Australian Politics
Labor’s unfair superannuation tax set to fail after public pressure plus Teals and Independents
Robert Gottliebsen
Today I want to congratulate my wonderful readers in The Australian. I have been writing regular articles pointing out the looming national disaster that would follow if we decided to create a world precedent by taxing superannuation on the basis of unrealised capital gains.
After every commentary, vast numbers of readers took the time, not just to offer support, but to add suggestions and highlighted other aspects of the looming government mistake.
Together we played a role in encouraging the Teals, and two independents in the House of Representatives plus two cross benches in the Senate – David Pocock and Jackie Lambie – to unite and publicly commit to join the Coalition in opposing the bill.
They are taking this stand in the national interest for the right reasons. Unless the government cements its head in the sand, revenue is not endangered because it is easy to amend the bill.
There is no opposition to the original thrust of the proposal which was to continue to tax all superannuation in the normal way, but for those with total superannuation balances exceeding $3m, the tax rate would be 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent. And for the proposal to be fair, and not infect vast numbers in middle Australia, the $3m had to be indexed to the CPI.
The government will have the numbers in the lower house, so the vote of Pocock and Lambie in the Senate becomes vital, assuming the other crossbenchers who have already indicated they would vote in the national interest hold their ground.
Pocock and Lambie will be put under extreme pressure to change and act against the national interest but given they have now publicly committed to act together with the Teals and the lower house independents. I think there is a very good chance that they will all hold their ground.
And with a touch of humour, there is already an abundance of bike tracks in Canberra, so a government offering more bike tracks in exchange for the superannuation vote will not succeed.
Jim Chalmers should be grateful because his is being forced to go back to his original proposal instead of looking after mates with connections to large funders of the ALP.
Sensible and fair superannuation taxing will not cause a budgetary shortfall.
Indeed, a properly constructed tax might in fact raise more money because it would be regarded as fair for people with more than $3m in superannuation.
A blatantly unfair tax would encourage superannuation members into tax reduction schemes, which over time would impact superannuation tax revenues.
If the bill is properly amended, many of those people will leave their funds in superannuation and pay the extra tax.
The amendments required to restore fairness are simple. Any person with funds in superannuation exceeding an indexed $3m who can calculate clearly (with properly audited accounts) their realised profits will be taxed at 30 per cent on the proportion of income that applies to amounts invested above an indexed $3m.
The methods of calculation do not change. There would be no tax on unrealised gains. Those that can’t provide that detail will be taxed at 30 per cent on unrealised against.
The detail is easy for self-managed funds but even for the retail and industry funds lumbered with poor accounting systems it would not be difficult to establish a separate fund for members with total funds above an indexed $3m that can invest the money in the way that the members dictate within the policies of a fund.
It’s important that the Teals, the independents and the Senate and crossbenchers do not throw in the towel on indexation. Without indexation, this becomes a tax on middle Australia and over time will greatly damage the superannuation movement.
In my recent comments, linked above and also including “Why Aussies are furious over tax on super balances over $3m”, I set out some of hidden Chalmers victims including:
* Around 17,000 small farmers who have their farms in the family superannuation fund. If the value of their farm rises, many will have to pay tax on that increased value by selling other assets or borrowing. States with many small farms, like Tasmania, will be the hardest hit.
* Small businesses, including farmers, have $88bn in direct investment commercial real estate. Usually it is the real estate used by their business. Like the farmers, if the value of their property rises, the family must find the cash to pay the tax on the unrealised gain. Selling the property is not an option unless they want to go out of business.
* Three years ago, there were 80,000 Australians with superannuation balances above $3m. That figure has now risen to around 100,000 – an annual growth rate of about 6 or 7 per cent.
* Retired public servants in defined benefit funds suddenly have a new tax using a calculation definition that is designed to be impossible to understand. They are furious.
Meanwhile, if sensible superannuation rules are established, it will remove from Peter Dutton one of the potential keys to the Lodge at next year’s election.
****************************************************
Tasmania, the ‘drop out state’, promises more phonics, as NAPLAN failure fuels reform calls
Tasmania has vowed to use phonics to teach all children by 2026, after trailing national averages in NAPLAN numeracy, writing and reading results, amid demands for “root and branch” reform.
Labelled “the drop-out state” for its low year 12 attainment, Tasmania again performed badly in this week’s NAPLAN results, trailing the national average in numeracy, writing and reading across all year groups.
“If Tasmania wasn’t at the bottom of everything, (it was) in the bottom three in everything,” independent economist Saul Eslake told The Australian.
“This just underscores the need for root and branch reform of Tasmania’s school education system.”
Education Minister Jo Palmer defended the state’s performance but held out the promise of improvement from a rollout of “structured literacy” including phonics.
This would reach 25 per cent of all government primary schools in 2024. “By 2026, all students across all school years will be taught to read in a structured, systematic, and explicit way, within a framework that ensures every student gets appropriate additional literacy support when they need it,” Ms Palmer said.
“Schools are being supported to make transformational change to the way children are taught to read through professional learning sessions, resources and collaboration with educational experts and sectors.”
Under pressure to lift the state’s educational outcomes, the Liberal state government has promised to review the school system, which still sees some high schools end at year 10, forcing children to attend separate years 11 and 12 colleges.
There are fears the review will be not be independent, broad or resourced enough to deliver the reform needed and tackle vested interests identified as barriers to change.
Mr Eslake and others claim the Education Department, the education faculty at the University of Tasmania and the Australian Education Union are “blockers” of reform, claims rejected by the organisations.
Those advocating change want abolition of colleges in favour of all high schools going to year 12, a faster and better supported shift to structured literacy, a lower school starting age and more intervention to help struggling students catch up before they progress a grade.
Labor Opposition Leader Dean Winter called on the government to “get moving” with its inquiry, which appears yet to start but is due to report by year’s end, and reverse plans to cut $75m from education.
“Tasmanian students continue to be let down by the state government, with results below the national average across all areas. Young Tasmanians are not getting the opportunities they deserve to excel in learning and life,” he said. “After 10 years in government, the Liberals need to accept responsibility for these outcomes.”
****************************************************
Adelaide University considers anti-Israel motion from pro-Palestine students
Adelaide University has become the latest tertiary institution to consider adopting an anti-Israel motion, as hundreds of pro-Palestine students urge it to sever ties with the Jewish state.
The vote for the motion coincided with the Jewish holy day of Tisha B’Av on Monday, which was condemned by leading Jewish representatives as a way to silence their voice.
Students associated with a pro-Palestine group organised a general meeting to sign on to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.
Just over 200 students unanimously voted to pass the motion, with the university saying it “supports lawful freedom of expression” in response.
“Following the meeting, the matter is now for the students, the Student Representative Council and YouX to consider. Should the matter progress, the University of Adelaide will give it due consideration,” a spokesperson for the university said.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Alex Ryvchin said the motion would have “precisely zero impact on the lives of Palestinians”.
“The sole reason they do this is to send a message to Jewish students and academics that they are outsiders, unwanted and unwelcome,” Mr Ryvchin said.
“We fully expect the university to make a statement denouncing this behaviour and asserting its support for a peaceful and tolerant campus environment.”
Australian Jewish Association CEO Robert Gregory said BDS movements have no place in the Australian education sector.
“Boycotts of the Jewish state are the latest manifestation of an ancient hatred,” Mr Gregory said.
“It’s disappointing that this vote was scheduled for a Jewish holy day which prevented some Jewish students from attending. Jewish students are understandably concerned about their place at the University of Adelaide.”
Vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell said the ANU Council had agreed to update its policy, since “community expectations around what socially responsible investment means are evolving and expanding”.
Last week, up to 800 Sydney University students voted to support “one Palestinian state” and affirmed the right of armed resistance at a rare general meeting that caused the institute to seek police advice on the legality of the material used.
The university was strongly criticised by the ECAJ after it entered into an agreement to allow students to review their investments and security activities, as part of a deal to end encampments.
The students were inspired by a similar general meeting at the University of Queensland in May, which included up to 1500 attendees.
************************************************
Doctor under 'emergency' five year suspension finally goes to trial over social media posts
Melbourne doctor Jereth Kok was suspended under emergency provisions by the medical regulators in 2019 after two anonymous complaints triggered an investigation into his social media posts.
Neither complainant was a patient, and Dr Kok, 43, has never had a complaint made against him by a patient in his 15 year medical career, including ten years as a general practitioner (GP, equivalent of American PCP).
The posts reflected Dr Kok’s conservative Christian views on abortion, gender medicine and sexuality, raising questions over whether Australian medical practitioners are free to publicly express their religious views.
Five years later, Dr Kok finally stood trial in a five day hearing at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), held last month, with another hearing expected to be held later this year before the matter can be settled.
However, even if Dr Kok’s suspension is lifted, the five year process has already effectively ended his career.
”I think that the hurdles would just be insurmountable” he told me, listing the requirements to renew memberships, update his training, find a practice who will take him now that he has a black mark against his name, and the inevitable reeducation and practice conditions required by the regulator. “It’s been a defacto deregistration, hasn’t it?”
The process is the punishment
A spokesperson from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) said that, “Suspension is an interim action that can be taken by a national health profession board (National Board) or a tribunal to protect the public.”
AHPRA is the umbrella bureaucracy over the National Boards (medical, physiotherapy, nursing, dental and so on), which together regulate all registered health practitioners in Australia.
AHPRA did not provide an estimate of average suspension time, but said that “the length of the suspension will vary dependent on the individual circumstances of the matter.”
However, the regulators have come under criticism in recent years for slow walking this “interim” process, resulting in some doctors being sidelined without income for years without any avenue to defend themselves against the accusations levelled at them.
Shockingly, a study into distress caused by AHPRA’s complaints process found that 16 health practitioners took their own lives while subject to investigation between January 2018 to December 2021, with another four self-harming or attempting suicide.
Subjects complained of the stress caused by the excessively prolonged process, and the unfairness of ‘double standards’, where the time allowed for them to provide information was short, contrasted with long gaps in correspondence from AHPRA.
“It's a joke,” said Dr Kok. “I just don't see why it had to take this long. If you're going to use the emergency power, you can't then go and take five years to finish the process off. You've made it so difficult to ever come back to it that most people won't.”
Dr Kok described the experience as a "road test" for his faith. “I've had to rely on God through three years of unemployment, through the grief of suddenly losing contact with all my patients, and through being slandered,” said the married father of two.
As the sole income earner in his family, Dr Kok had to retrain and is now working in the software industry.
Dr Kok also worried about the impact on his patients, explaining that the “abrupt” nature of his suspension meant there was no opportunity for him to do a proper hand over for vulnerable patients with complex medical problems.
He recalled an elderly patient who he regularly visited in a nursing home telling him of her fear that he would leave her. Dr Kok said he felt “dreadful” when her fear was realised without him being allowed to contact her to explain what had happened or to say goodbye.
Dr Kok first found out he’d fallen afoul of AHPRA when he received a letter from the regulator the week before Christmas in 2018. The letter informed Dr Kok that he had been under investigation for nine months after an anonymous complaint was lodged against him in 2017 for comments he made online about the same sex marriage plebiscite.
Another anonymous complaint was made in 2019, this one relating to an article Dr Kok wrote, titled ‘A medical perspective on transgender,’ for Christian news site Eternity News, and other comments he’d made online. Following the second complaint, the Medical Board took immediate action to suspend Dr Kok’s medical registration.
“They are not alleging that I've done any harm in the clinic,” said Dr Kok, clarifying that the complaints and subsequent investigation focused solely on his online posts.
AHPRA launched a far reaching search into Dr Kok’s social media posts and online comments, commissioning forensic IT investigators Ferrier Hodgson to compile a dossier, at an estimated cost of $4,800-$6,000. Ferrier Hodgson also suggested subpoenaing Facebook for complete access to all posts made by Dr Kok from 2014 onwards.
In February 2020, Dr Kok unsuccessfully appealed his emergency suspension. He offered to sign undertaking to remove the offending posts and not to make any further online posts about contentious topics while the investigation was underway.
However, the Medical Board argued that this would not suffice because the “fundamental issue” was Dr Kok’s “character,” “values” and “views,” and what Dr Kok might have “already said to members of the community who might attend on him in his general practice, or the medical profession more generally.”
The Board’s barrister argued that Dr Kok’s suspension was therefore necessary for “public confidence,” but assured that that the investigation would be “concluded very quickly.”
Twenty two months later, in December 2021, Dr Kok was finally told that his case was being referred to the tribunal (similar to a court but less formal). By this time, AHPRA had added posts Dr Kok had made about Covid vaccines and restrictions to add to its brief.
Now, three years on from his referral to the tribunal, and five years since his initial suspension, Dr Kok has finally had the opportunity to defend himself against the regulators’ accusations.
On trial for ‘inflammatory’ social media posts
During his VCAT hearing last month, Dr Kok was accused of professional misconduct related to 85 social media posts and online comments he wrote between 2010 and 2021, including memes, and a sarcastic comment which the regulator took seriously. Most of the posts were made on Dr Kok’s social media network under private ‘friends and friends of friends’ settings.
In one post, Dr Kok highlighted the fact that the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine was “derived from the desecration from a murdered human being,” referring to a cell line from an aborted foetus. Dr Kok believed this fact to be in the public interest, particularly for Christians, many of whom choose not to take medicines derived from aborted foetuses for religious reasons.
In a comment under an article on Christian website Culture Watch condemning the use of Australian aid money to fund family planning measures (including contraception and abortion) in Africa, Dr Kok sarcastically stated,
“Soon, our civilisations will be vanquished, and the Earth will be overrun by Black people. The solution is clear: we must take “family planning” to poor countries and exterminate them before it is too late!”
The regulator condemned the statement as a call for racial violence and genocide, an allegation that Dr Kok said was covered by medical news sites, resulting in him being “defamed.” However, Dr Kok told the tribunal, “I was simply echoing the point [the article] made,” that being that the aid is a form of genocide.
Several memes by U.S. conservative satirical site the Babylon Bee digging at gender ideology and Covid restrictions were also brought up in the hearing.
Medical journalist Heather Saxena, who attended several days of the VCAT hearing, reported the contents of some of Dr Kok’s other posts which were discussed in the hearing for AusDoc (here and here):
“…Dr Kok had described doctors who performed abortions as “butchers” and then added: “What’s wrong with capital punishment for serial contract killers?”
“Dr Kok also referenced the “industrial-scale massacre of babies by doctors,” called Melbourne’s Royal Women’s Hospital the state’s “premier baby killing facility,” and claimed that doctors who performed gender reassignment surgery were “crooks engaged in mutilation.””
In another post, Dr Kok used the term “child abuse” in reference to same-sex couples with children.
Saxena reports that the Medical Board’s argument was not that any individual post constituted professional misconduct, but that in toto, Dr Kok’s language denigrated doctors and could discourage patients from discussing certain procedures with doctors. The board’s lawyer also argued that Dr Kok’s posts encouraged violence to racial groups and expressed anti-vaccine rhetoric.
During the hearing, Dr Kok conceded some of his language was “inflammatory” and “inappropriate,” such as calling abortion doctors “serial killers,” calling gender reassignment surgery “medical butchery,” and using the term “child abuse” in connection with same-sex families.
In his witness statement, Dr Kok said that some things he wrote “did amount to a denigration of other medical practitioners,” and that he would refrain from using such perjoratives in the future.
However, Dr Kok defended his religious convictions, maintaining his stance that marriage is for heterosexual couples only, that gender reassignment surgery is harmful and unethical, and that he does not condone abortion. Dr Kok also defended his long standing opposition to vaccine mandates, stating “I believe in patient autonomy ... to choose or decline treatment.”
Dr Kok’s barrister, Stephen Moloney, argued that “There is no law in this country that says [Dr Kok] is not allowed to say that abortion is morally wrong,” and that speaking on medical topics was a right “given unambiguously to the practitioner under the code of conduct.”
Dr Kok also rejected the Board’s assertion that his public stance on gender, abortion and sexuality would deter patients from seeking care.
“It might undermine their willingness to see me, but I’m not sure it would undermine their willingness to see other doctors,” he said, adding that if a patient asked him about abortion, he would refer them to a GP in his practice who provided abortion care.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-147356247
****************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment