TasCOSS Newsletter June 2006

newsletter June 2006

Tasmanian Council of Social Service Inc. inside this issue State Budget del ive rs on elect ion p rom ises but housing needs rema i n

by Luke Ma r t i n : 1

F rom t he CE O

by Mat Rowel l :

3

State Budget delivers on election promises, but housing need remains.

Stop Press:

Luke Martin, Social Policy Officer.

New Manager, Industry Development appointed.

4

Boycott case management?

“Let the Government do its own dirty work”

by M ichael Rape r :

Consumer Issues Report

by Kat h McLean :

Homeless People Count!

6

8

10

The Privatisation of Community Care

by Paul i ne Ma rsh :

11

Industry Development Report

by David Owen : 12

www.tascoss.org.au

Tasmanians on low incomes are set to receive additional assistance with a number of key social initiatives announced in the June 15 State Budget.

This budget was the first since the March State Election and also the first from new Treasurer, Michael Aird.

The big-spending budget delivered on promises made by the Labor Government in the lead-up to the state election and included several commitments made directly in response to recommendations made by TasCOSS and the community sector.

Important social initiatives in the State Budget include: 1 Investment and a new focus on early intervention strategies to better target support for vulnerable Tasmanian families; 2 $9.2 million in additional funding for Children’s and Family Services; 3 A $20 million dental health package, including the abolition of the $25 co-payment for emergency dental treatments and funding for 48,000 additional

4

5

6

7

8

dental treatments for low- income Tasmanians in the private dental service; Extending the Electricity Concession for Commonwealth Health Care Card Holders over the full year, providing an additional $90 per annum relief to the electricity costs of low-income households; Establishing the new Disability Bureau and the Office of Children and Youth Affairs within the Department of Premier and Cabinet; Further expansion of the Partnerships to Jobs Program and additional support for Project Hahn to provide training and employment opportunities for long-term unemployed; $6 million contribution to the new community housing initiative, the Affordable Housing Organisation; Funding for the first Social and Economic Impact Study into the impact of gambling

on the Tasmanian community (to be replicated every three years thereafter); 9 $1million to assist custodial grandparents raising grandchildren; 10 Funding to establish a Community Services Sector Development and Support Unit to be located within TasCOSS; 11 Support for the development of an industry plan for the non- government community services industry.

The budget provides for record spending in health, education and other social services.

Another key initiative in the budget was the establishment of a Demographic Change Ministerial Advisory Council to develop a strategic direction and plan to manage the significant challenge of demographic change on Tasmania’s economic and social progress. TasCOSS has accepted an invitation from the Government to be an inaugural member of this new high-level advisory council to be chaired by the Treasurer.

It is our firm view that the State Government must have a systemwide approach to affordable housing with public housing at its cornerstone. Unfortunately this budget included no additional investment in our public housing service.

It remains – as it always has been - the responsibility of Government to provide housing for those in greatest need.

TasCOSS and the community sector will be focussing its efforts over the coming months on a more considered approach from Government to affordable housing

Luke Martin Social Policy Officer

From the CEO’s Desk

Despite the strong social focus ofMarch the 2006 2005 budget, TasCOSS and the community sector remain disappointed with the lack of priority being given by Government to public housing.

and greater awareness of the value of public housing to the broader community.

A detailed analysis of the State Budget, with particular emphasis on the policy areas advocated by TasCOSS and other non-government organisations, is availableon the TasCOSS website: www.tascoss.org.au

From the CEO Mat Rowell, CEO.

In the last newsletter, I wrote at length about our involvement in the State Election process. You would have also received an insert to the Newsletter which contained a breakdown of the responses received from each party to our recommendations.

The general and quite overwhelming feeling in the office is that our campaign was highly successful. Of the 16 recommendations made in the A Fairer Tasmania Call to the Parties document, all were supported by at least one party. 4 had bipartisan support, and 12 were supported and committed to by the incoming Labor Government. Aside from large dental health and children and family support early intervention packages, an extension to the winter electricity concession to health care card holders across the whole year, there was also a significant commitment to the nongovernment community services industry.

The Labor Party and the Tasmanian Greens both committed to the development of an industry plan for our sector, as well as to significant resources for the development of the Community Services Industry Development Unit, to be situated within TasCOSS. We have heard in the state budget in the past week that this promise has been honoured.

Whilst there will be focus in this edition of the newsletter on the state budget outcomes, I am personally

going to focus on our internal changes, growth and development.

We have been advocating for some time that our core operational grant at TasCOSS as the peak industry council for our industry has been insufficient to meet the needs of our members, their clients and of Government departments who call on our expertise and time every day.

Government has heeded this call, and has announced a $330,000 per annum increase in our core resources to develop a program of organisational development services for our industry. This gives us great capacity to continue to devote resources specifically to social policy advice, analysis, campaigning and lobbying work, under the direction of a new Manager. It also gives us the ability to create the development unit as a distinct business unit of TasCOSS, also under the direction of a new Manager, to provide to community service organisations a range of development programs and activities, designed to assist your organisation deliver better services, strengthen your capacities and increase your opportunities. This unit will deliver a program based on solid consultation with the sector.

Government also announced that it was committed to the development of an Industry Plan. We have also been advocating this for some time, and believe that a planning process which sets out the challenges and opportunities for the sector, provides for a range of strategies to address

Mat Rowell CEO

Stop Press: New Manager, Industry Development appointed.

these, as well as attempting to set in place some agreements with government about communication, consultation, procurement, and other strategic sector policies is essential to our growing industry.

The first component of this planning project will be an extensive mapping exercise, to fully capture the essence and characteristics of our sector. This will be a key project for the sector over the next twelve months, and will require your support and assistance. This project is still in the scoping stage, and further information about this will come your way in coming months.

After years of struggling on a small budget, TasCOSS will be in a position to plan and direct a policy and a development agenda based on our industry’s needs, rather than having to react and respond to urgent and competing demands. It is an exciting and challenging time, and we look forward to working with you all in this next phase of our organisation and our industry’s life.

Maree Fudge has been appointed as Manager, Industry Development, to develop, plan, and implement the Community Services Industry Development Unit, starting in July.

as high level management skills.

She will be warmly welcomed to the TasCOSS team and you will be seeing a lot of her in coming months.

Many of you would know Maree from her contribution to the sector through her work at Colony 47 as a Program Manager in various programs there, as well as her contribution to our own Social Policy Council and other events.

Maree brings a truly ingrained set of values in relation to social justice and a commitment to the community services industry as well

After years of struggling on a small budget, TasCOSS will be in a position to plan and direct a policy and a development agenda based on our industry’s needs.

It is our firm view that the State Government must have a systemIn other social policy news

Federal Budget : TasCOSS was also disappointed that the Federal Budget released in May did not include greater investment in areas of social need such as affordable housing and dental care.

Low-income and disadvantaged Tasmanians earning an income would have welcomed the taxcuts announced in the budget, especially at a time of record petrol prices and rising interest rates.

Nevertheless, tax cuts can never be used as an excuse for Governments to ignore their responsibility to invest in the services that support people to improve their lives and their lifechances.

At a time of national economic prosperity, the time is now for Governments at both a State and Commonwealth level to ensure the fruits of Australia’s economic success are more fairly shared amongst its citizens.

TasCOSS – Social Policy Focus : With the March State Election and the annual Budget Season now out of the way, TasCOSS has increased its focus on its internal social policy development, particularly in the areas of health, affordable housing and gambling.

wide approach to affordable housing with public-housing at its cornerstone.

Through our consultations with the community sector over the last-12 months, our members told us that they would like to see a greater advocacy role in the current debate about Tasmania’s health system.

We have also recently held a Health Policy Symposium featuring community sector representatives to consider some of the major issues and challenges for low-income and disadvantaged Tasmanians accessing health care.

TasCOSS has always been engaged in health policy debate and we now want to increase this role, particularly through including health-policy recommendations in our annual Budget Priority Statement to the State Government.

TasCOSS is also reviewing its policies in relation to affordable housing and will soon commence a scheduled review of our 2003 Gambling Policy Position Statement.

TasCOSS’ policy development body, the Tasmanian Social Policy Council (TSPC) established a Health and Wellbeing Policy Subcommittee in March.

Reminder – Dorothy Pearce Address With all the invitations that we have sent over the past month you may have overlooked the Dorothy Pearce Address and Dinner. So may we take this opportunity to remind you that the topic for the address this year is Making Human Rights Matter: How can rights frameworks help us create a better community? to be given by Prof Larissa Behrendt.

This event is being held at 6.30pm on Wednesday 26 July at Hobart Conference Centre, Elizabeth Pier Hobart.

Closing date for reply is 20th July but, with limited seats and places filling fast, we encourage you to RSVP as soon as possible to avoid being disappointed. If you require further information or a copy of the flyer please contact Lynne on 6231 0755 or download it from our website at www.tascoss.org.au

Boycott case management? “Let the Government do its own dirty work”

Michael Raper, President, National Welfare Rights Network.

There are many aspects of the new compliance regime that, depending on how Centrelink and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) implement the changes, could mean it’s a lot better than the current breaches system.

But at the core of the regime is a vicious, unjustified, illogical and counterproductive eight week nopayment provision. It will be applied not only for a third offence, but also as an immediate cut in payments for more “serious offences”, including: 1 refusing an offer of a suitable job (without a reasonable excuse) 2 resigning a job without good reason 3 failing to participate in full-time “Work for The Dole” and 4 being dismissed from employment due to misconduct.

We estimate that in the first year of the new system between 16,000 and 20,000 people will be hit with an eight week no-payment period. These figures have been confirmed by Centrelink. The 06 -07 Budget makes provision for about 5,000 of these to receive “case management” during this period at a cost of about $4 million each year.

We oppose this eight week nopayment penalty strongly, and the NWRN and the sector generally should continue to campaign against it because:

1

2

it is contrary to even the Government’s own “philosophy” about encouraging engagement and participation; a person cannot be required to undertake activities or look for work while not on payment (thankfully) and will therefore become extremely isolated;

the Government should do its own dirty work, and not call on the sector to do it once again

3

and it is so harsh that it will even apply to families with children which, the Government acknowledges to be so extreme that it has been forced to announce a practically difficult and ethically challenging “case

management” system.

well-intentioned community welfare agencies will become complicit partners Proposed “case-management” system to alleviate damage

in administering a deeply flawed compliance regime

This is the major reason why the NWRN has called on the sector to boycott the proposed case management system - because of the existence of the eight week no-payment system that it was designed to alleviate.

It is our view that: 1 the Government should do its own dirty work, and not call on the sector to do it once again; 2 well-intentioned community welfare agencies will become complicit partners in administering a deeply flawed compliance regime; and 3 Centrelink should be required to implement the complex and impractical case management system the Government will introduce to cover up the unacceptable damage of the eight week no-payment penalty for the 25% of those affected that are regarded as “exceptionally vulnerable”.

Nevertheless, NWRN has no doubt that a number of well-intentioned organisations in the sector will place their name on the case management registry for this work - both because of the financial opportunity and the opportunity to help extremely vulnerable people who are in the serious predicament of receiving no payment. We have no doubt that most will do a good and committed job in helping these people. Where no local organisation is offering the service, or a dispute emerges between a person and the agency, Centrelink will be required to take on the role of case management.

Challenging issues to confront

However, there are some real issues that some organisations will have to confront if they place their name on the Centrelink registry.

These include: 1 the making of moral and value judgements where a person seeks funds to purchase items such as tobacco or contraceptives; 2 dealing with the very limited ability under the rules to give case managed people any cash to pay for transport or make any purchase of their own; and 3 staff and volunteers having to deal with increased client anger stemming from the impractical and frustrations of the case management process.

One of the major concerns is around the potential for conflicts of interest to arise where an agency which has a Job Network “arm” gets a slice of the $4 million set aside each year for case management and then feels compelled to recommend that Centrelink impose a

No place for an eight week penalty “participation failure” penalty on an “exceptionally vulnerable” person.

There is no place for an eight week no-payment penalty in our income support system and we must remain vigilant it continuing to oppose and expose this totally unacceptable feature. We must also remember that the Government has defined “exceptionally vulnerable” people in such a way as to ensure that only one in every four that it expects will suffer an eight week no-payment period will be eligible for the benefit of the case management system – as complex, impractical and difficult as it is.

Our attention should therefore remain focussed on the 11,000 to 15,000 who don’t and on the hideous notion of an eight week penalty in the first place.

encouraged (through competition payment incentives from the Commonwealth) to introduce retail competition in their retail electricity markets. South Australia, Victoria and NSW have already introduced full retail competition, and it will commence in Queensland next year. Although retail competition for very large customers in Tasmania will begin in July this

Consumer Issues Report

Kath McLean – Policy Officer, Consumer Issues

Pre-Payment Meter Research Update The TasCOSS Pre-Payment Meter Research Project is nearing completion and we expect to release a final report on the project in mid-July. Questionnaires were posted to 4,000 of the 37,000 Tasmanian households that use the Aurora Pay As You Go (APAYG) pre-payment system for electricity metering. We’ve had a better than expected response with 1,500 questionnaires returned.

We were pleased to receive a $10,000 contribution towards the research from the State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, as well as a contribution in-kind from Aurora Energy which assisted with posting the questionnaires to the random sample of their APAYG customers across all Tasmanian postcode areas.

Tasmania and the National Energy Market – Issues for Consumers With Basslink on-line and able to both send and receive electricity across Bass Strait, and with an functioning gas pipeline into the State, Tasmania is now an active participant in the National Energy

Market. Many Tasmanian consumers wonder how they will be affected.

The answer is that it’s really too early to tell. However, there are many changes both planned and already in place that may affect electricity prices in Tasmania in the future.

Tasmanian households won’t see any changes to their electricity bills in the short term since Aurora Energy and Hydro Tasmania have a set-price contract that lasts until

TasCOSS intends to be a key player in that public interest test process to ensure that retail competition at household level will not result in price hikes or in any disadvantage to low income households.

March, 2007, and the Tasmanian Energy Regulator will place limits on household electricity prices until the end of 2007. After that, another longer term price determination will be undertaken and it is then that we might see increased household prices as some of the costs of participating in the national market are passed on to consumers.

In addition, as part of National Competition Policy the states are

year, the Tasmanian government has not yet decided whether it will introduce retail competition at the small business and household level.

The State Government intends to carry out a public interest test in 2008 prior to considering the introduction of competition in 2010.

TasCOSS intends to be a key player in that public interest test process to ensure that retail competition at household level will not result in price hikes or in any disadvantage

to low income households. We will provide more information about this to members as it becomes available.

Major changes are currently taking place in the regulation of electricity distribution and retail with many of the local Regulator’s responsibilities being shifted to the new national Australian Energy Regulator (AER). TasCOSS is involved in an active national network of energy consumer advocates that is keeping a close eye on the changes and their possible impact on consumers, and especially low income and disadvantaged consumers. With the move to national regulation, we want to ensure that the best possible consumer protections are in place and that these are not simply the ‘lowest common denominator’ that can be agreed between the states and territories.

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has recently employed a Senior Policy Officer to work on electricity issues and a COSS Utilities network has also been established. This network comprises policy officers in COSSes across the country who work on electricity, gas and water issues. We are sharing information and experiences, as well as working together to develop and implement effective strategies to advocate for continued access to and affordability of these essential services for low income and disadvantaged households.

Human Rights Update

There have been some positive developments on the human rights front in Tasmania this year, and we hope that the momentum will continue. This year’s TasCOSS Dorothy Pearce Address (July 26 – see advertisement in this newsletter) will feature Professor Larissa Behrendt speaking on ‘Making Human Rights Matter: How can rights frameworks help us create a better community?’. All are welcome to attend.

In February this year, the then Attorney General, Judy Jackson announced that the Government was engaging the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute to investigate options for human rights protections in Tasmania. The investigation will include research on existing protections and new models for rights protection and enhancement, the development of options for a Tasmanian protection model and of a discussion paper outlining and evaluating these, community consultations, and a recommendation to the Government of an appropriate

Kath McLean Policy Officer, Consumer Issues

model for Tasmania. The investigation is due to begin in July and we look forward to participating and encourage other community service organisations to also become involved in this important process.

In March this year TasCOSS, in partnership with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC, Sydney) and the Hobart Community Legal Service delivered train-the-trainer courses in Protecting Human Rights in Australia in both Hobart and Launceston. The training was based on a package developed by PIAC and incorporated the use of PIAC’s community education kit on human rights in Australia. In total, about 30 people were trained to deliver the training in Tasmania.

If you’d like to organise training in Protecting Human Rights in Australia for your organisation or would like to know more about the course, please contact TasCOSS and we can put you in touch with a trainer.

Homeless People Count!

The 2006 Census of Population and Housing is being held on Tuesday 8 August and everyone in Australia will be counted, wherever they are.

Community organisations and all levels of government rely on Census information to plan facilities and services like housing, health, education and special assistance programs. A complete count of homeless people is really important for future planning and providing services.

Identifying as homeless An individual who does not have a usual address at Census time needs to write “NONE” for the question “Where does the person usually live?” on the Census form.

The ABS needs help to ensure that everyone who is homeless at Census time is counted, including people staying 1 In the homes of friends or relatives 2 In homeless accommodation such as boarding houses, hostels, refuges, emergency accommodation or even in places such as hotels/motels or caravan parks 4 On the streets, in parks or under bridges, squatting in deserted buildings or humpies, etc.

Homelessness is difficult to define because it encompasses a range of conditions varying from sleeping in the open with no form of shelter, to grades of inadequacy in housing such as overcrowding, or lack of secure tenure. People without conventional accommodation,

living on streets, in deserted buildings or improvised dwellings, under bridges, or in parks can be enumerated with a Special Short Form which is interview-based and relies on oral responses.

An accurate count will assist in ensuring the appropriate provision of homeless services and programs, as well as supporting grants and any other related finance that both government and private sector organisations may offer.

All information collected in the Census is strictly confidential and

Homelessness is difficult to define because it encompasses a range of conditions varying from sleeping in the open with no form of shelter, to grades of inadequacy in housing such as overcrowding, or lack of secure tenure.

individual privacy is guaranteed. The ABS does not share any personal information with government or private agencies. All Census workers are legally bound never to share any personal information.

Information about the Census is available on the ABS Census Website www.abs.gov.au or please contact Terri Fox on 03 6222 5835 or email therese.fox@abs.gov.au 10

The Privatisation of Community Care

There are currently interesting discussions in the world of community care about projected increases in private, for-profit businesses offering community care services in Australia. A recent 7.30 Report on ABC television ran a story presenting arguments for and against the expansion of such service providers. At the National Community Care Conference in Sydney in May this year a panel discussion also debated the merits or otherwise of private operators. Issues raised on both the 7.30 Report and at the conference were principally concerned with quality and ethics.

This is a very important discussion to be engaged in, particularly for those of us involved in community care. From the perspective of TasCOSS, the key question in this debate is what are the impacts of privitisation on disadvantaged Tasmanians?

The panel consisted of Dr. Walter Leutz, Associate Professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy and Management (USA); Betty Johnson AO, member of the Aged Care Advisory Committee; Michael Boyce, CEO of Australian Home Care; Michael Fine, Senior Lecturer in Sociology at Macquarie University and Pam Cahir, National Director of Early Childhood Australia.

What follows is a summary of the panel’s main points, I’ll leave you to form your own opinions on this topic.

Competition

One concern about the privitisation of community care services was that it was premised on a flawed concept, that is, that competition improves service provision. Leutz suggested that competition for competition’s sake was not necessarily a progressive step and was concerned that if the rationale behind increasing competition was to cut costs, the results may be undesirable for consumers and make choices increasingly difficult.

Profit making Expressing her concerns from a consumer perspective, Betty Johnson stated the notion of profit making in the community care sector was disagreeable and was concerned that dignity would be disregarded and the range of services depleted as a result. She also raised the issue that consumers would be “cherry picked’ and include only the rich.

Michael Fine suggested that the guiding principles of care are in contradiction with those that drive the market. He asked two questions of the audience: “do we want full commercialisation where the poor have no choice?” and “if only the poor have free care then do we create a second class of citizen?”

He also stated that international examples show that privitisation of the sector is a disaster.

11

Pauline Marsh HACC Project Officer

Quality of Care Concerns that the quality of care would be compromised by privitisation were raised. Michael Boyce, however, stated that quality was put to the test at every visit to private providers because service use would discontinue if quality was not adequate. In addition, he suggested that the quality of service was compromised by non-government operators due to an under-funding of the sector, a problem avoid by private operators, as were issues of underpaid and undervalued carers. His resonating line was, “If the Governments aren’t doing it …”

Panm Cahilr bought the experiences of the child care industry to the debate. Opening with a quote from Simone de Beauvoir, “the measure of any society is the way it treats its old and its young”, she suggested that it doesn’t matter who provides the care, as long as its high quality and affordable.

Papers from the conference are available from www.agedcare. org/Conferences/Previous_ Conferences_and _papers.htm

Industry Development Report stitutional corporation. If not a constitutional corporation then either the state system continues to apply (if previously in the state system), or a transitional federal system will apply for up to 5 years (if previously in the federal system).

David Owen, Policy Officer, Industry Development

Workchoices: In or Out?

The Commonwealth Government’s Workchoices industrial relations legislation, passed in March this year, will have an impact on all nongovernment community service organisations, one way or another.

Of immediate importance is knowing whether your organisation is covered by the legislation. This is not an easy question to answer, and real clarity on the issue may not be evident until a range of court cases ‘test the water’ for specific organisations. In the meantime, we commend the following material prepared by Jobs Australia, (and reproduced with their kind permission). To obtain more information about joining Jobs Australia, you can contact their Tasmanian representative, Keith Godfrey, on 1800 880 331. Many of you will have met Keith at one of the Workchoices seminars jointly hosted by JA and TasCOSS in recent months.

Is Your Organisation a Constitutional Corporation?

Under the new “Work Choices” legislation, most Australian employers will become subject to federal regulation of their employment relations,

even if they were previously covered

by State awards, or no awards at all.

As a result of the changes, the federal Workplace Relations Act will apply to virtually all persons or organisations who employ staff in Victoria, the Northern Territory or the ACT. But in the other States, whether an employer is a “federal system employer” will generally depend on whether it can be classed as a con12

What is a Constitutional Corporation?

A constitutional corporation is defined as a foreign corporation, or a trading or financial corporation formed within Australia.

So there are two questions that must be answered to determine whether an employer is a constitutional corporation:

Step 1: Is it a corporation?

Step 2: If it is, is it a foreign, trading or financial corporation?

If the answer to both questions is YES, then the organisation is a constitutional corporation.

This article explains how to answer these two questions.

It should be noted that some organisations operate through a series of related bodies or entities. In each case, what matters for this purpose is the character of the particular entity that employs staff to perform work for the organisation.

If a trust has been established to engage in certain activities on behalf of someone else, it is usually the trustee who employs any staff. If so, the question becomes whether that trustee is or is not a constitutional corporation.

STEP 1: What is a Corporation?

A corporation for this purpose includes: • a proprietary company (often indicated by “Pty Ltd” at the end of the organisation’s name); • a not-for-profit association incor- porated under State or Territory incorporated associations leg- islation (usually indicated by “Inc” at the end of the organisation’s name); • a statutory authority incorporat- ed under special legislation.

An individual person is not a corporation. Nor is a partnership between two or more persons.

STEP 2 : Foreign, Trading and Financial As the name suggests, a foreign corporation is any body that has been incorporated overseas.

For bodies incorporated within Australia to be a constitutional corporation, they must either be a trading or a financial corporation. A financial corporation is a corporation that engages in a significant number of financial activities. In practice though, almost every financial corporation would also be a trading corporation.

So for an Australian entity, the key question is generally whether it can be regarded as a trading corporation.

What is Trading Corporation?

Under the approach currently adopted by the courts, a trading corporation is any corporation that engages in trading activities to a significant extent.

It does not matter that the predominant purpose of the organisation may not be to engage in trade or to make a profit. It is enough that the body engages, to a sufficient degree, in trading activities as at the time the question arises.

Hence a not-for-profit body may be incorporated under State or Territory incorporated associations legislation, and still be regarded as a trading corporation.

Many not-for-profit bodies have been found to be trading corporations, including local councils, pub13

David Owen Policy Officer lic universities, hospitals, benevolent or charitable organisations, and emergency services providers.

What are Trading Activities?

“Trading” for this purpose means any activity that involves some notion of buying or selling and that generates revenue — regardless of whether the activity is carried out at a profit.

Examples of trading activities • providing services to clients or customers, in return for a fee or charge; • providing services to members in return for a fee or subscription; • selling goods (from a shop, mar ket stall, etc); • selling goods through telemar keting; • presenting a performance, event or other public spectacle and charging for admission; • hiring out or servicing equipment in return for a fee; • selling food and drink, for exam ple at a bar or canteen; • selling merchandise and souve- nirs; • fundraising, through auctions, raf fles, lotteries, sale of chocolates, etc; • providing a car park in return for a fee; • conducting social functions for which a charge is imposed on

•

•

those who attend; deriving income from invest- ments; renting out property, or provision of other forms of accommoda- tion for a charge.

Importantly: One major type of revenue that is not regarded as resulting from or involving a trading activity is the receipt of funding (whether from government or from a private source) for the purpose of providing public services. This is so even if the funding is provided under some form of “contract”.

But a body that is funded to provide services to others may still be a trading corporation if it imposes a charge on its clients or customers for the services it provides, and if that raises a significant amount of revenue — even though the charge may not cover anything like the full cost of providing the services.

And even if no charge is imposed in relation to its “core” functions, a body in this situation may still be a trading corporation if it engages in other trading activities to a significant degree: for example, fundraising, earning interest on investments, etc.

Then ask the following questions: •

•

How important are those trad - ing activities in the overall scheme of what the organisa - tion does?

What percentage of the organisation’s total revenue is derived from those trading activities?

Unfortunately there is no bright line or magic figure that can tell you whether your organisation’s trading activities are sufficiently “significant” as to make it a trading corporation.

It is all a matter of degree — and different courts may have different views as to the threshold.

However if more than 20% of annual revenue comes from trading activities, it would be reasonable to assume that the organisation is a trading corporation, even if those

TasCOSS newsletter advertising and inserts rates - 2006 Advertising

Full page Half page Quarter page

Inserts

Members $70 $40 $25

Non-members $110 $70 $40

Members Non-members $85 $130

Applying the Trading Activities Test

To determine whether your organisation is a trading corporation, look through the list of trading activities set out above and consider how many of them apply to the organisation. There may also be other activities that you would consider to involve trading, even if they do not appear in the list.

If you are in doubt, it would usually be sensible to seek legal advice.

This cannot guarantee you a “correct” answer, but would at least give you a firmer basis on which to decide whether or not you are a “federal system employer” for the purpose of the Workplace Relations Act. Before deciding to obtain legal advice, the Jobs Australia industrial relations team is also available to provide guidance.

trading activities would not be regarded as central or “core” to what the organisation does.

Where less than 20% of annual revenue comes from trading activities, they may still be regarded as “significant”. Figures of as little as 5% have been regarded as sufficient in some cases, in relation to a large organisation where the amounts raised were sizeable in dollar terms.

14

HESTA members $32 million better off HESTA members are boosting their super through the Federal Government’s cocontribution scheme to the tune of $32 million.

From 30 June 2005 to the end of February 2006, 33,634 HESTA members received a Government co-contribution.

HESTA CEO Anne-Marie Corboy says she is delighted HESTA members have taken the opportunity to boost their super account balances.

“It is particularly significant because 85% of our membership are women and women often have lower account balances than men due to lower wages and time spent out of the workforce.

“We are extremely proud of our members for taking advantage of the Government co-contribution scheme and giving their super a boost.”

Here’s a summary of how the Government co-contribution works : Since 1 July 2004, the Federal Government provides a co-contribution of up to $1.50 for each $1.00 of after-tax contributions. The maximum annual co-contribution of $1,500 applies to incomes of $28,000 or less a year. It is reduced by 5 cents for each dollar of income over $28,000, cutting out at $58,000. “Income” is assessable income and reportable fringe benefits.

For example, if you are eligible, earn $27,000 a year and contribute an extra $300 to your super from your after-tax income, then the Government will contribute a further $450 to your super. If you make a $1,000 contribution, then the Government will contribute $1,500. Salary sacrifice contributions do not attract a co-contribution.

The minimum co-contribution the Government will pay is $20 and the Australian Tax Office (ATO) is responsible for administering the scheme.

How do you claim a co-contribution?

You don’t have to do anything except make after-tax contributions to your super by June 30 and lodge a tax return (you don’t have to fill anything out on your return regarding the co-contribution or making extra contributions). Your super fund will notify the ATO about your personal contributions and the ATO will decide if you are eligible using this information and details of your income from your tax return. If you are eligible, the co-contribution will be paid directly into your super account, usually by the December after the end of the financial year or later assessment of your tax return.

Any co-contribution amount must generally remain in your super account until at least your preservation age.

Visit www.ato.gov.au/super to find out about eligibility for the co-contribution. Remember, the ATO will decide if you are eligible, not your super fund.

How do you make extra contributions to your super?

Your employer can deduct after-tax contributions from your pay (ask your payroll officer) You can have regular payments transferred from your bank account to your super account using direct debit (ask your super fund about this option) You can add to your super whenever you have a little extra, such as your tax refund

Would you like more information?

You can call the ATO about co-contributions on 13 10 20 or visit www.ato.gov.au If you would like an idea of how making after-tax contributions, the co-contribution and salary sacrifice may affect your income now and your super contributions, HESTA’s salary sacrifice/co-contributions calculator at www.hesta.com.au may help.

H.E.S.T. Australia Limited ACN 006 818 695 AFSL No. 235249 RSE No. L0000109 Information provided is of a general nature. It does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or specific needs so you should look at your own financial position and requirements before making a decision. You may wish to consult an adviser when doing this. For more information about HESTA, call 1800 813 327 for a copy of our Product Disclosure Statement which should be considered when making a decision about the Fund.

15

The Tasmanian Council of Social Service Inc. provides a voice for Tasmanians affected by poverty and inequality and acts as a peak council for the community service organisations that serve, support and work for them.

For 44 years TasCOSS has worked to eliminate poverty and create a more equitable society by tackling the causes of disadvantage, not just the symptoms.

Mat Rowell Chief Executive Officer

David Owen Policy Officer

TasCOSS regularly meets with political leaders and key decision makers, and participates in a number of important committees and other fora.

TasCOSS is also part of a national network, which comprises Councils of Social Service in all states and territories, and The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), which addresses social, economic and other reforms at the national level.

Kath McLean Policy Officer, Consumer Issues

Help us give a voice to Tasmanians affected by poverty and inequality.

Pauline Marsh HACC Project Officer

PO Box 1126 Sandy Bay Tasmania 7006 P - 03 6231 0755 F - 03 6223 6136

Luke Martin Social Policy Officer

E – admin@tascoss.org.au www.tascoss.org.au

Lynne Browning Administration Manager