UPDATE SEPTEMBER 2006

WATCH OUT FOR THE REVERSE MORTGAGE CARPETBAGGERS!!!

It's known as a reverse mortgage. You borrow money from a bank against your house, usually up to 40 per cent of the value of your house. There are no repayments. The bank gets its money back when you sell or die. Sounds good; but don't be duped. You rack up daily compounded interest on your loan, which eats up your house faster than white ants on steroids. Before you know it you owe more in interest than you house is worth. A $200,000 loan at 9 per cent interest turns into a $492,000 debt in ten years time.

Concern about runaway debts under reverse mortgages dates back to the 1980's in Britain, where tumbling house prices and soaring interest rates saw many evicted from their homes for owing more than their house was worth. Over time, house prices in metropolitan areas increase on average by about 8 per cent annual. But that's an average. House prices go through boom burst cycles of between ten to fifteen years. This means that a house may not go up in value for years before appreciating. It's all in the timing. But the problem is that death and the need to move to retirement accommodation are not subject to timing. They're outside your control. So if you suddenly need to sell your house, you may be left empty-handed. Reverse mortgages are an absolute last resort.

Paul Versteege

Policy Coordinator

It would be remiss of us not to thank the Editor of The Voice publication Syd Doleman for permitting us to republish articles from his newspaper, Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association (CPSA) of NSW Inc. which was founded in 1931; in which they have been serving pensioners of all ages, superannuants and low-income retirees.

Membership is open to all who support the aims and objectives of CPSA. For enquiries write to: CPSA, Level 3, 25 Cooper St, Surry Hills NSW 2010.

WHO NOT TO BELIEVE ABOUT REVERSE MORTGAGES

Anything an organisation called SEQUAL (Senior Australians Equity Release) says should be treated with the utmost suspicion. SEQUAL  describes itself as a not-for-profit organisation. This is entirely true. But the problem is that SEQUALS  members are very much for profit. ABNAMRO, St. George Bank, Commonwealth Bank and Macquarie Bank are for big-booming-profit outfits.

SEQUALhas been set up by banks and is funded by them. It will say things to promote reverse mortgages marketed by their members.

Probably the only good thing that can be said about SEQUAL is that it doesn't seem to have out-and-about loan sharks among its membership.

Here's a soothing warm and fuzzy message from SEQUAL'S Executive Director, Kieren Dell, with a voice interpretation:

MINISTER MISSES THE SAFETY NET POINT

You've got to hand it to the Hon. Tony Abbott, Federal Minister for Health. Here's a man who can argue anything.

The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that patients in the wealthiest areas are collecting a dramatically higher share of the $280 million in Medicare Safety net payments than people in low-income areas.

The safety net provides an 80 per cent discount on doctors' fees above $500 a year for most families. Families on high incomes and individuals or dhildless couples not on pensions have to meet $1,000 in medical bills before qualifying for the discount.

The safety net scheme, designed to help low income households cover high medical bills, has benefited residents in Wentworth, a well-off eastern suburbs electorate, at more than 10 times the rate of those in low-income seats such as Throsby south of Wollongong.

The Medicare Safety Net benefits the rich rather than the poor. It's a simple, straight forward, unarguable fact. The rich get more out of the Medicare Safety net than the poor.

End of story? No.

Your se, says Minister Abbott, the rich get more because they go to doctors that don't bulkbill. That means that they the spending threshold.

Nice one! But that still doesn't answer the question: who benefits from the Medicare safety net?

The Voice will give a little hint: it's not the poor.

Paul Versteege

Policy Coordinator

GRAVE CONCERNS

For whom the cash registers toll

CPSA has argued for a long time that funerals are unnecessarily expensive. Funeral directors prey on the bereaved and, with subtle emotional blackmail, sell the elaborate funerals, where a simple funeral would do.

Following the publication of the Funeral Industy Inquiry Report, CPSA met with the Minister for Fair Trading, The Hon. Diane Beamer, MP. CPSA urged the NSW Government to adopt all of the recommendations her commitment to the implementation of transparent, itemised pricing of funerals.

CPSA's view is that there should be a requirement on funeral directors to publish and disclose to each consumer all prices, for all items that go into making up a funeral. They should also have to disclose before a contract is signed what crematoria and cemetries within a certain distance of their premises charge, so that customers have a choice. Funeral directors should be required to provide original receipts for goods and services procured by the funeral director should be provided to the consumer as attachments to the funeral director's invoice.

It was the Minister's view that it is probably impossible to find a definition of a basic funeral with which every one would agree. CPSA considers that the mandatory and essential components of a funeral are:

• medical and death certificates;

• coffin;

• body bag;

• necessary preparation of the body;

• transport and storage of the body;

• cremation or burial; and

• coordination of the funeral.

The Minister raised concerns about the practicalities of setting a maximum price of a basic funeral. However CPSA's view is that fee scales for all of the mandatory and essential components of a basic funeral (including pre-paid basic funerals) should be regulated by the NSW Government on the advice of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (1PART) as the independent economic regulator for NSW.

A funeral is an essential service and consumers are usually unable to shop around. This makes it very easy for people to be exploited.

On another front, CPSA is arguing for the abolition of GST on basic funerals.

GST makes funerals more expensive. According to the Funeral Inquiry Report, you can expect a funeral in Sydney to cost $8,000 and in rural NSW $4,000. Without GST, $7,300 and $3,600 respectively for low income pensioners that's a big difference.

But like going to the doctor or into hospital, burials and cremations represent an essential public health service. Like all essential public health services it should not attract GST.

CPSA's proposal is for a basic funeral to be exempt from the GST.

Paul Versteege

Policy Coordinator

We fully support the concerns of the CPSA but we must point out the GST on funerals is the responsibility of the Federal Howard-Costello Coalition Government.

GRAVE CONCERNS

NSW Government Buries Funeral Inquiry

In early June, The Hon. Diane Beamer MP, NSW Minister for Fair Trading, responded on behalf of the NSW Government to the Funeral Industry Inquiry by the NSW Upper House Social Issues Committee.

It becomes clear form the Minister's response that the Inquiry has been a waste of time and money. That's not because the inquiry was unsuccessful in gathering information and evidence and analysing this material to come up with sensible recommendations. She has done so to the point where the question becomes fair whether she has read the Inquiry's report or even the briefest summary of it. It would seem all the Minister did was sign unseen the response prepared for her signature.

The Committee had recommended a product information standard, which would among other things, require full itemisation of the entire funeral bill. Full itemisation of goods and services is, of course, commonplace is less murky industries than the funeral caper.

The Minister's response? The Fair Trading Act does not allow "the development of a service information standard." So she supports the itemisation of coffins and other material components of a funeral, but not the funeral director's "professional services."

The Minister continues: "To provide information about all aspects of a funeral service, an amendment to the Fair Trading Act 1987 would be required to allow the prescription of service information standards."

However, a Minister has the power to introduce draft legislation and ensure its passage through the Parliament. Surely, the Fair Trading Act can be amended!

The rest of the Minister's responses seems to express the same unwillingness by the NSW Government to tackle an industry that uses loathsome sales and marketing techniques.

Her response also says that: "It has been demonstrated to the Government that there is widespread market failure in the Funeral Industry."

This is not a credible statement from a Minister whose Department acknowledges it receives numerous complaints relating to the marketing of pre-paid funeral plans.

Pre-paid funeral plans are marketed by the funeral industry, the same people who market funerals. Does anyone really believe that these people play dirty when selling pre-paid funerals but are squeaky clean when selling an actual funeral?

The only reason why "widespread market failure" can't be demonstrated is that the victims of the funeral industry are too emotionally fragile to come forward and also don't want to be seen by their family and friends as complaining about the cost.

When it comes to pre-paid funeral plans, people complain because they are not grieving and not under pressure. Then they complain in spades. If that doesn't demonstrate "widespread market failure in the funeral industry," what does?

Les Elkins

CPSA State Treasurer

We fully support the CPSA'S grave concerns.

INCOME (IN) SECURITY

Does the global economy trickle?

We are told what good economic managers our Governments have been. Since the Australian population was made aware of a new world order, the 'global economy', politicians of all persuasions have beguiled us with the view that all will be wonderful under the new rational economic regime. It's good for business, and therefore good for all of us. Armed with a fistful of dollars, the Treasurer promises to cut taxes and business expenses.

However, for the vast majority of Australians economic rationalism has brought no relief at all.

We have a budget surplus, but not much of that will be going into Services. What happened to that much-touted 'trickle down' effect?

There is an increasing number of working poor whose income, even when they are in employment, is so meagre that they have to seek charity in order to feed their families properly.

Forget the mortgages. Many young people have given up the struggle to own a home, and now face a lifetime of renting. Australia today is not the wonderful land of opportunity it was before the economic rationalists took over.

The big end of town consider ours a flourishing economy. After all, they have six figure incomes, houses on the Harbour and lots of investment properties to help their judgement. It doesn't matter to them that Governments over the years have sold many of the nation's resources and have abandoned any attempt at building and maintaining the social infrastructure of the country.

During these years of economic management, have services improved?

Are hospitals coping with the long list of patients waiting for surgery?

Do people find it easy to get proper dental care?

Has public transport improved?

Is child care easily obtained and affordable?

Is our environment in good shape?

Can people pay off their mortgage, and still have a good standard of living?

Do people believe they can live comfortably on the pension they receive?

Is the GST helping people when they buy good, especially food?

Do prices remain stable or are they ever increasing (especially the cost of petrol)?

Are Aboriginal people living as long as the national average?

Can families afford the high costs of their children's education, especially in universities and TAFES?

If your answer is yes to all these question, then we must conclude that global economy is working for you. If not then the 'trickle down' effect, talked up by all those rationalist economists, is not working.

The Australian Government, not content with whittling away our services through their economic management, is now penalising working people with the introduction of draconian industrial laws that will see lower wages in many industries.

These laws will rob people of the right to security of employment and will seriously erode the ability of unions to defend member's rights. The 'trickle down' effect of these laws will be the ever-expanding ranks of working poor.

June Gabriel

CPSA Member

We would like to congratulate our investigators and researchers for the following evidence they provide regarding "the truth about pensions" and "The Oil, Parity Pricing Rort." These facts will prove beyond reasonable doubt that both major political parties have been in bed together on most major issues and are guilty of "white-anting" Australia for the last 30 years plus.

FIGHTING FOR SURVIVAL

Over many years the State's infrastructure has been built up with regard to roads, railways, telecommunications, social services and benefits leading to a more pleasant life style. Our forefathers developed the country with the concept that everyone was entitled to be catered for in the growth of society.

Today, we seem to be fighting for the retention of these basic services as the efficiency seek to cut expenditure without a great deal of interest in the recipients of the services. The infrastructure is being dismantled in the less populated areas to the detriment of those living in rural and regional Australia.

There have been many changes over the past 150 years but the same basic infrastructure needs to be maintained to give all a reasonable quality of life. If it is a Government's role to provide aid and services to the community, without bias, then we must expect some overall inefficiencies in order to cater for the whole population.

The vast majority of Australians have made a contribution to the success of our nation with the remote rural worker being as important as the academic or professional leaders.

The old question of 'which came first, the chicken or the egg" applies to the contributions made by each section of society......one section cannot operate in isolation so each group can be regarded as being essential to the existence of the other.

The bean counters talk of averages to support their financial conclusions but the average does not factor in the individuals' circumstances.

The blurring of State and Federal issues confounds the average elector in funding matters with many programmes funded by the Feds and administered by the State. Adequate funding by the Feds is interpreted as stingy by the States while the States show outrage if inefficiencies in management are suggested by the Feds.

BACK ROOM MAIL

FREE TRADE RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOOD FEAR

The safety of Australia's blood supply may be jeopardised under the United States - Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) researchers warned.

The Howard-Vaile-Liberal-National Coalition have agreed to recommend to the States and Territories that it open foreign blood processing to tender. Researchers warn the distance would leave it vulnerable to loss. The company demanding their rights to process Australian blood in the United States is the Multi-National Baxters.

There are strong indications sooner rather than later that the FTA will allow the Australian health services in it's entirety to be controlled by foreign Multi-Nationals. In other words we will inherit the American Health System if you can afford it, you will survive, if you can't - bad luck.

LIBERALS PAY TO BRANCH STACK

NSW Liberal factional operatives paid party members to attend meetings as part of branchstacking operations, a former activist claims. Conservative Liberals also breached party rules by collecting blank ballot papers from members and filling them in for them, this was revealed on Monday July 17, 2006 ABC's 4 Corners.

Former Liberal staffer and moderate faction operative John Hyde-Page told the program factions paid students or those on low incomes $50 to attend branch annual general meetings. The ballot papers claim was made by another former Liberal activist, Irfan Yusuf.

WORK SAFETY SUMMIT CHAOS

The Federal Government's (Govt) dream of a national workplace safety system has been thrown into chaos after NSW pulled out of a summit to be held today. State Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca made the decision after the Federal Govt reneged on a promise that safety standards and protections would not be reduced. At a Council of Australian Govt's meeting in February the States had agreed to work with the Commonwealth towards a more unified and consistent OHS scheme.

However this was done on four conditions State Govts. unions and employers would all be consulted: an assurance compliance efforts would enforce the increased consistency: adequate resourcing for regulators and an assurance existing protections would not be reduced.

Federal Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews later dropped these conditions from the summit's agenda, resulting in an immediate boycott from NSW.

Cole Lashes Out At 'Influence' Suggestion

Wheat for kickbacks to Saddam Hussein Commissioner Terence Cole Q.C. sprang to the defence of his old friend John Howard on Thursday, April 27, 2006, after the Prime Minister was accused of "destroying" the inquiry's independence.

The former judge launched a blistering attack on Australian Wheat Boards's (AWB) lawyers, politicians, the media and even the public for suggesting the Howard Government might influence his findings.

At issue were Mr. Howard's remarks at a press conference two weeks ago after he appeared as a witness when he accused AWB of "corruption" and "deception" - even though the inquiry was still under way.

Yesterday Terry Forrest QC, for several AWB executives, said Mr. Howard had been "prejudging" Mr. Coles findings.

Mr. Cole said he had been given advice "from many fronts" on the inquiry's shortcomings, and what its conclusions should be, but his findings would be based on evidence only, he had even refused to speak to Government figures.

"This inquiry is divorced from politics," he said.

The lambasting by Commissioner Cole came about due to widespread criticism regarding his failure to allow the AWB's lawyers to question Mr. Howard on Thursday, April 13, 2006 after he completed giving evidence.

Remember, Commissioner Cole - already criticised for being an old friend of Mr. Howard - refused to allow Terry Forrest Q.C. ask Mr. Howard about a bundle of top-secret intelligence reports sent to his office. Lachlan Carter, also for AWB, was also refused leave to cross-examine Mr. Howard.

We would like to reassure all Australians should the Cole inquiry become a Clayton's inquiry we will not only publish the evidence given to Mr. Cole but information that is in his possession that wasn't make public. If there is any possibility that the course of justice is perverted - we will expose it.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2006, grain exporter AWB won a court battle to delay giving 1,300 secret documents to the head of the inquiry into the Iraq kickbacks affair.

In the Federal Court in Melbourne, Justice Neil Young said he did not accept the push by the Commonwealth to have the legal status of the documents determined by Commissioner Terence Cole, Q.C. AWB claimed legal privilage over documents Mr. Cole had asked for in his inquiry onto bribes paid to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in breach of United Nation Sanctions.

THE TRUTH ABOUT PENSIONS

To dispel misinformation currently promoted by party politicians and their spin-doctors, the following synopsis is fact:

1939 to 1945   World war 2.

1942 to 1943   As a wartime measure, the Federal Government gained sole control over Australian Income Tax.

1944    Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, Introduced 3 bills to establish the National Welfare Fund, to be financed by a compulsory contribution levy of 1 and 6 in the pound on all personal income.  Opposition Leader, Robert Menzies, started that the compulsory contribution levy should be kept completely separate and paid straight into a Trust account, and not mixed with the general revenue.  Menzies said The stigma of charity should be removed from the Age Pension.  It should be an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund.

1946    Prime Minister Chifley agreed and established, as from January 1, 1946 the National Welfare Fund a Trust fund with the Parliament as Trustee.  The compulsory contributions levy commenced on January 1 1946.  It was shown separately on the personal tax assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, and the compulsory levy was properly paid straight into the special Trust fund, and welfare claims were paid out of the fund.  The balance in the fund in 1950 was almost 100 million pounds.

1949    Robert Menzies became Prime Minister, and he introduced Bills to amend the Acts governing the National Welfare Fund.  The compulsory social contributions levy was then grouped with the taxation assessment and appeared as one amount on the taxation assessments, and was paid as one amount straight into Consolidated Revenue.  The sabotage of the National Welfare Fund had commenced.  The Opposition Labor Party had collaborated in this sabotage by remaining silent instead of opposing Menzies’ action.

1951 to 1985   The compulsory levy of 7.5% now included in the tax, continued to be collected and placed in Consolidated Revenue, and treated as general revenue and spent, until 1985.

1974 to 1975   Labor Leader Mr. Whitlam abolished income tests for all persons 70 years of age and over, and paid pensions to all people over that age.

1976    The newly elected Coalition Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser cancelled the Whitlam achievement of abolishing the tests for all who were 70 years and over.

1977    Malcolm Fraser with Treasurer Philip Lynch, transferred the balance in the Welfare Fund account (approx. 470 million dollars) to the Consolidated Revenue account.

1985    The Hawke-Keating Labor Government repealed Acts Numbers 39, 40 and 41 of 1945 (the National Welfare Fund Acts).  Thus the funds finally ceased to exist.  Yet the 7.5% levy continues to be collected as a proportion of the Income Tax Revenue.  It also introduced the much-maligned Income and Assets Test, thereby excluding millions of levy and tax-paying Australians from receiving Social Services pensions.  This money, these self-funded contributions paid as a percentage of the total income tax collections are to-day worth more than the amount of means-tested ENTITLEMENT due to EACH retiree today is in excess of $500 per week.

This surely debunks the politicians and their parties’ claims that the younger generation are paying a proportion of their current taxes to cover the payments made to pensioners.  The obvious shortfall has been swallowed by the Government’s taxation black hole.

The historical summary above highlights the fact that politicians of opposing political parties each contributed to the agenda to destroy the entitlement, as it was intended; Why? when it clearly would not have been the will of the people.  While party politicians are controlled by a few people who are hidden from public view, yet are open to manipulation and outright corruption, there can be no certainty of the payment of pensions.  It makes me sick to the stomach that  I once voted for the major political party sho was equally responsible for THE RORTING OF OUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, we the Australian tax-payer, i.e. PENSIONER AND SELF FUNDED RETIREES’ PENSIONS BEING DISHONESTLY MEANS-TESTED.

Wake up, Australia!

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE LOBBY GOUP

www.voiceofthepeoplelobbygroup.com