

Master Builders Association rather predictably bites back at Labor's negative gearing policy

 Labor's policy.....

ABC News, 13 February 2016:

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has unveiled plans to change negative gearing rules for property purchases, in a move touted to "put the great Australian dream back within reach for the middle and working class".

Key points:

* Labor government would restrict negative gearing to "newly constructed homes"

* Capital gains tax discount reduced from 50 per cent to 25 per cent

* Both measures would come into force from July 2017

* All existing investments under the scheme would be fully "grandfathered" and protected against changes

With just months to go until a federal election is called, Mr Shorten used his speech to the NSW ALP conference to rally the party faithful for the battle ahead.

He said if Labor wins the election, from July next year negative gearing would only be available on newly-constructed homes.

The changes under a Shorten government would not affect the tax arrangements for investment properties purchased before July 2017.

Under costings released from the Parliamentary Budget Office, the measures could save the budget $32.1 billion over 10 years once they come into force.

Builders' snark.....

Medianet Release 13 February 2016:

“Labor’s policy announcement on negative gearing has squarely driven a marker not only in the housing debate but also in the broader debate about tax reform and the values we hold as a community,” Wilhelm Harnisch, CEO of Master Builders Australia said.

“Master Builders Australia is committed to tackling the underlying challenges that impact on housing affordability so that home ownership and the housing rental markets remain a cornerstone of Australia’s way of life. The ALP’S new policy position will be controversial by moving away from a long held bipartisan approach since the 1990s after the failed negative gearing policy experiment,” he said. 

“The quarantining of negative gearing to newly constructed residential buildings has certain attractions for the residential building sector but has a sting in the tail by reducing the Capital Gains Tax discount from 50% to 25%,” Wilhelm Harnisch said.

“Our concern is that Labor’s policy is a populist response to those who demonise housing and negative gearing as primary cause of our fiscal and social problems. Investing in new private rental housing is not evil,” he said.

“The private rental market is a critical supplement to the public and social housing rental sectors.

The private rental market also provides a valuable role in supplementing the retirement income strategy for mum and dads on low and middle incomes. Housing is an asset class just as shares and just as shares, interest deductibility in investment housing should remain as a tax feature,” he said.

“The ALP policy leaves important questions unanswered including how to overcome structural impediments to increasing housing supply which is the only effective way to truly tackle housing affordability for both homeowners and renters ” Wilhelm Harnisch said.

“Master Builders has called for the Federal Government to work with State and Territory Governments to use federal national competition policy payments for individually targeted and permanent structural reforms that can remove the current unnecessary blockages that inflate the cost of housing,” he said.

“Master Builders will continue its positive engagement with the ALP on this important area of public policy,” Wilhelm Harnisch said.

“But what we are looking for from both major parties in the lead up to the Federal Election are policies that add to economic growth, create jobs and enhances the positive role that housing can play and that will at the same time improve the ability of mums and dads make their contribution by providing rental housing and at the same time look after their own retirement strategies,” Wilhelm Harnisch said. 

Who negatively gears investment properties.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 February 2015:

Exclusive analysis of the costs and take-up of negative gearing, the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, and superannuation tax concessions, shows the combined revenue loss - or tax expenditure - will amount to some $50 billion annually within three years, although under 7 per cent of that benefit will flow to the under 30s.

The data-crunching has been undertaken by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling using its own database of Australian households as well as the latest information released by the Australian Tax Office.

It was commissioned by the progressive think tank, The Australia Institute.

Executive Director Ben Oquist said the findings showed conclusively that keeping the current concession regime in place is neither in the national interest nor fair.

"In total, these concessions are worth more than $37 billion, yet the young receive only $2.4 billion of their value," he said.

"The capital gains tax discount and negative gearing are particularly unfair for the young, with the under 30s taking approximately 1 per cent of the benefit of tax breaks worth $7.7 billion a year and climbing.

The NATSEM research also shows that 73 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount, flows to the top 10 per cent of income earners.

All up, it says the under 30s share of the three concessions combined is just 6.4 per cent, whereas those over 50 years of age receive 53 per cent of the benefits. That works out to $2.4 billion versus $19 billion for those over 50 - many of whom are already well-off......

ABC The Drum, 24 September 2014:

When I crunched the numbers, over 60,000 people with investment properties whose taxable income was $80,000 or less had total incomes above that $80,000 threshold ...

The very reason that many housing investors fall below the $80,000 threshold is because they have used negative gearing to slash their tax bill...

Graphs found at  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/janda-the-myth-of-mum-and-dad-negative-gearers/5766724

Job losses on NSW North Coast signals Essential Energy privatisation move by Baird Government?

Even though Essential Energy was not included in Baird Government plans to privatize state electricity supply assets, the company's decision to cut its workforce and enter into an enterprise agreement which pares down its wages bill is looking less like a response to changed financial circumstances and more like an effort to make this business a more attractive privatization prize should the NSW government change its mind.

The Daily Examiner 15 February 2016:

ELECTRICITY provider Essential Energy wants to cut 800 jobs from regional New South Wales by 2018 under a draft workplace agreement.

The attempt, which also calls for unlimited job cuts after June 2018, predictably failed to inspire union delegates to sign on the dotted line.

The proposal comes after Essential Energy had announced in September there would be 60 job cuts on the North Coast, including 15 in Grafton and nine each in Lismore and Coffs Harbour.

That followed the Australian Energy Regulator's decision to cut the company's revenue by 30%.

Electrical Trades Union secretary Steve Butler said more than 1000 Essential Energy jobs had been slashed since 2013.

"Enterprise bargaining generally means that if you give something up you get something in return but it seems Essential Energy management think it's a one-way street," he said.

"Not only is Essential Energy wanting to sack people but they want to slash working conditions for remaining staff as well as implement a two-year wage freeze."

Other conditions included a ban on re-employing redundant workers within two years except for casual or temporary positions, and halving the amount workers are paid when called in for emergencies, from a minimum four hours' pay to two.

The need for outsourced contractors to be afforded the appropriate wages and conditions would also be removed, Mr Butler said.

"The NSW Government seems intent on slashing regional jobs at Essential Energy, which threatens service standards while maximising the profits they take from rural and regional customers," he said…….

Wauchope Gazette, 7 January 2016:

ESSENTIAL Energy's troubled year wrapped up with fresh questions raised about the amount of money paid to executives.

The company released its annual report in November for the 2014-2015 financial year.

Of particular public interest was the almost $4 million paid in salaries and bonuses to executives.

It stands in stark contrast to the 700 jobs the company said it would have to cut because of restrictions imposed on it by the Australian Energy Regulator in 2015.

The report shows the company delivered an operating profit before tax of $381.2 million, which was significantly higher than the target of $108.5 million......

As Malcolm Turnbull faces his first national budget as prime minister the right-wing nutters start to crawl out of the woodwork

First cab off the rank is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry with a Let’s Make Aged Pensions Repayable Loans! statement on 14 February 2016:

The Federal Government must use May’s Budget to demonstrate it remains committed to reducing government spending as a share of the economy or else we risk consigning future generations to the painful readjustments that have taken place in southern Europe, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said today.

The Australian Chamber has released its Pre-Budget Submission, which outlines a series of reforms that can curb runaway spending in areas including the age pension, family tax benefits and childcare.

Kate Carnell AO, CEO of the Australian Chamber, said: “Unless public spending is brought under control, the Australian economy will gradually be crippled by increasing taxes and growing public debt, both of which are unsustainable.

“Given welfare and social services will account for 60 per cent of total government sector spending this year, they provide numerous changes worth considering.

“Changes to the Age Pension could foster innovative financing solutions that guarantee that pensioners can remain in their homes and still save billions of dollars from spending.

“The Government should consider transforming pension payments to owner-occupiers into a loan that is recoverable against their property when it is sold, potentially with a residual value that would allow pensioners to access equity for other purposes, such as aged care. While retirees should be able to maintain a minimum residual value, at present very little of the equity in owner-occupied housing is being drawn down for other purposes.

“In addition, abolishing Family Tax Benefit Part B could save $13.9 billion over four years and means testing the Child Care Rebate could save $250 million per year.

“Public spending growth cannot exceed economic growth indefinitely. If spending continues to grow faster than the economy, we will need to continuously raise the tax burden. If Australia waits until the system breaks we will consign the next generation to readjustments like those implemented recently in Greece and Spain……

Australian Chamber Pre-Budget Submission 2016-17