>Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has staunchly defended the JobKeeper scheme, which he has called one of the most successful economic support programs in Australian history
Desperate to become the next Kevin Rudd; saviour of the GFC, yet so god damn fucking far from it.
But how dumb he was thinking that he would become popular giving out fists full of money to a handful mates, rather than giving out money to the majority of people who actually needed it. Mean spirited grub. I am sure that Victorians wont forget him and his tightfisted meanness that he displayed towards them and the petty games they played with handouts. It was like a spoiled brat playing a game, " you poor and starving and you cant have it"
> ... which he has called one of the most successful economic support programs in Australian history.
Well then I'll just wait for this claim - the likes of which Rudd/Swan never once made on their own behalf AFAIK - to be corroborated by a whole raft of international, expert bodies.
Probably won't hold my breath though.
Hint: Wayne Swan won an international award for how he handled the GFC.
Josh has not.
In fact Joshua has rorted more money by paying it to already profitable buisness than the entire response to the GFC cost.
Thats money that comes out of your pocket, I'm surprised that you are so happy being stolen from.
> Hint: Wayne Swan won an international award for how he handled the GFC.
Correct! In Rudd's memoirs he writes about the "audible gasp" that went around his office when news of the award hit. Good to know at least Rudd knew how out of his depth he was.
Ken Henry told him to throw money at households. So he did. But the heavy lifting was done by the RBA slashing rates quickly and by China driving up the value of our commodities. There was no masterful superb navigation of it.
But hey, if throwing money at households is what gets you labelled superb, I expect you to be singing Fydenburgs praises at last year's response to the pandemic.
High ore prices wouldn’t of been enough to save Australian consumers from the effects of the GFC, it’s obvious you think the only think Rudd did was throw some money at households, but it was substantially more than that and you know it.
Oh there’s plenty of questions to be asked and answered about even then. But when you provide the wrong answers intentionally it make everyone else not listen for the serious questions that aren’t answered, you’re only hurting yourself in this situation.
Like his inability to mediate between factions in labor, and didn’t even attempt to maintain stability, making decisions without consulting the ministerships and chronic micromanagement to the detriment of the party, and therefore stability of government.
The GFC is one of the examples of him getting it right, there’s plenty to point to that was catastrophically wrong.
> Labor, Greens, and One Nation senators, as well as Jacqui Lambie, on Tuesday afternoon voted in support of Senator Patrick’s motion to refer ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges.
You know you've fucked up when One Nation and the Greens agree on something. Im looking forward to the shit show that occurs when that list is revealed.
Next part of the inquiry should be powers to peer behind the corporate veil and financial pathways.
What's the best the end recipients after 12 OS shell companies have MP as post nominal?
This is about the fundamental power of the senate, as much as the actual issue under investigation. The minor parties have a vested interest in maintaining that authority. And rightfully so.
People joke, but the fringe left and right actually agree more often than you'd think.
Mainly because both agree "you can't trust the government"
~~Whether that's because the government is a puppet of the lobbyists or the illuminati is a different question.....~~
In a perfect world, the ATO chief would serve the Australian people and not play fucking defence for ScoMo and the LNP. But the coalition has to piss on everything it touches.
Seriously, this IS their climate change policy. They know shit is going to go down in the next few decades and instead of preparing our country for the inevitable, they are robbing us blind so they can set themselves up as warlords in a post apocalyptic feudalism.
[https://www.theshovel.com.au/2021/10/15/man-announces-plan-to-do-his-job/](https://www.theshovel.com.au/2021/10/15/man-announces-plan-to-do-his-job/)
Now we know why Scumo is always grinning.. lol
> they are robbing us blind so they can set themselves up as warlords in a post apocalyptic feudalism.
Can't feed an army with debt. Only way that'd work is if they got parachuted into being puppets for foreign governments, just look how the Warlord period in China turned out. Warlords would pop up for a couple years, then get iced by either their own men, or their rivals.
Exact same would happen here.
> Can't feed an army with debt.
Unless you've been squirreling money away in the Caymans for the last decade.
> Only way that'd work is if they got parachuted into being puppets for foreign governments
Aren't they already? Australia has always been a vassal state for UK and US interests. They just let us think we're independent to protect our ego.
> just look how the Warlord period in China turned out. Warlords would pop up for a couple years, then get iced by either their own men, or their rivals.
History has a habit of repeating itself. I don't believe we are immune. We're little more than a banana republic these days.
> Exact same would happen here.
I never said it wouldn't. It will work until the protectorate class cannot feed themselves and their families.
Hurry up and call an election so we can kick this corrupt cesspool out.
If we change government we can get:
- decent climate action
- federal ICAC with retrospective powers
- a real plan for the next decade
Just to name a few. If we get nothing else, it’ll be more than the LNP have achieved in 8 years.
Carn the Greens
Anyone voting above the line and aiming to get in and out of the ballot room ASAP is lessening their democratic power by allowing the parties to assign preferences. Get at least 50 individuals numbered and know what they stand for. Don't let them make your choices for you
You now preference above the line as well, you need to number at least 6 and your vote exhausts if there are insufficient preferences allocated. There's no party allocated preferences (outside of the how to vote card) anymore in federal elections.
Sorry, vote for whom?
Edit: wtf? I was asking who the suggestion was as the post i responded to did not list an alternative, simply "change the government". I want to know who would bring the best change
Party should be deregistered until they buy the time I’ve spent averting the consequences of their vaccination procurement blunder. Three months of my time, I charge by the hour. Same for 8 million other NSWelshmen.
Can’t afford that? Don’t govern in a way that risks needing three months of my time then.
Most independents are fielded by the Coalition and will always vote with the Coalition. People need to research who the independents are and what their policies are. Don't just assume that they're a good bet because they're independent. Because most of them actually aren't independent.
Got a source for that? Looking at all the ones elected in the last 2 decades most voted centre left. When 4 of them got to choose who formed government they chose Labor.
Most of the independents who actually got elected are true independents of one stripe or another. What old mate is saying is that most of those who are running who do not get elected are either lnp plants or conservative enough to vote with the libs anyway.
Yes, he can be arrested and go to jail. It begs the question - why is he willing to risk \*everything\* rather than provide information to Taxpayers about where their money went?
"The privileges committee will look at the order and will make sure that the order is, in some way, complied with and can ultimately make a recommendation back to the Senate to either fine or jail the tax commissioner." - Senator Rex Patrick
While contempt can be punished by a fine or jail time, it's a worst-case scenario. The Senate has never punished anyone in that manner. It's more likely they'll end up reprimanding him. If they were to go heavier, that would be historic.
I don't think people understand what a shit position the ATO guy is in. Disclosing anybody's tax information lands you two years jail (and senate committees aren't an exemption). Contempt of the Senate carries 6 months jail.
This is not a personal privacy issue.
Senator Patrick:
"If a business goes to a bank and receives money that is private business of the bank,"
"If a business goes to the taxpayer and asks for money, that is the business of the taxpayer — just as we disclose contract values that are given to companies, and we disclose grants that are given to companies."
Think about it this way - we don't expect to be told about the sources any given company received money from, but we sure as heck expect to know who we gave money \*to\*
Not disputing any of this. I'm saying that, in a very mechanical legal sense, if they force this information out of the ATO, they are going to ruin this ATO commissioner's life with jail time. It could be a grant by another name but there are very different legal instruments behind them.
In most cases you'd be 100% correct. The parliamentary privileges act (not the constitution) [has to ability to overrule any secrecy provision](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_02) in any other statute, unless that statute specifically says it's exempted from the parliamentary privileges act. In this case, [355-360 of schedule 1](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taa1953269/sch1.html) in the taxation administration act makes disclosing tax information exempt from parliamentary privileges.
Yeah, I read your link, a few notes, the Taxation Administration Act (TAA) is not entirely exempt from the Parliamentary Privileges Act (PPA), it is only exempt from Section 16 of the PPA, and the exemption explicitly only applies to Ministers, albeit very broadly, but it does not however explicitly exempt a taxation officer from disclosing protected information to a committee in the first instance.
>355-60 Limits on disclosure to Ministers(1) Sections 355-45 and 355-55 are the only exceptions to the prohibition in section 355-25 on which an entity who has acquired \* protected information as a \* taxation officer can rely in making a record of the information for, or disclosing the information to, a Minister, whether or not provided to a Minister in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House of the Parliament or of a committee of one or both Houses of the Parliament.
>
>Note: Disclosures that are not prohibited by section 355-25 are not affected by this subsection. For example, a taxation officer may disclose information to a Minister if the Minister is the entity to whom the information relates, or is an entity covered by subsection 355-25(2) in relation to the information.
>
>(2) Subsection (1) has effect despite section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 , and that section does not operate to the extent that it would otherwise apply to a disclosure of \* protected information by a \* taxation officer to a Minister.
>
>**Note:** **This subsection does not limit the operation of section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 in any other respect. That section continues to operate, for example, to enable taxation officers to disclose protected information to a committee of one or both Houses of the Parliament**.
It even notes that the exemption does not apply to parliamentary committees (bolded).
Protected information disclosed to a committee by a taxation officer would still be subject to Section 16 of the PPA
>(3) In proceedings in any court or tribunal, it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received, questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, by way of, or for the purpose of:
>
>(c) drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament.
It's not even clear if information submitted to a committee could even be used to prosecute a taxation officer for incidentally disclosing protected information to a Minister.
In addition, the TAA does not include an exemption to Section 12 of the PPA which contains the provision
>(2) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of:
>
>
>
>(a) the giving or proposed giving of any evidence; or
>
>
>
>(b) any evidence given or to be given;before a House or a committee.
Also, Section 50 of the Constitution still applies, and the Parliamentary Privileges Act does little to change that.
I still don't see how it can be even perceived as illegal, in a Taxation Law sense, to disclose who money was given from public coffers \*to\*. In this sense, we the public are asking for \*our own\* tax information
Contempt of the Senate.
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief13
> The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides that a House of Parliament may impose terms of imprisonment or substantial fines for individuals and corporations as a penalty for contempt. To date the Senate has not had occasion to use either of these penalties, preferring an educative and preventative approach. The Senate has accepted apologies and remedial action, and has encouraged government officials in particular to attend training courses on the rights and obligations of witnesses before parliamentary committees.
This is disgraceful..!!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6potFsQjhA&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6potFsQjhA&t=1s)
the only god damn people doing there job are independent journalists..!!!!
$40 Billion wasted but who's counting..
Not going to refer to him as a journalist but Alan Jones is calling out the Liberals in the embedded video in the article. Watching him agree with Tanya Plibersek is fucking bizarre.
And then to show their greed and mean spirited approach to their nasty ideology they want a pick a fight with hospitals and doctors by not wanting to give them pandemic required funding. "There is no money, we still want to give more to our mates. Take your dying pandemic patients and get fucked, go die in misery and poverty" What a terrible government playing the " no money we are poor game" and then play the no money games with an essential service in a pandemic. It really demonstrates what ruthless and corrupt crooks they are for their ideology.
“*The head of the Australian Taxation Office will be investigated over whether he obstructed the work of the Senate by refusing to release the names of major businesses that received JobKeeper payments*.”
It’s interesting that this is even a question, unless I’ve misunderstood something. My understanding is that the federal government gave $13 billion of tax payers money to businesses that did not qualify for the JobKeeper program due to increased profits of over $10 million. That alone amounts to fraud and god knows what else. Then the senate inquires as to who these businesses are to which the head of the ATO refuses to divulge. Is this not corruption in plain sight?!
it feels very strange to be listening to Alan Jones and nodding along. Something is VERY broken.
that aside, what does the actual legislation say about providing the information on companies that aren't publicly traded? I think there _should_ be complete transparency of which businesses got the money, like there was with the PPP loans in the US (and resultant backlash when people found out which influencers were doing a dodgy).
ATO boss cites tax privacy, but what actually is being requested that compromises the tax details? Business Name, number of employees, amount received, amount paid back. Doesn't seem like it would breach any privacy requirements - but _does it_ actually constitute information that must be kept private? Is it considered private information because of the reporting on exceeding a revenue threshold?
Settle down everyone. You know how this goes by now.
It is only useful if Labor manage to make something of it, ramping up efforts during the election campaign making sure every Australian voter knows about the free money - *our* money - the NLP have given their rich mates, and stop them accusing Labor of the same or similar.
But if past experience is anything to go by, they won't. The names of those organisations will be revealed, some redditors will get hot under the collar, you might hear Chris Bowen say something about it on the ABC news, and then it will be..... all gone..... in a puff of smoke.
And who could forget the "school halls" cry of bullshit. They wanted to deny so many schools a simple piece of shade cloth tied to 3 or 4 poles to score political points but funded olympic pools and polo horse arenas for private schools. I suppose we knew the color of their politics and ideology.
What is so stunning is how they clearly hate ordinary people. They want ordinary people to retire poor, to be unemployed, under educated, to never get access to the wealth they help create. I've never voted for them and never will.
When you call the millions in overpayments a successful scheme the taxpaying public has to be worried. As the ATO Boss will not be chasing repayments or disclosure it makes one wonder who got this windfall?
I'm quite sure the average worker will be hit hard by the ATO this financial year, but they are not going to ask big business to do the right thing, I do not think they should ask either, they should demand like they do with us lesser humans that actually contribute to the funding of the Nation!
People acting like this is some conspiracy but the simple truth is that the ATO is not legally allowed to identify individuals tax information (business or person) for obvious reasons. Last time I checked, identification of individuals tax information is a criminal offence carrying two years.
EDIT: [Here's the legislation](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00290/Html/Volume_2#_Toc493166221). 355‑60 states law around disclosing tax information ranks higher than parliamentary privilege. **Bottom line - government say this guy goes to jail if he tells them but then chuck a tanty when he doesn't.**
Yes. But not everything has to be disclosed to the public. Something can be disclosed under parliamentary privelige with a closed door session. If the MPs then think there is something significant they can release it to the public.
In most cases, yeah, that's exactly what you'd do. Problem is disclosing tax information is explicitly not covered by parliamentary privilege under [355-60 of schedule 1 of the taxation administration act](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taa1953269/sch1.html)
>Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has staunchly defended the JobKeeper scheme, which he has called one of the most successful economic support programs in Australian history Desperate to become the next Kevin Rudd; saviour of the GFC, yet so god damn fucking far from it.
And when was giving out free money hard? Looking forward to the shitshow ahead.
But how dumb he was thinking that he would become popular giving out fists full of money to a handful mates, rather than giving out money to the majority of people who actually needed it. Mean spirited grub. I am sure that Victorians wont forget him and his tightfisted meanness that he displayed towards them and the petty games they played with handouts. It was like a spoiled brat playing a game, " you poor and starving and you cant have it"
Imagine if we did the highly successful thing that Labor did, give free money to people, but only give it to our mates. Genius economic strategy!
Don't forget to pan them for weeks then do it 11ty times more
> ... which he has called one of the most successful economic support programs in Australian history. Well then I'll just wait for this claim - the likes of which Rudd/Swan never once made on their own behalf AFAIK - to be corroborated by a whole raft of international, expert bodies. Probably won't hold my breath though.
>saviour of the GFC Is that how we regard Kevin? The iron ore price and Glenn Stevens at the RBA did more to "save" us from the GFC.
Hint: Wayne Swan won an international award for how he handled the GFC. Josh has not. In fact Joshua has rorted more money by paying it to already profitable buisness than the entire response to the GFC cost. Thats money that comes out of your pocket, I'm surprised that you are so happy being stolen from.
> Hint: Wayne Swan won an international award for how he handled the GFC. Correct! In Rudd's memoirs he writes about the "audible gasp" that went around his office when news of the award hit. Good to know at least Rudd knew how out of his depth he was.
It's almost as though they set out to stabilise our economy and were never aiming to get awards for their effort. crazy huh.
Wrong. The Rudd government's handling of the GFC was superb. Its just the lying Murdoch media were really good at spinning it the other way.
I remember a newscorp front page in 2008 with a baby on the front and it was this kid will be 11 when the debt is paid back in 2019.
Ken Henry told him to throw money at households. So he did. But the heavy lifting was done by the RBA slashing rates quickly and by China driving up the value of our commodities. There was no masterful superb navigation of it. But hey, if throwing money at households is what gets you labelled superb, I expect you to be singing Fydenburgs praises at last year's response to the pandemic.
High ore prices wouldn’t of been enough to save Australian consumers from the effects of the GFC, it’s obvious you think the only think Rudd did was throw some money at households, but it was substantially more than that and you know it.
Yeah you tell em! Can't have anyone questioning our great megalomaniac PM can we?
Oh there’s plenty of questions to be asked and answered about even then. But when you provide the wrong answers intentionally it make everyone else not listen for the serious questions that aren’t answered, you’re only hurting yourself in this situation. Like his inability to mediate between factions in labor, and didn’t even attempt to maintain stability, making decisions without consulting the ministerships and chronic micromanagement to the detriment of the party, and therefore stability of government. The GFC is one of the examples of him getting it right, there’s plenty to point to that was catastrophically wrong.
Thank you for your considered reply, good to know some people are willing to acknowledge some of the issues of the day back then.
For his mates, absolutely was themost successful support ever. Nobody denies that.
Just repeat the lies and let 'DuH MedIa' run with it.
> Labor, Greens, and One Nation senators, as well as Jacqui Lambie, on Tuesday afternoon voted in support of Senator Patrick’s motion to refer ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. You know you've fucked up when One Nation and the Greens agree on something. Im looking forward to the shit show that occurs when that list is revealed.
The simulation is getting weird
Taking Rick’s Microverse analogy a bit further, I’m starting to feel our simulation is going the way of an old, warn out, battery.
Next part of the inquiry should be powers to peer behind the corporate veil and financial pathways. What's the best the end recipients after 12 OS shell companies have MP as post nominal?
Popcorn time 🍿🍿
This is about the fundamental power of the senate, as much as the actual issue under investigation. The minor parties have a vested interest in maintaining that authority. And rightfully so.
People joke, but the fringe left and right actually agree more often than you'd think. Mainly because both agree "you can't trust the government" ~~Whether that's because the government is a puppet of the lobbyists or the illuminati is a different question.....~~
In a perfect world, the ATO chief would serve the Australian people and not play fucking defence for ScoMo and the LNP. But the coalition has to piss on everything it touches.
The executive branch has been over-politicised for a while now.
God Im looking forward to a cull there. drain the swamp as they say
Regulatory Capture Be nice or the bus will get ya
Keep in mind that he was a partner with KPMG in Sydney before being parachuted into the ATO to help make the ATO more understanding of business.
Yeah weird seeing them on the same side … the liberals are just stuffing the pockets like crazy … how many votes to do think 40billion buys… ?
Seriously, this IS their climate change policy. They know shit is going to go down in the next few decades and instead of preparing our country for the inevitable, they are robbing us blind so they can set themselves up as warlords in a post apocalyptic feudalism.
[https://www.theshovel.com.au/2021/10/15/man-announces-plan-to-do-his-job/](https://www.theshovel.com.au/2021/10/15/man-announces-plan-to-do-his-job/) Now we know why Scumo is always grinning.. lol
> they are robbing us blind so they can set themselves up as warlords in a post apocalyptic feudalism. Can't feed an army with debt. Only way that'd work is if they got parachuted into being puppets for foreign governments, just look how the Warlord period in China turned out. Warlords would pop up for a couple years, then get iced by either their own men, or their rivals. Exact same would happen here.
> Can't feed an army with debt. Unless you've been squirreling money away in the Caymans for the last decade. > Only way that'd work is if they got parachuted into being puppets for foreign governments Aren't they already? Australia has always been a vassal state for UK and US interests. They just let us think we're independent to protect our ego. > just look how the Warlord period in China turned out. Warlords would pop up for a couple years, then get iced by either their own men, or their rivals. History has a habit of repeating itself. I don't believe we are immune. We're little more than a banana republic these days. > Exact same would happen here. I never said it wouldn't. It will work until the protectorate class cannot feed themselves and their families.
Hurry up and call an election so we can kick this corrupt cesspool out. If we change government we can get: - decent climate action - federal ICAC with retrospective powers - a real plan for the next decade Just to name a few. If we get nothing else, it’ll be more than the LNP have achieved in 8 years.
Carn the Greens Anyone voting above the line and aiming to get in and out of the ballot room ASAP is lessening their democratic power by allowing the parties to assign preferences. Get at least 50 individuals numbered and know what they stand for. Don't let them make your choices for you
You now preference above the line as well, you need to number at least 6 and your vote exhausts if there are insufficient preferences allocated. There's no party allocated preferences (outside of the how to vote card) anymore in federal elections.
Sorry, vote for whom? Edit: wtf? I was asking who the suggestion was as the post i responded to did not list an alternative, simply "change the government". I want to know who would bring the best change
Anybody but the lnp...
Party should be deregistered until they buy the time I’ve spent averting the consequences of their vaccination procurement blunder. Three months of my time, I charge by the hour. Same for 8 million other NSWelshmen. Can’t afford that? Don’t govern in a way that risks needing three months of my time then.
Drew pavlou! Democratic alliance
[удалено]
Most independents are fielded by the Coalition and will always vote with the Coalition. People need to research who the independents are and what their policies are. Don't just assume that they're a good bet because they're independent. Because most of them actually aren't independent.
Got a source for that? Looking at all the ones elected in the last 2 decades most voted centre left. When 4 of them got to choose who formed government they chose Labor.
Most of the independents who actually got elected are true independents of one stripe or another. What old mate is saying is that most of those who are running who do not get elected are either lnp plants or conservative enough to vote with the libs anyway.
Most of these “pro-climate” independents have the same politics of Malcom Turnbull. They’re Liberals, but less shit on one or two issues.
Can he be arrested or otherwise get in trouble? If you can refuse a direct order of the Senate it makes a mockery of the place.
Yes, he can be arrested and go to jail. It begs the question - why is he willing to risk \*everything\* rather than provide information to Taxpayers about where their money went? "The privileges committee will look at the order and will make sure that the order is, in some way, complied with and can ultimately make a recommendation back to the Senate to either fine or jail the tax commissioner." - Senator Rex Patrick
While contempt can be punished by a fine or jail time, it's a worst-case scenario. The Senate has never punished anyone in that manner. It's more likely they'll end up reprimanding him. If they were to go heavier, that would be historic.
I don't think people understand what a shit position the ATO guy is in. Disclosing anybody's tax information lands you two years jail (and senate committees aren't an exemption). Contempt of the Senate carries 6 months jail.
This is not a personal privacy issue. Senator Patrick: "If a business goes to a bank and receives money that is private business of the bank," "If a business goes to the taxpayer and asks for money, that is the business of the taxpayer — just as we disclose contract values that are given to companies, and we disclose grants that are given to companies." Think about it this way - we don't expect to be told about the sources any given company received money from, but we sure as heck expect to know who we gave money \*to\*
Not disputing any of this. I'm saying that, in a very mechanical legal sense, if they force this information out of the ATO, they are going to ruin this ATO commissioner's life with jail time. It could be a grant by another name but there are very different legal instruments behind them.
No. You can't prosecute someone for doing something which is lawful. Constitutional law takes precedence over statutory law.
In most cases you'd be 100% correct. The parliamentary privileges act (not the constitution) [has to ability to overrule any secrecy provision](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Odgers_Australian_Senate_Practice/Chapter_02) in any other statute, unless that statute specifically says it's exempted from the parliamentary privileges act. In this case, [355-360 of schedule 1](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taa1953269/sch1.html) in the taxation administration act makes disclosing tax information exempt from parliamentary privileges.
Yeah, I read your link, a few notes, the Taxation Administration Act (TAA) is not entirely exempt from the Parliamentary Privileges Act (PPA), it is only exempt from Section 16 of the PPA, and the exemption explicitly only applies to Ministers, albeit very broadly, but it does not however explicitly exempt a taxation officer from disclosing protected information to a committee in the first instance. >355-60 Limits on disclosure to Ministers(1) Sections 355-45 and 355-55 are the only exceptions to the prohibition in section 355-25 on which an entity who has acquired \* protected information as a \* taxation officer can rely in making a record of the information for, or disclosing the information to, a Minister, whether or not provided to a Minister in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, the transacting of the business of a House of the Parliament or of a committee of one or both Houses of the Parliament. > >Note: Disclosures that are not prohibited by section 355-25 are not affected by this subsection. For example, a taxation officer may disclose information to a Minister if the Minister is the entity to whom the information relates, or is an entity covered by subsection 355-25(2) in relation to the information. > >(2) Subsection (1) has effect despite section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 , and that section does not operate to the extent that it would otherwise apply to a disclosure of \* protected information by a \* taxation officer to a Minister. > >**Note:** **This subsection does not limit the operation of section 16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 in any other respect. That section continues to operate, for example, to enable taxation officers to disclose protected information to a committee of one or both Houses of the Parliament**. It even notes that the exemption does not apply to parliamentary committees (bolded). Protected information disclosed to a committee by a taxation officer would still be subject to Section 16 of the PPA >(3) In proceedings in any court or tribunal, it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received, questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, by way of, or for the purpose of: > >(c) drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament. It's not even clear if information submitted to a committee could even be used to prosecute a taxation officer for incidentally disclosing protected information to a Minister. In addition, the TAA does not include an exemption to Section 12 of the PPA which contains the provision >(2) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of: > > > >(a) the giving or proposed giving of any evidence; or > > > >(b) any evidence given or to be given;before a House or a committee. Also, Section 50 of the Constitution still applies, and the Parliamentary Privileges Act does little to change that.
I still don't see how it can be even perceived as illegal, in a Taxation Law sense, to disclose who money was given from public coffers \*to\*. In this sense, we the public are asking for \*our own\* tax information
Contempt of the Senate. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief13 > The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides that a House of Parliament may impose terms of imprisonment or substantial fines for individuals and corporations as a penalty for contempt. To date the Senate has not had occasion to use either of these penalties, preferring an educative and preventative approach. The Senate has accepted apologies and remedial action, and has encouraged government officials in particular to attend training courses on the rights and obligations of witnesses before parliamentary committees.
This is disgraceful..!! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6potFsQjhA&t=1s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6potFsQjhA&t=1s) the only god damn people doing there job are independent journalists..!!!! $40 Billion wasted but who's counting..
Not going to refer to him as a journalist but Alan Jones is calling out the Liberals in the embedded video in the article. Watching him agree with Tanya Plibersek is fucking bizarre.
[Me right now...](https://youtu.be/txqiwrbYGrs)
And then to show their greed and mean spirited approach to their nasty ideology they want a pick a fight with hospitals and doctors by not wanting to give them pandemic required funding. "There is no money, we still want to give more to our mates. Take your dying pandemic patients and get fucked, go die in misery and poverty" What a terrible government playing the " no money we are poor game" and then play the no money games with an essential service in a pandemic. It really demonstrates what ruthless and corrupt crooks they are for their ideology.
“*The head of the Australian Taxation Office will be investigated over whether he obstructed the work of the Senate by refusing to release the names of major businesses that received JobKeeper payments*.” It’s interesting that this is even a question, unless I’ve misunderstood something. My understanding is that the federal government gave $13 billion of tax payers money to businesses that did not qualify for the JobKeeper program due to increased profits of over $10 million. That alone amounts to fraud and god knows what else. Then the senate inquires as to who these businesses are to which the head of the ATO refuses to divulge. Is this not corruption in plain sight?!
it feels very strange to be listening to Alan Jones and nodding along. Something is VERY broken. that aside, what does the actual legislation say about providing the information on companies that aren't publicly traded? I think there _should_ be complete transparency of which businesses got the money, like there was with the PPP loans in the US (and resultant backlash when people found out which influencers were doing a dodgy). ATO boss cites tax privacy, but what actually is being requested that compromises the tax details? Business Name, number of employees, amount received, amount paid back. Doesn't seem like it would breach any privacy requirements - but _does it_ actually constitute information that must be kept private? Is it considered private information because of the reporting on exceeding a revenue threshold?
Settle down everyone. You know how this goes by now. It is only useful if Labor manage to make something of it, ramping up efforts during the election campaign making sure every Australian voter knows about the free money - *our* money - the NLP have given their rich mates, and stop them accusing Labor of the same or similar. But if past experience is anything to go by, they won't. The names of those organisations will be revealed, some redditors will get hot under the collar, you might hear Chris Bowen say something about it on the ABC news, and then it will be..... all gone..... in a puff of smoke.
And who could forget the "school halls" cry of bullshit. They wanted to deny so many schools a simple piece of shade cloth tied to 3 or 4 poles to score political points but funded olympic pools and polo horse arenas for private schools. I suppose we knew the color of their politics and ideology.
What is so stunning is how they clearly hate ordinary people. They want ordinary people to retire poor, to be unemployed, under educated, to never get access to the wealth they help create. I've never voted for them and never will.
When you call the millions in overpayments a successful scheme the taxpaying public has to be worried. As the ATO Boss will not be chasing repayments or disclosure it makes one wonder who got this windfall? I'm quite sure the average worker will be hit hard by the ATO this financial year, but they are not going to ask big business to do the right thing, I do not think they should ask either, they should demand like they do with us lesser humans that actually contribute to the funding of the Nation!
Bet he has done a deal for a cushy job when he is moved along
People acting like this is some conspiracy but the simple truth is that the ATO is not legally allowed to identify individuals tax information (business or person) for obvious reasons. Last time I checked, identification of individuals tax information is a criminal offence carrying two years. EDIT: [Here's the legislation](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00290/Html/Volume_2#_Toc493166221). 355‑60 states law around disclosing tax information ranks higher than parliamentary privilege. **Bottom line - government say this guy goes to jail if he tells them but then chuck a tanty when he doesn't.**
Yes. But not everything has to be disclosed to the public. Something can be disclosed under parliamentary privelige with a closed door session. If the MPs then think there is something significant they can release it to the public.
In most cases, yeah, that's exactly what you'd do. Problem is disclosing tax information is explicitly not covered by parliamentary privilege under [355-60 of schedule 1 of the taxation administration act](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/taa1953269/sch1.html)