South Australians could point out that Senator Leyonhjelm was born on April 1 in a town called Nhill and hasn’t amounted to much, but that would be churlish. [Journalist Tory Shepherd writing in The Advertiser on 1 December 2016]
Saturday 7 January 2017
Friday 6 January 2017
Here is a way to help Donald John Trump avoid a few of his many potential pecuniary conflicts of interest once he is sworn-in as the 45th United States president
As it is almost a given that Donald Trump will be incapable of distancing himself from his business interests during this presidential term unaided; kind-heated people all over the world can assist him by boycotting goods and services supplied by Trump family companies as well as the businesses which carry these goods/services or who sponsor his televised events/TV shows.
These lists are a guideline for the kind-hearted.
Boycott Trump app lists these companies via a Facebook page:
NEW YORK:
• Trump World Tower
• Trump Tower
• Trump Plaza
• 40 Wall Street
• 1290 Avenue of the Americas
• West Side development
• Trump Park Ave. (Delmonico Hotel)
• Trump International Hotel
• The Residences at Trump National in Westchester County NATIONAL:
• Bank of America Center, San Francisco
• Trump Entertainment (casinos) (Atlantic City)
• Trump Las Vegas
• Mar-a-Lago (Palm Beach, FL)
• Trump Chicago
• Miami Beach Hotel/Trump International Beach Resort (Miami, FL)
• Donald J. Trump clothing (sold exclusively at Macy's)
GOLF COURSES:
• Trump International Golf Club, Raffles Resort (Canouan Island, The Grenadines)
• Trump National Golf Club, Bedminster (Bedminster, NJ)
• Trump National Golf Club, Los Angeles (Rancho Palos Verdes, CA)
• Trump International Golf Club (West Palm Beach, FL)
ON TV:
• The Apprentice
• The Celebrity Apprentice
• Miss Universe
• Miss USA
• Miss Teen USA
• Fox and Friends (Fox News)
CELEBRITY APPRENTICE SPONSORS
1. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc.
Attn: Consumer Relations
P.O. Box 86077
Plano, TX 75086-9077
Telephone: 1-800-696-5891 1-800-696-5891
2. Omaha Steaks
10909 John Galt Blvd
P.O. Box 3300
Omaha, NE 68103
Customer Service: 800-228-9872 800-228-9872
3. Dr Pepper Snapple Group
Corporate Headquarters
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc
5301 Legacy Drive
Plano, TX 75024
(972) 673-7000 (972) 673-7000
Consumer Relations
(800) 696-5891 (800) 696-5891
4. On-Star
Phone: 1.888.4.ONSTAR 1.888.4.ONSTAR (1.888.466.7827 1.888.466.7827 )
TTY Users Only 1.877.248.2080 1.877.248.2080 (Hearing/Speech Impaired)
Mail: OnStar Subscriber Services
PO Box 1027
Warren, MI 48090-1027
5. Australian Gold
Contact us: info@australiangold.com
1.800.633.0069 1.800.633.0069
6270 CORPORATE DR.
Indianapolis, IN 46278
6. Camping World
Phone: 1-800-626-3636 1-800-626-3636
7. ACN
ACN World Headquarters:
1000 Progress Place
Concord, NC 28025-2449
Phone: 704-260-3000 704-260-3000
8. Farouk
1-800-237-9175 1-800-237-9175
Change.Org has a petition up to Boycott Trump and lists the following advertisers:
9. Enterprise Rental Car Company
CEO, Enterprise Rental Car Company(Andrew C. Taylor)
314-512-2206 314-512-2206
ataylor@erac.com
andrew.c.taylor@erac.com
10. Clorox Bleach Company
The Clorox Company(Donald R. Knauss)
The Clorox Company, Clorox
1221 Broadway Floor 13th
Oakland, CA 94612-1815 map
PUBLIC, NYSE: CLX
Phone: (510) 271-7000 (510) 271-7000
11. Sprint-Nextel Cellphones
CEO, Sprint-Nextel Wireless(Dan Hesse)
6360 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66251
(816) 679-5552 (816) 679-5552
(800) 829-0965 (800) 829-0965
12. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Laura Hortas
Director, Business Communications
Route 206 and Province Line Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: 609-252-4587 609-252-4587
13. The Walt Disney Company
The Walt Disney Company(Robert Iger)
(818) 560-1000 (818) 560-1000
Fax: (818) 560-1930
14. Groupon
CEO, Groupon Inc.(Andrew Mason)
Email Groupon at support@groupon.com or call 1 (877) 788-7858 1 (877) 788-7858 (Monday through Friday, 9-5 central time)
Website listing companies which carry Trump goods:
Dear Prime Minister.....
georgebrowning.com.au, open letter by the Retired Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, 10 December 2016:
LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER
10/12/2016
Dear Prime Minister,
I don't suppose ordinary citizens are supposed to understand how politicians make their decisions especially when they fly in the face of logic. But sometimes a lack of logic and common sense, together with the seeming absence of any care for the interest of ordinary Australians, let alone the rest of the world, is beyond bewildering - it fills one with a mixture of anger and despair.
Your decision this week to rule out even the possibility of an "emissions intensity scheme" is in this category.
Have you received advice from your chief scientist that a scheme like this is essential if Australia is going to play its part with the rest of the world in avoiding catastrophic global warming? Yes you have.
Have you received advice that implementing a scheme like this will ultimately be a net positive for the national economy? Yes you have.
Have you received advice from industry that bipartisan political support for a scheme like this would be welcome and provide the necessary certainty required for planning and investment? Yes you have.
Have you received advice that a scheme like this will save each household unnecessary escalation in electricity prices in coming years? Yes you have.
In the light of all this advice and what we understand to be your own reasonable knowledge of the facts you still chose to appease the rightwing ideologues in your party rather than act for the good of the country. Presumably your own position of power is more important than anything else. In these circumstances how do you expect to warrant respect let alone trust as our Prime Minister?
Your characterisation of the states as irresponsible because of the goals they have set reminds me of a kindergarten child making silly comments about other children when it is they who have sulkily refused to participate in the activity of the group.
I am choosing to send this letter to you via my blog, because I have come to the conclusion it is a waste of time to write to you directly.
In the adult world to which I belong, when there is a problem, wide discussion takes place as to the best way of providing a solution. In an adult world one does not normally rule out best solutions because someone spits the dummy in advance.
I am hoping that all who read this letter will pass it on, and that what you and your government have decided not to do this week will never be forgotten. While we often bemoan lack of leadership, seldom if ever has genuine leadership been so absent as it has been this week
Yours sincerely
George
Bishop George Browning
I don't suppose ordinary citizens are supposed to understand how politicians make their decisions especially when they fly in the face of logic. But sometimes a lack of logic and common sense, together with the seeming absence of any care for the interest of ordinary Australians, let alone the rest of the world, is beyond bewildering - it fills one with a mixture of anger and despair.
Your decision this week to rule out even the possibility of an "emissions intensity scheme" is in this category.
Have you received advice from your chief scientist that a scheme like this is essential if Australia is going to play its part with the rest of the world in avoiding catastrophic global warming? Yes you have.
Have you received advice that implementing a scheme like this will ultimately be a net positive for the national economy? Yes you have.
Have you received advice from industry that bipartisan political support for a scheme like this would be welcome and provide the necessary certainty required for planning and investment? Yes you have.
Have you received advice that a scheme like this will save each household unnecessary escalation in electricity prices in coming years? Yes you have.
In the light of all this advice and what we understand to be your own reasonable knowledge of the facts you still chose to appease the rightwing ideologues in your party rather than act for the good of the country. Presumably your own position of power is more important than anything else. In these circumstances how do you expect to warrant respect let alone trust as our Prime Minister?
Your characterisation of the states as irresponsible because of the goals they have set reminds me of a kindergarten child making silly comments about other children when it is they who have sulkily refused to participate in the activity of the group.
I am choosing to send this letter to you via my blog, because I have come to the conclusion it is a waste of time to write to you directly.
In the adult world to which I belong, when there is a problem, wide discussion takes place as to the best way of providing a solution. In an adult world one does not normally rule out best solutions because someone spits the dummy in advance.
I am hoping that all who read this letter will pass it on, and that what you and your government have decided not to do this week will never be forgotten. While we often bemoan lack of leadership, seldom if ever has genuine leadership been so absent as it has been this week
Yours sincerely
George
Bishop George Browning
Thursday 5 January 2017
#NotMyDebt: those who feel able begin to fight back
Those not overwhelmed by the less than transparent and sometimes aggressive approach Centrelink is taking to queries about or denial of debts being raised by its obviously flawed automated debt recovery process are beginning to push back.......
Click on page images to enlarge
*Daniel Livesey is a web designer and video editor who is employed by a company with extensive experience working with
ACT Government and the Australian Government on information campaigns, annual
and general reports, promotional products, websites and multimedia projects.
SBS News, 4 January 2016:
Ngarrindjeri elder Elaine Kropinyeri from Mount Gambier in South Australia told SBS News Centrelink had recently cleared her of a $7800 debt, citing an “internal mistake”.
Ms Elaine Kropiyeri said she had not worked for two-and-a-half years after she resigned for “personal reasons” as a cultural consultant at a local foster care service in Mount Gambier, and successfully applied for Centrelink’s NewStart Allowance.
She said she discovered the so-called debt after Centrelink informed her she had been overpaid, in a separate matter, by $600. According to Ms Kropiyeri, Centrelink did not explain how the overpayment had been calculated, but deducted $464 from her regular payments towards the debt.
“It was absolutely terrifying…when you’re on a very meagre income, barely surviving,” she said.
Ms Kropiyeri found the $7800 in an obscure area of her MyGov Centrelink online account while trying to understand her debt notice. This figure, according to Ms Kropiyeri, didn't appear in the usual 'deductions' section.
“They didn’t even send me a letter,” she said.
“If I didn't accidentally come across it the way I did, they would still be deducting from my meagre income.”
Subsequently, Ms Kropiyeri received a statement on November 29 confirming her fears that the larger sum was in fact owing. With the notice showing $7154.52 was still to be repaid, she was able to work out Centrelink had been deducting part of her payment without her knowledge for this larger debt.
…… When Ms Kropiyeri enquired to Centrelink over the phone about the disputed amount owing, she said the staff member could not explain it.
“I am still unsure how this [debt] came to be because, as I said, I hadn't worked and did my reporting every fortnight.”
She was referred to a specialists team where a staff member said the onus was on her to explain the debt to Centrelink.
“But it’s [their] department that determines what overpayments that need to be distributed - I don’t have access to their computers.”
Because she was sure she did not owe any amount, she said she told Centrelink she would take her case to the Ombudsman's Office and ended the phone call.
Within half an hour they called her back to tell her the debt had been waived because of an “internal mistake”.
“I know my rights, so I stood up, tooth and nail, to them.”
* Last time I looked Ngarrindjeri elder Elaine Kropinyeri had been a resident in the Mt. Gambier area for over 30 years and was the inaugural recipient of the NAIDOC award for a lifetime achievement of contribution to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the South East in 2012.
Advice being offered in the media.......
The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 January 2016:
Graham Wells, principal lawyer at Social Security Rights Victoria, which provides legal advice and help for people battling various Centrelink complaints, says the organisation has been run off its feet in the wake of the debt-recovery saga plaguing the agency over the summer break……
So what should you do if you get a letter saying you owe the department money?
Mr Wells says in the first instance, people suspecting their debt assessment is incorrect should go to their nearest Centrelink office, the MyGov website or, "if you're willing to chance it, on the phone", and ask to have their debt reviewed.
Delegated decision makers within Centrelink, called Authorised Review Officers, are authorised to review department decisions on behalf of the minister. They might decide the debt does not exist, is correct, is too low, or is too high.
This can take between two and six months but Mr Wells suggested that, to speed things up, people could regularly call Centrelink to check on the matter, or go to their local MP and make regular representations there.
Mr Wells said if people were still not happy with Centrelink's internal decision-making processes, they could make an application under Freedom of Information laws for the department to release the documents it holds on their supposed debt to them.
"You want to be as specific as possible," he said. "Ask for all documents it holds relating to this debt between this and that date."
Debt collection agencies employed by Centrelink to recover debts have been applying a 10 per cent fee to recover debts related in inaccurate reporting.
"I think it's wrong; I think it's very entrepreneurial on their part," Mr Wells said.
It is, however, legal - although Mr Wells said consumers challenging their debts often had the 10 per cent fee set aside.
Mr Wells suggests that anyone faced with demands from a third-party for repayments go to their local post office and make the smallest repayment they can afford directly to Centrelink, to cut debt recovery agencies out of the loop. He said if it was later found their debt was invalid, Centrelink should return the money.
Finally, people can apply to the social services and child support division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which can review Centrelink decisions that have first been reviewed internally.
Victoria Legal Aid executive director of civil justice Dan Nicholson urged anyone who received a letter from Centrelink they believed to be incorrect to get free legal advice from Legal Aid or other organisations across the country.
"Even if you don't have all the information Centrelink asks of you, we advise you to respond to the letter, so you are able to push your side of the story," he said.
"If Centrelink does make a decision that you disagree with, such as you have a debt, I encourage you to challenge the decision – and you have a very good chance of success."
Internal Centrelink figures show that before the agency introduced its debt recovery system, 37.5 per cent of its decisions were revised after internal reviews.
Next time a man tells you that there is a level playing field.........
Many older Australian women alive today reached retirement age without any superannuation savings. Some will still do so into the future if they have predominately engaged in unpaid work during most of their working-age life.
Superannuation was first paid in the mid‑1800s as a benefit to certain employees in the public service and larger corporate organisations. Invitation to join what were then a limited number of superannuation schemes was predominately restricted to males at professional/managerial level. Full benefits upon retirement could be taken as a lump sum. By 1915 super earnings were exempt from taxation [taxreview.treasury.com.au].
As recently as the late 1960s women often faced an employment bar on marriage and/or once wed were forced to withdraw from any superannuation scheme they may have had the good fortune to be previously eligible for. [Paxton, JA, July 2014, Women and Superannuation: The Impact of the Family Law Superannuation Regime, p.23]
Superannuation was fairly uncommon in Australia until the 1970s, when it began to be included in industrial awards.
In 1985, only 39 per cent of the workforce had superannuation—24 per cent of women and 50 per cent of men had access to super.
At that stage, superannuation coverage was concentrated in higher paid white collar positions in large corporations and, in the public sector.
Superannuation became a major component of Australia's retirement system following the introduction of the Superannuation Guarantee in 1992. The Superannuation Guarantee requires employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's earnings into a superannuation fund, which the employee cannot access until they reach the superannuation preservation age. For most employees, superannuation coverage expanded following the introduction of compulsory superannuation.
In 1993, 81 per cent of employed Australians were covered by superannuation and the gender gap in superannuation coverage had narrowed, with 82 per cent of employed men and 78 per cent of employed women covered by superannuation. The employer contribution rate has increased over time, from 3 per cent in 1992 to the current rate of 9.5 per cent.
[Economics References Committee, April 2016, 'A husband is not a retirement plan': Achieving economic security for women in retirement, p.6]
[Economics References Committee, April 2016, 'A husband is not a retirement plan': Achieving economic security for women in retirement, p.6]
The superannuation industry, including the Commonwealth's defined benefit funds, may prefer to forget past practices. There was a time when women were forced to leave their super fund on marriage and, as a result, were deprived of unvested benefits. The winners then were long-term (usually permanent) employees, predominantly male, who reaped their full entitlements on retirement……
It wasn't too long ago that during a family breakdown, women who sacrificed a career to bring up a family were unable to access their partner's vested super benefits. Family law changes now allow women to access a fair share of their former partner's superannuation. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 March 2016]
The table below shows the disparity between men's and women's superannuation balances over time across all age groups.
[Economics References Committee, April 2016, 'A husband is not a retirement plan': Achieving economic security for women in retirement, p.9]
Wednesday 4 January 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
