Search

Qantas apologises after rejecting cancer patient's refund request

Qantas has issued an apology for rejecting a cancer patient's refund request after his case allegedly did not qualify based on “compassionate reasons”. Neil Ross, 62, decided to book a holiday to Cairns with his wife for a couple of weeks, but two weeks later he was diagnosed with face cancer. “It hit me like a rock,” Mr Ross told news.com.au. “I wasn’t in the life of me, expecting that news.” The Brisbane local was initially told he had Bells Palsy, but was later diagnosed with cancer and had to undergo a 13-hour operation to remove the tumour, causing the right side of his face to be significantly disfigured. He underwent radiation almost every day for six weeks saying it “knocked him to no end”. “I was very thankful that my wife had helped me and still is helping me to get through this.” Ross is yet to be given the all-clear and is still undergoing treatments, including rehab following the loss of muscle mass. He will also undergo plastic surgery to reconstruct the right side of his face. “I had notified Flight Centre that I needed to cancel my flight due to finding out that I had cancer and that l needed treatment urgently,” he said. “As I said to the girl at Flight Centre – ‘look at my face, do you think I want to get a refund for the hell of it? I rather be healthy and go on holiday.” Ross said that the airline issued him a credit note until April 22 of this year, but with his current circumstances, he was unable to travel before that date and applied for a full refund. He also claims that despite sending two medical certificates - the first which stated that Ross was unfit to fly for 12 months, and the second which included detailed information about his condition - it “did not meet requirements on compassion”. “I thought ‘what the hell, what more can I do?’ This has done nothing but cause me a great deal of stress that I don’t need," he said. Ross submitted two different refund requests, one on March 20, which was rejected on the fourth of April, and another on April 9 which was rejected two weeks later. The email from a Flight Centre representative reportedly said: "They have advised that ‘the attached medical certificate does not fit into the GF guidelines for a refund due to compassionate reasons’." According to news.com.au, Qantas has since contacted Ross and issued a refund, after an error was made in processing the supplementary material, by not connecting it to the earlier application. “We apologise to Mr Ross for this experience and have let him know we’re processing a refund for him.” They have also reportedly apologised for any distress they may have caused and are investigating how the error occurred so that it doesn't happen again. Images: news.com.au/ Getty

Travel Trouble

What to expect from the federal budget

There's just three weeks left until Treasurer Jim Chalmers unveils the federal budget. With the cost of living crisis still a major issue across the country, we can expect to see some policies aimed at alleviating the pressure. Some policies, have already been announced and here are a few others that we can expect to hear from Chalmers on May 14. Stage 3 cuts announced in January, will form a key part of this year's budget, which will direct more benefit towards low- and middle-income earners – although Australians on high salaries will still receive a tax cut. The decision was made to alleviate the cost-of-living pressures and partly address the bracket creep. The cuts lower the threshold for the lowest two brackets (so they pay less tax on that income), and raise the threshold for the highest two brackets (so they need to earn more to be taxed at a higher rate). This means that someone with average income of around $73,000 will get $1504, but how much you actually receive will depend on your income. The new version of the stage 3 cuts will come into effect on July 1. Superannuation will be paid on government-funded parental leave, with the change due to kick in for parents with babies born after July 1, 2025. They will receive a 12 per cent superannuation on top of their government-funded parental leave, with around 180,000 families expected to benefit from it. The figures will be included in the May 14 budget. Although nothing has been officially announced, there will likely be HECS-HELP debt relief for current and former students. "I think there's a range of areas where we need to do much better with the younger generation, and HECS is one of them," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on radio on April 18. "We've received a review of that... and what that has said is that the system can be made simpler and be made fairer. "We're examining the recommendations and we'll be making announcements pretty soon on that. We, of course, have a budget coming up." There have also been some hints from the government that energy bill relief will continue in this year's budget. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," Albanese said, citing the existing policy that gives eligible families up to $500 off their power bills and eligible small businesses up to $650. "Our government understands that for small business – as for Australian families – energy bills remain a source of financial pressure," he said. "That's why the energy bill relief package I negotiated with the states and territories delivered up to $650 in savings for around 1 million small businesses, along with 5 million families. "And as we put together next month's budget, small businesses and families will again be front and centre in our thinking." Energy bills are also set to go down, or remain stable for the most part from July 1. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

Millions of high-risk Australians aren’t getting vaccinated. A policy reset could save lives

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ingrid-burfurd-1295906">Ingrid Burfurd</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Each year, vaccines prevent thousands of deaths and hospitalisations in Australia. But millions of high-risk older Australians <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/a-fair-shot-ensuring-all-australians-can-get-the-vaccines-they-need/">aren’t getting</a> recommended vaccinations against COVID, the flu, pneumococcal disease and shingles. Some people are more likely to miss out, such as migrant communities and those in rural areas and poorer suburbs. As our new <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/a-fair-shot-ensuring-all-australians-can-get-the-vaccines-they-need/">Grattan report shows</a>, a policy reset to encourage more Australians to get vaccinated could save lives and help ease the pressure on our struggling hospitals. <h2>Adult vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness</h2> Vaccines slash the risk of <a href="https://www.ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2021-03/Influenza-fact-sheet_31%20March%202021_Final.pdf">hospitalisation</a> and serious illness, <a href="https://ncirs.org.au/recent-covid-19-vaccination-highly-effective-against-death-caused-sars-cov-2-infection-older">often by more than half</a>. COVID has already caused more than <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/latest-release">3,000 deaths in Australia this year</a>. On average, the flu kills about <a href="https://www.doherty.edu.au/news-events/news/statement-on-the-doherty-institute-modelling">600 people a year</a>, although a bad flu season, like 2017, can mean <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0%7E2017%7EMain%20Features%7EAustralia's%20leading%20causes%20of%20death,%202017%7E2">several thousand deaths</a>. And pneumococcal disease may also kill <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/49809836-8ead-4da5-81c4-352fa64df75b/aihw-phe-263.pdf?inline=true">hundreds</a> of people a year. Shingles is rarely fatal, but can be extremely painful and cause <a href="https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/shingles#complications">long-term nerve damage</a>. Even before COVID, vaccine-preventable diseases caused tens of thousands of potentially preventable hospitalisations each year – more than <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/primary-health-care/disparities-in-potentially-preventable-hospitalisa/data">80,000 in 2018</a>. Vaccines offered in Australia have been tested for safety and efficacy and have been found to be <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/topics/immunisation/about-immunisation/vaccine-safety#:%7E:text=serious%20side%20effects.-,Vaccine%20safety%20monitoring,approved%20for%20use%20in%20Australia.">very safe</a> for people who are <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/topics/immunisation/when-to-get-vaccinated/national-immunisation-program-schedule">recommended to get them</a>. <h2>Too many high-risk people are missing out</h2> Our <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/roundabouts-overpasses-carparks-hauling-the-federal-government-back-to-its-proper-role-in-transport-projects">report</a> shows that before winter this year, only 60% of high-risk Australians were vaccinated against the flu. Only 38% had a COVID vaccination in the last six months. Compared to a year earlier, two million more high-risk people went into winter without a recent COVID vaccination. Vaccination rates have fallen further since. Just over one-quarter (<a href="https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-11/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-10-november-2023.pdf">27%</a>) of people over 75 have been vaccinated in the last six months. That leaves more than 1.3 million without a recent COVID vaccination. Uptake is also low for other vaccines. Among Australians in their 70s, <a href="https://ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-12/Coverage%20report%202021%20SUMMARY%20FINAL.pdf">less than half</a> are vaccinated against shingles and only one in five are vaccinated against pneumococcal disease. These vaccination rates aren’t just low – they’re also unfair. The likelihood that someone is vaccinated changes depending on where they live, where they were born, what language they speak at home, and how much they earn. For example, at the start of winter this year, the COVID vaccination rate for high-risk Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults was only 25%. This makes them about one-third less likely to have been vaccinated against COVID in the previous six months, compared to the average high-risk Australian. For more than 750,000 high-risk adults who do not speak English at home, the COVID vaccination rate is below 20% – about half the level of the average high-risk adult. Within this group, 250,000 adults aren’t proficient in English. They were 58% less likely to be vaccinated for COVID in the previous six months, compared to the average high-risk person. High-risk adults who speak English at home have a flu vaccination rate of 62%. But for people from 29 other language groups, who aren’t proficient in English, the rate is less than 31%. These 39,000 people have half the vaccination rate of people who speak English at home. These vaccination gaps contribute to the differences in people’s health. Australians born overseas don’t just have much lower rates of COVID vaccination, they also have much higher rates of death from COVID. Where people live also affects vaccination rates. High-risk people living in remote and very remote areas are less likely to be vaccinated, and even within capital cities there are big differences between different areas. <h2>We need to set ambitious targets</h2> Australia needs a vaccination reset. A new National Vaccination Agreement between the federal and state governments should include ambitious but achievable targets for adult vaccines. This can build on the success of targets for childhood and adolescent vaccination, setting targets for overall uptake and for communities that are falling behind. The federal government should ask the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) to advise on vaccination targets for COVID, flu, pneumococcal and shingles for all high-risk older adults. <h2>Different solutions for different barriers</h2> Barriers to vaccination range from the trivial to the profound. A new national vaccination strategy needs to dismantle high and low barriers alike. First, to increase overall uptake, vaccination should be easier, and easier to understand. The federal government should introduce vaccination “surges”, especially in the lead-up to winter, as <a href="https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/09-10-2023-vulnerable--vaccinate.-protecting-the-unprotected-from-covid-19-and-influenza">countries in Europe</a> do. During surges, high-risk people should be able to get vaccinated even if they have had a recent infection or injection. This will make the rules simpler and make vaccination in aged care easier. Surges should be reinforced with advertising explaining who should get vaccinated and why. High-risk people should get SMS reminders. Second, targeted policies are needed for the many people who are happy to use mainstream primary care services, but who don’t get vaccinated – for example, due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-can-governments-communicate-with-multicultural-australians-about-covid-vaccines-its-not-as-simple-as-having-a-poster-in-their-language-156097">language barriers</a>, or living in <a href="https://theconversation.com/over-half-of-eligible-aged-care-residents-are-yet-to-receive-their-covid-booster-and-winter-is-coming-205403">aged care</a>. <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/phn/what-PHNs-are">Primary Health Networks</a> should get funding to coordinate initiatives such as vaccination events in aged care and disability care homes, workforce training to support culturally appropriate care, and provision of interpreters. Third, tailored programs are needed to reach <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/health-promotion">people who are not comfortable or able to access mainstream health care</a>, who have the most complex barriers to vaccination – for example, distrust of the health system or poverty. These communities are all very different, so one-size-fits-all programs don’t work. The pandemic showed that vaccination programs can succeed when they are designed and delivered with the communities they are trying to reach. Examples are “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36366401/">community champions</a>” who challenge misinformation, or health services organising vaccination events where communities work, gather or <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/11/hundreds-queue-for-hours-and-some-camp-overnight-at-pop-up-vaccine-clinic-in-sydneys-lakemba">worship</a>. These programs should get ongoing funding, but also be accountable for achieving results. Adult vaccines are the missing piece in Australia’s whole-of-life vaccination strategy. For the health and safety of the most vulnerable members of our community, we need to close the vaccination gap. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217915/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-breadon-1348098">Peter Breadon</a>, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ingrid-burfurd-1295906">Ingrid Burfurd</a>, Senior Associate, Health Program, Grattan Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/millions-of-high-risk-australians-arent-getting-vaccinated-a-policy-reset-could-save-lives-217915">original article</a>.

Body

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> The National Party’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/more-sanctions-for-unemployed-beneficiaries-under-national/">pledge to apply sanctions</a> to unemployed people receiving a welfare payment, if they are “persistently” failing to meet the criteria for receiving the benefit, has attracted plenty of comment and <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/nationals-benefit-sanctions-plan-cruel-dehumanising-greens/">criticism</a>. Less talked about has been the party’s promise to index benefits to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living. This might at least provide some relief to those struggling to make ends meet on welfare, though is not clear how much difference it would make to the current system of indexing benefits to wages. In any case, this alone it is unlikely to break the cycle of poverty many find themselves in. One of the major drivers of this is the way the welfare system pushes some of the most vulnerable people into debt with loans for things such as school uniforms, power bills and car repairs. The government provides one-off grants to cover benefit shortfalls. But most of these grants are essentially loans. People receiving benefits are required to repay the government through weekly deductions from their normal benefits – which leaves them with even less money to survive on each week. With <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/132980318/auckland-mother-serves-up-cereal-for-dinner-due-to-rising-food-costs">rising costs</a>, the situation is only getting worse for many of the 351,756 New Zealanders <a href="https://figure.nz/chart/TtiUrpceJruy058e-ITw010dHsM6bvA2a">accessing one of the main benefits</a>. <h2>Our whittled down welfare state</h2> Broadly, there are three levels of government benefits in our current system. The main benefits (such as jobseeker, sole parent and supported living payment) <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2023.html">pay a fixed weekly amount</a>. The jobseeker benefit rate is set at NZ$337.74 and sole parents receive $472.79 a week. Those on benefits have access to a second level of benefits – weekly supplementary benefits such as an <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/accommodation-supplement.html">accommodation supplement</a> and other allowances or tax credits. The third level of support is one-off discretionary payments for specific essential needs. Those on benefits cannot realistically make ends meet without repeated use of these one-off payments, unless they use assistance from elsewhere – such as family, charity or borrowing from loan sharks. This problem has been building for decades. <h2>Benefits have been too low for too long</h2> In the 1970s, the <a href="https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/12967">Royal Commission on Social Security</a> declared the system should provide “a standard of living consistent with human dignity and approaching that enjoyed by the majority”. But Ruth Richardson’s “<a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/124978983/1991-the-mother-of-all-budgets">mother of all budgets</a>” in 1991 slashed benefits. Rates never recovered and today’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/03/29/benefit-increases-will-still-leave-families-locked-in-poverty/">benefits are not enough to live on</a>. In 2018, the <a href="https://www.weag.govt.nz/">Welfare Expert Advisory Group</a> looked at how much money households need in two lifestyle scenarios: bare essentials and a minimum level of participation in the community, such as playing a sport and taking public transport. The main benefits plus supplementary allowances did not meet the cost of the bare essentials, let alone minimal participation. The Labour government has since <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-income-increases-over-14-million-new-zealanders">increased benefit rates</a>, meaning they are now slightly above those recommended by the advisory group. But those recommendations were made in 2019 and don’t take into account the <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/annual-inflation-at-6-0-percent">sharp rise in inflation</a> since then. Advocacy group <a href="https://fairerfuture.org.nz/">Fairer Future</a> published an updated assessment in 2022 – nine out of 13 types of households still can’t meet their core costs with the current benefit rates. <h2>How ‘advances’ create debt traps</h2> When they don’t have money for an essential need, people on benefits can receive a “special needs grant”, which doesn’t have to be repaid. But in practice, Work and Income virtually never makes this type of grant for anything except food and some other specific items, such as some health travel costs or emergency dental treatment. For <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/27/very-stressful-beneficiary-says-he-cant-afford-msd-debt/">all other essential needs</a> – such as school uniforms, car repairs, replacing essential appliances, overdue rent, power bills and tenancy bonds – a one-off payment called an “advance” is used. Advances are loans and have to be paid back. There are several issues with these types of loans. First, people on benefits are racking up thousands of dollars worth of debts to cover their essential needs. It serves to trap them in financial difficulties for the foreseeable future. As long as they remain on benefits or low incomes, it’s difficult to repay these debts. And the <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0032/latest/whole.html">Social Security Act 2018</a> doesn’t allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to waive debts. <h2>Contradictory policies</h2> Another problem is that people on benefits have to start repaying their debt straight away, with weekly deductions coming out of their already limited benefit. Each new advance results in a further weekly deduction. Often these add up to $50 a week or more. MSD policy says repayments should not add up to more than $40 a week, but that is often ignored. This happens because the law stipulates that each individual debt should be repaid in no more than two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Paying this debt off in two years often requires total deductions to be much higher than $40. The third issue is that one-off payments can be refused regardless of the need. That is because there are two provisions pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand the law says a payment should be made if not making it would cause serious hardship. But on the other hand, the law also says payments should not be made if the person already has too much debt. People receiving benefits and their case managers face the choice between more debt and higher repayments, or failing to meet an essential need. <h2>Ways to start easing the burden</h2> So what is the fix? A great deal could be achieved by just changing the policies and practices followed by Work and Income. Case managers have the discretion to make non-recoverable grants for non-food essential needs. These could and should be used when someone has an essential need, particularly when they already have significant debt. Weekly deductions for debts could also be automatically made very low. When it comes to changing the law, the best solution would be to make weekly benefit rates adequate to live on. The government could also make these benefit debts similar to student loans, with no repayments required until the person is off the benefit and their income is above a certain threshold. However we do it, surely it must be time to do something to fix this poverty trap.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212528/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, Associate professor - Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/forcing-people-to-repay-welfare-loans-traps-them-in-a-poverty-cycle-where-is-the-policy-debate-about-that-212528">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Private health insurance is <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">under review</a>, with proposals to overhaul everything from rebates to tax penalty rules. One <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/supporting_documents/Finity%20Consulting%20MLS%20and%20PHI%20Rebate%20Final%20Report.pdf">proposal</a> is for higher-income earners who don’t have private health insurance to pay a larger <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/">Medicare Levy Surcharge</a> – an increase from 1.25% or 1.5%, to 2%. And if they want to avoid that surcharge, they’d need to take out higher-level hospital cover than currently required. Encouraging more people to take up private health insurance like this might seem a good way to take pressure off the public hospital system. But <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a> shows these proposals may not achieve this. These may also be especially punitive for people with little to gain from buying private health insurance, such as younger people and those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals. <h2>What is the Medicare Levy Surcharge?</h2> The Medicare Levy Surcharge was <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/May/A_short_history_of_increases_to_the_Medicare_levy#:%7E:text=From%20July%201997%2C%20a%20surcharge,ancillary%20insurance%20cover%20was%20introduced">introduced in 1997</a> to encourage high-income earners to buy health insurance. People earning above the relevant thresholds need to buy “complying” health insurance, or pay the levy. This surcharge is in addition to the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy/">Medicare levy</a>, which applies to most taxpayers. The surcharge varies depending on your income bracket, and the rate is <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/Medicare-levy-surcharge-income,-thresholds-and-rates/">different</a> for families. For instance, to avoid paying the surcharge currently, a single person living in Victoria earning A$108,001 can buy basic hospital cover. The lowest annual premium for someone under 65 is <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">about $1,100</a>, after rebates. That varies slightly between states and territories. Not buying private health insurance and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would cost even more, at $1,350 (1.25% of $108,001). <h2>What is being proposed?</h2> The <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">report</a>, by Finity Consulting and commissioned by the federal health department, reviews a range of health insurance incentives. It recommends increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge to 2% for those with an income above $108,001 for singles, and $216,001 for families. The definition of a “complying” private health insurance policy would also change. Rather than having basic hospital cover as is required now, someone would need to buy <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/private-health-insurance-reforms-gold-silver-bronze-basic-product-tiers-campaign-fact-sheet?language=en">silver or gold</a> cover to avoid the surcharge. Under the proposed changes, people who pay the 2% surcharge would also no longer receive any rebate, which currently reduces premiums by <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Income-thresholds-and-rates-for-the-private-health-insurance-rebate/#Rebaterates1">about 8%</a> for people earning $108,001-$144,000. So, for a single person under 65, earning $108,001 and living in Victoria, the <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">annual cost of buying</a> complying hospital cover would be at least $1,904 (without the rebate). Again, that varies slightly between states and territories. But the cost of not insuring and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would go up to $2,160 (2% of $108,001). <h2>Is this a good idea?</h2> However, <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a>, out earlier this year, suggests increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge will not meaningfully increase take-up of private health insurance. We’ve shown that people do not respond as strongly to the surcharge as theory would predict. For example, when the surcharge kicks in, we found the probability of insuring only increases modestly from about 70% to 73% for singles, and about 90% to 91% for families. It is generally cheaper to buy private health insurance than to pay the surcharge. However, we found about 15% of single people with an income of $108,001 or above don’t insure despite it being cheaper than paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We don’t know precisely why. Maybe people are not sure of the financial benefit due to changes in their income, or if they are, cannot be bothered, or do not have time, to explore their options. Maybe, as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/x2909w/does_anyone_else_willingly_pay_the_medicare/">anecdotal reports suggest</a>, rather than buying private health insurance, some people would rather support the public system by paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. The point is, people who are not buying private health insurance appear to be highly resistant to financial incentives. So stronger penalties might have little effect. Instead, we propose the Medicare Levy Surcharge be better targeted to true high-income earners. We can do that by increasing income thresholds for the surcharge to kick in, which are then indexed annually to reflect changes in earnings. <h2>How about needing more expensive cover?</h2> Requiring people to choose silver level cover or above would address criticisms about people buying “<a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-rid-of-junk-health-insurance-policies-is-just-tinkering-at-the-margins-of-a-much-bigger-issue-82749">junk</a>” private health insurance they never intend to use. However, people may be buying this type of product because private health insurance has little value to them. Requiring them to spend even more on a product they don’t want is a roundabout way of taking pressure off the public system. So we propose keeping the current level of hospital cover required to avoid the surcharge, rather than increasing it. <h2>Who loses?</h2> Taken together, the cost of these proposed changes would disproportionately fall on people with little to gain from private health insurance. These include younger people, those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals, or those who prefer to support the public system directly. These groups are the least likely to use private insurance so have the least to gain from upgrading their cover. <h2>Where to next?</h2> The report also recommends keeping <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/">health insurance rebates</a> (a government contribution to your premiums), the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Lifetime-health-cover/">Lifetime Health Cover</a> loading (to encourage people to take out hospital cover while younger), as well as the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We also support keeping these three in the short to medium term. But we recommend gradually reducing public support for private health insurance. We believe the ultimate goal of reforming private health insurance is to optimise the overall efficiency of the health-care system (both public and private systems) and improve population health while saving taxpayers’ money. The goal should not be merely increasing the take-up of private health insurance, which is the focus of the current report. So, as well as our recommendation to better target the Medicare Levy Surcharge, we need to: <ul> <li> lower income thresholds for <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-private-health-insurance-rebate-has-cost-taxpayers-100-billion-and-only-benefits-some-should-we-scrap-it-181264">insurance rebates</a>, especially targeting those on genuinely low incomes. This means lower premiums only for the people who can least afford private health care </li> <li> remove rebates <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-premiums-should-be-based-on-age-and-health-status-122545">based on age</a> as higher rebates for older people <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2017.1299094?journalCode=rael20">do not</a> encourage more to insure. Rebates should be tied to just income, which is a better indicator of financial means.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210981/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-is-set-for-a-shake-up-but-asking-people-to-pay-more-for-policies-they-dont-want-isnt-the-answer-210981">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

“You’re a flop!” Kyle Sandilands hits back at Dan Andrews’ controversial new policy

Kyle Sandilands has called out Dan Andrews and the Victorian government, as they move to ban all new homes in the state from using gas. The state government is dubbing the move as a measure to reduce cost of living pressures, claiming households will save up to $1,000 off their annual energy bills while reducing household emissions. Upon hearing the news of the proposal, the KIISFM radio host branded the Victorian Premier “a flop” and the policy “some bull***t.” “I’m sick and tired of everyone thinking we’re idiots,” he said on The Kyle & Jackie O Show. “These laws are for idiots. Losers are doing these jobs.” “They will be banning Bic lighters next, we will be rubbing two sticks together to get a cigarette lit.” “That government sucks ass. That wandering eyed flop down there can’t have the Commonwealth Games because he can’t budget, now he thinks ‘’Oh, I’ll get the woke losers to vote for me by getting rid of gas’. You’re a flop!” From January 1st 2024, planning permits for new homes and residential subdivisions will only connect to all electric networks. To encourage new homeowners to go all-electric and abandon gas, eligible new home builders, as well as existing homeowners and renters, can access $1,400 solar panel rebates and interest free loans of $8,800 for household batteries. All Victorian households and businesses are also eligible for gas to electric rebates to upgrade heating and cooling and hot water heaters. Minister for Energy and Resources Lily D’Ambrosio said getting Victorians on more efficient electric appliances would lead to big savings on bills, while also helping to reduce emissions. “We know that with every bill that arrives, gas is only going to get more expensive,” she said. “That’s why we’re stepping in to help even more Victorians get the best deal on their energy bills.” “Reducing our reliance on gas is critical to meeting our ambitious emission reduction target of net zero by 2045 and getting more Victorians on more efficient electric appliances which will save them money on their bills.” Image credits: Getty Images / KIISFM

Legal

Returning and Earning for your community

Charities and community groups across NSW are cashing in empty drink containers to support their important work in the community, all with the added benefit of helping the environment. It’s an easy win-win to fundraise through Return and Earn, and it makes donating to a local charity or community group very easy. Return and Earn is the incredibly successful container deposit scheme in NSW, where 10 cents is refunded for every eligible drink container returned for recycling through the network of 600+ return points across the state. Since launching over five years ago, <a href="https://returnandearn.org.au" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Return and Earn</a> has become an important and well used channel for charities and community groups fundraising to support a range of local and broader causes. Groups such as Rotary and Lions Clubs, animal rescue organisations, and fire and rescue services are just a few of the many different cohorts that have partnered with Return and Earn and relied on the generosity of NSW citizens to help them do vital work in their communities. “We’ve seen many groups really embrace the scheme, showing a humbling passion for giving back to the community – whether it’s to help fund an event for a local club, or to donate to a charity,” said Danielle Smalley, CEO of scheme coordinator, Exchange for Change. “Some of these groups have raised a lot of money from recycling drink containers through Return and Earn. Often local residents and businesses are handing over their containers or donating their refunds to support the cause, proving there is enormous goodwill in the community.” The Gerringong Lions Club recently celebrated one million containers collected, raising $100,000 that was donated to a variety of causes including medical research, local sporting facilities, as well as helping both Australian and oversees Lions Clubs provide relief during catastrophes. <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-67811" src="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Gerringong-Lions-Club-image-2-for-article-2_RD.jpg" alt="" width="770" height="500" /> The Gerringong Lions Club are now raising around $20,000 each year. The COVID shutdowns and restrictions put a halt to the activities that would normally bring funds to the club. Return and Earn was the only means for the club to generate an income to help the community during this time. As routine users of the scheme, the Gerringong Lions Club are now raising around $20,000 each year, all the while making positive impacts to the environment. Bruce Ray is a past president and active member of the club, and says he gets a sense of satisfaction knowing they are helping the community while also looking out for the environment. “We have the bins at the hotel, the bowling club, and campgrounds. The club also provides the container collection bins for events such as weddings and uses them at local New Years’ Eve events,” said Mr Ray. In Cobar, the local Rotary Club is also using Return and Earn to support the work in their community. They partnered with the local Girl Guides who help the club sort through any drink containers collected. They’ve now raised more than $25,000 since they began in early 2020. Club Secretary Gordon Hill said that one of the benefits for the Girl Guides is the real-world experience in seeing how much locally created waste can be recycled. “It also provides a healthy opportunity for a challenge to see which girls can pack the most containers during a 1.5 to 2 hour session. The record currently stands at 3,080, but the challenge continues,” Gordon added. <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-67813" src="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Cobar-Rotary-Club-image-for-article-2_RD.jpg" alt="" width="770" height="500" /> In Cobar, the local Rotary Club has partnered with the Girl Guides to help with sorting! Since Return and Earn launched in December 2017, over $42 million has been raised through donations and return point hosting fees. The funds have made a significant difference to individuals and groups who have received the support. “There are a lot more collection drives in the community that we don’t track, so the total fundraising amount is in fact even higher,” Ms Smalley said. “We encourage all our Return and Earn users to consider donating containers to a local charity or community group either at the nearest Return and Earn machine or using the Return and Earn app. “And if you’re a member of a group looking for an easy and effective way to fundraise, consider Return and Earn where you can double the benefit by raising funds while also helping the environment.” Every Return and Earn machine features a local donation partner, to whom users can donate part or all of their refunds to. The charity listed changes every six months to give as many groups as possible the opportunity. Charities and groups can also elect to be listed on the Return and Earn app, allowing anyone using the app at a machine or automated depot to donate direct to their favourite charity. There are currently over 170 charities featured on the app. When using a Return and Earn machine, select donate, then select which of the charities listed you want the funds to go. If you’re using the Return and Earn app, simply select donation as your payout option and then select the charity or group you would like to donate your refund to. “Contributions don’t need to be big to make a difference. It can be as easy as collecting a few eligible drink containers and donating them to a charity, helping local communities thrive while looking after the environment.” said Ms Smalley. For more information on donating through Return and Earn visit <a href="https://returnandearn.org.au/donate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">returnandearn.org.au/donate/</a> Images: Supplied This is a sponsored article produced in partnership with Return and Earn.

Money & Banking

"What am I going to do?”: Centrelink mother points out crucial flaw in new budget policy for parents

An unemployed mother who relies on Centrelink benefits has broken down while noting a fatal flaw in Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Federal Budget promises to parents. Jessica Blowers told ABC’s Q&A program that she will be forced off the Single Parent Payment when her daughter turns eight in August, leaving her unable to afford the rent increases. Currently, single parents can claim the Parenting Payment of $949.30 a fortnight until their youngest child turns eight. By September 2023, the age limit for the pay rise to when the youngest child is 14, as part of Chalmers’ budget. Ms Blowers is one of many copping the brunt of it as her daughter’s 8th birthday is four weeks before the new rules begin. She will also see a rent increase during that period from $900 a fortnight to $960. “What am I going to do? What is my choice, other than I am doing my best to get a job so that I can keep a house over my daughter's head,” she stressed to the treasurer. “When I'm applying for the jobs, I am faced with being told that more than 100 other candidates have applied for the same jobs - I'm not sure how I am supposed to compete against 100 other people for one job.” Ms Blowers added she “would like to know what measures the government has in place to bridge the gap that I and other parents in similar situations will find ourselves in”. “I don't have anywhere to go because I am paying my entire pension in rent. Everywhere else in Sydney is comparable to that.” Although sympathetic to her situation, Chalmers said those suffering like Ms Blowers were “the reason why we are lifting the age from eight to 14”. “This is something we were really keen to do in the Budget because we recognise the pressure that you are under as a single mum,” he explained. However, Chalmers was adamant that the new system could not be introduced any earlier than September 20, 2023. “We've tried to do is bring that change in as soon as possible. We think September is the soonest that we can do it,” he said. “I understand that that means a few weeks for you going from the current payment onto JobSeeker and (then) back onto the single parenting payment. “I would love to avoid that if we could, but what we're trying to do is provide this extra assistance ... that you need and deserve. If we could avoid those couple of weeks, we would, but September is the best we can do.” In total, some 57,000 single parents, 90 per cent of whom are women, will benefit from the new scheme. Previously they would have been moved onto the lower JobSeeker rate when their youngest child turned eight. “By age 14, children have typically settled into high school and need less parental supervision, and single parents are in a much stronger position to take on paid work," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said when the policy was announced. Historically, the single parent payment was eligible for singles with children aged up to 16. But former prime minister John Howard, later supported by Julia Gillard, cut the age to eight in an attempt to encourage parents back into the workforce. Two advisory bodies have called for the government to extend the payment and the eligibility criteria. It is understood mutual obligation requirements will remain in order to continue encouraging parents to go back to work. Speaking to Nova radio in Perth, Mr Albanese explained he knew “firsthand what it's like to grow up with a single mum doing it tough”. “We want to look after single parents because we know that the role that they play in raising their children is such a priority for them and they’re deserving of more support,” he said. Image credit: ABC Q&A

Money & Banking

The most feel-good way to recycle

Long-time Return and Earner "Scooter Dave" has been a keen participant in the NSW container deposit scheme since the program started, and the Illawarra local has returned 500,000 containers in that time. Dave gets about on a scooter and any day when weather and health permits, he completes his route to collect rubbish from Windang Bridge in Shellharbour. Along the way he picks up eligible drink containers from residents and businesses who keep them in their yards ready for his scooter collection service. He has donated all of the $50,000 in refunds to many charities, including the Smith Family, the Sydney Children’s Hospital, and children’s ward in Wollongong, bushfire appeals and the Illawarra Convoy. “It gives me something to do, and I know that I am doing something to help people," says Scooter Dave. "People always say that there should be more people like me. There are, but they aren’t cleaning up rubbish like I am.” In a world that’s becoming more eco-conscious, we’re seeing more and more initiatives implemented to reduce the impact we’re having on the planet – from the single-use plastic bans to adopting reusable packaging and recycling. Recycling remains one of the best ways to help protect the environment. The benefits of recycling include reducing the amount of rubbish that ends up in landfill or as litter in our local environment, and reducing the need to extract raw materials from the earth to create new products such as mining raw aluminium to create cans. And with <a style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;" href="https://returnandearn.org.au/?utm_source=over-60&utm_medium=article&utm_content=native-article&utm_campaign=grey-partnership" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Return and Earn</a> there are even more direct benefits for you. Return and Earn is one of many drink container return schemes that have been adopted around the world, where customers who return their used eligible drink containers for recycling can collect a refund. “With Return and Earn, you earn a 10c refund for every empty can, glass or plastic bottle, carton, juice box or popper that you return through one of its 600 return points across NSW. “Since the scheme launched five years ago, over 8.6 billion containers have been returned for recycling by the NSW public resulting in over $860 million in container refunds back in people’s pockets,” says Danielle Smalley, CEO of Exchange for Change, scheme coordinator for Return and Earn. The scheme is entirely funded by the beverage industry, aiming to place responsibility for container recycling firmly back with the industry. The scheme targets commonly littered items and includes most 150ml to three litre plastic, glass, aluminium, steel, and liquid paperboard containers. Eligible containers featuring the 10 cent refund mark can be redeemed for the refund. “Return and Earn is an extraordinary example of how individual action can have a collective impact,” says Smalley. The environmental benefits of the scheme have exceeded expectations – reducing the volume of drink container litter by 52 per cent compared to pre-scheme levels and sending over 755,000 tonnes of material to be recycled. Plus the Return and Earn app makes recycling your containers even easier because you can check the map to see where the nearest return points are to your location and make sure they’re open. Another fantastic feature on the app is the container checker which helps you avoid taking containers that are not eligible. Simply scan the barcode on your container and the app tells you if it can be returned for recycling at a return points. If not, they can go straight into your household recycling bin. Choose your recycling experience To return your containers, you can choose from four types of return points, depending on what suits you and what is nearby. There are Return and Earn machines - a self-service option where you return your containers one-at-a time. You’ll receive a receipt which is redeemable for cash at the partner redemption location or payment straight to your bank account by downloading the Return and Earn app. There are also Return and Earn Centres which are larger format indoor locations featuring multiple machines inside. <img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2023/01/Tomra1.png" alt="Return and Earn" width="741" height="423" /> For larger numbers, heading to your nearest automated depot is your best option. Here staff will take your bags of eligible containers and process them in their automated counting system called a singulator. Once counted, they’ll provide you with your cash refund. Even local businesses are taking part, with some corner stores, newsagents, fruit shops and some Surf Life Saving Clubs able to take your containers and give you your refund. To find your nearest return point, visit <a href="https://returnandearn.org.au/return-points/?utm_source=over-60&utm_medium=article&utm_content=native-article&utm_campaign=grey-partnership" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.returnandearn.org.au</a>. Top tips for returning and earning When you’re ready to return your first collection of containers, here are some tips to make your experience even easier: <ul> <li>Download the Return and Earn app: use the app store available on your mobile phone. </li> <li>Sort your containers before you go: if you’re using a Return and Earn machine, sort your glass containers from your plastic bottles and cans as these are return using separate chutes on the machine. If you’re using an automated depot or an over-the-counter return point, there’s no need to sort. </li> <li>Check if your containers are eligible: Use the Return and Earn app to check if your containers are eligible for a refund. And make sure they’re uncrushed, with the barcode visible and keep the lid on.</li> <li>Plan your trip: make sure to check opening times of your nearest return point via the Return and Earn app or website. You can even optimise your trip by checking the busiest and quietest times to visit.</li> </ul> With these tips under your belt, you can make the most of your Return and Earn experience and reap the benefits for your wallet and for the environment. <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OYDROMQIDbU" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> For more information, visit <a href="https://returnandearn.org.au/?utm_source=over-60&utm_medium=article&utm_content=native-article&utm_campaign=grey-partnership" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Return and Earn.</a> All images: supplied This is a sponsored article produced in partnership with <a href="https://returnandearn.org.au/?utm_source=over-60&utm_medium=article&utm_content=native-article&utm_campaign=grey-partnership" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Return and Earn</a>.

Retirement Income

Airlines to cough up millions in refunds and fines over delays and cancellations

Frustrated travellers subject to major delays or cancellations to their US flights could be entitled to a portion of $US 600 million ($AU 896 million) in refunds from six airlines forced to refund their customers. The airlines have been ordered to pay back customers by the US Department of Transport as part of “historic enforcement actions”. Under US law, customers must be refunded by airlines or ticket agents if the airline cancels or significantly changes a flight to, from or within the US and they don’t want to accept the alternate offer. The department also ordered the airlines to pay a total of $US 7.25 million ($AU 10.84 millIon) in fines for “extreme delays in providing refunds”. “When a flight gets cancelled, passengers seeking refunds should be paid back promptly. Whenever that doesn’t happen, we will act to hold airlines accountable on behalf of American travellers and get passengers their money back.” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/more-600-million-refunds-returned-airline-passengers-under-dot-rules-backed-new" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a press release</a> shared on Monday. “A flight cancellation is frustrating enough, and you shouldn’t also have to haggle or wait months to get your refund.” According to 7News.com.au, the refunds apply to both US and international travellers. The fines and refunds vary from airline to airline, with the affected airlines including: <ul> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> Frontier Airlines - ordered to refund $US 222 million ($AU 331.9 million) and pay $US 2.2 million ($AU 3.2 million) in fines </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> Air India - to pay back $US 121.5 million ($AU 181.6 million) and fined $US 1.4 ($AU 2.1 million) </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> TAP Portugal - with refunds totalling $US 126.5 million ($AU 189.1 million) and fines of $US 1.1 million ($AU 1.6 million) </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> Aeromexico - to refund $US 13.6 million ($AU 20.3 million) and pay $900,000 ($AU 1.3 million) in fines </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> El Al - due to pay $US 61.9 million ($AU 92.5 million) in refunds and $900,000 ($AU 1.3 million) in fines </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> Avianca - with total refunds of $US 76.8 million ($AU 114.8 million) and a fine of $US 750,000 ($AU 1.1 million) </li> </ul> Most of the fines will be paid to the Treasury Department, with the remainder to be credited based on airlines paying customers beyond the legal requirement. According to Blane Workie, the assistant general counsel for the Office of Aviation Consumer Protection DOT, the refunds have either already been made or customers should have been informed of them. Image: Getty Images

International Travel

Restaurant owner praised for hiring policy that targets "oldies"

Like many in the hospitality business, Barry Iddles was struggling to find staff to fill shifts at his restaurant 360Q in Queenscliff when he was struck by inspiration. The 67-year-old decided to put the call out to “oldies”, adding an invitation to retirees to come and work at his waterfront venue on the back of his winter postcards. “We sent out 42,000,” he said. “I put, ‘We’re recruiting – juniors, come and learn the skills of hospitality. Millennials, come and show us what you can do. And seniors and retirees, come back to the workforce for one or two shifts per week.’ “I sent it out by mail and off we went. We had a great response.” He stressed that potential employees didn’t need a resume or hospitality experience and could just come in for a chat. Now, Iddles has 12 staff working for him aged over 50, including former nurses and healthcare workers, a mechanic, small business owner and florist. "We've got two 74-year-olds, a 70-year-old, and then we've got [people aged] 57, 60, 64, 66 and 67," Mr Iddles said. "There is a labour shortage and a labour crisis, [but] I don't have one. I have five too many staff at the moment. And I could actually open another venue to keep them all gainfully employed." <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CgNZSgSvoqP/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CgNZSgSvoqP/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Barry Iddles (@barryiddles)</a> </div> </blockquote> Iddles said most of his older staff at the 150-seat restaurant, which also includes outdoor dining and an upstairs function venue, work during functions and that there has been a major benefit to both older and junior workers working alongside each other. “It’s amazing, the interaction is absolutely incredible,” he said. “It’s good for their life skills – the oldest have got a great work ethic.” Since his story was shared by the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-15/defying-ageism-older-workers-fill-gaps-in-workforce/101651806" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABC</a> on Tuesday, Iddles said his phone has been ringing non-stop and his hiring practice went viral. “Everyone wants to talk about hiring old people,” he said. One of Iddles’ employees, 67-year-old Kenton Savage, told the ABC he wanted to retire after selling his distribution business - but his plans went awry when it went bankrupt during the pandemic. Without super and amidst rising living costs, Savage and his wife had no choice but to find jobs. "The pension just didn't pay enough. So I looked around for a job and Barry was hiring," he said. "I think it just keeps me fit and healthy and happy. Being able to get out and about, it's really been good for me," he said. 73-year-old Susan Borton, another employee, said she applied to boost her confidence and contribute. “Covid made a lot of people depressed,” she said. “And I know amongst the older ones, we’re all saying we’re actually finding it quite difficult to get out and about again. [Working] makes me feel better. And I love putting in, I love contributing.” The Council for Older Australians chief executive Ian Yates praised Iddles for his hiring practice. “Many older people will have experienced a lot of knock backs and not being taken seriously as prospective employees,” he told the ABC. “The labour market is so tight, that employers are being forced to look at channels and groups that they wouldn’t normally look at, including older Australians.” Speaking to <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/queenscliff-restaurant-360q-sees-huge-response-after-inviting-oldies-to-come-and-work/news-story/7e08f752c17bc86dd109581ef602b4c5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">news.com.au</a>, Iddles said others should adopt his policy too, and that it applies to both young and old. “Age discrimination can be quite bad, at both ends of the spectrum,” he said. “If I’ve got a 15-year-old coming for a job I’ll give them a job immediately. Too many people go, you’ve got no experience. But they actually want to work. “It’s a great mix to have [employees ranging] from 15 to 75.” Image: Facebook

Retirement Life

Last chance for Aussies to claim the $1500 tax break

This might be your last chance to get $1500 back on your tax. Over 10 million Aussies will have to act quickly if they haven’t already done so. The $1500 tax offset will be available for the last time for low to middle income earners - this includes those who earn between $48,000 to $90,000. If you fall into this category simply submit your tax return before October 31 to receive the refund. “You only receive the low and middle income tax offset when you lodge this year’s return,” H&R Block’s Mark Chapman said. “Quite an incentive to get your tax return done and lodged!” The offset scheme, which has been extended twice during the pandemic, has been increased by $420 to the maximum of $1500 for those in the magic $48,000 to $90,000 bracket for the 2021-22 financial year. “For those who earn less than $37,000, the offset is $675,” Chapman said. “If you earn between $37,000 and $48,000 the offset will increase up to a maximum of $1500.” But for those who earn over $90,000, the offset is gradually phased out. If your earnings go over $126,000 you won’t get any offset on your tax at all. However, the Australian Taxation Office has emphasised that the offset - also known as the LMITO - is not a cash refund. “The offset can only reduce the amount of tax you need to pay to $0, and if there is any offset remaining you will not receive that amount as a cash refund.” If you want to read more about it, head to the<a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Your-tax-return/Before-you-prepare-your-tax-return/What-s-new-for-individuals/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> ATO website</a>. Image: Getty

Money & Banking

What you need to know about smoking on major cruise lines

Cruising is a highly popular holiday option for travellers. Many changes have been made to the cruising industry to accommodate the influx of travellers. One of the changes that have come with the popularity of cruising is tighter smoking policies. Here is a guide to the different smoking policies of various cruise lines. P&O Cruises For P&O cruises, smoking is not permitted indoors in any of their ships. This rule includes your room and balcony. Smoking is allowed in selected areas outdoors. Electronic cigarettes can also only be used in the designated outdoor smoking areas. Carnival Cruise Line Travellers are allowed to smoke in the designated areas which include some public areas including certain areas of a casino, dance club and some jazz clubs on certain ships. Other public areas are non-smoking zones including dinning and public rooms. Rooms and balconies are non-smoking areas. Princess Cruises Princess Cruises allows smoking in the cigar lounge, the casino and some areas on the open decks. Smoking is prohibited in cabins, balconies and all food areas. On open decks cigar and pipe smoking is allowed. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line Royal Caribbean ships do not allow smoking in dining rooms, cabins and open or closed decks on the portside of the ship. Smoking is allowed on the starboard side of open decks, and designated area of a public room. Most casinos with this line allow smoking except for select cruises from China which will have a non-smoking area. Crystal Cruises Crystal Cruises once allowed smoking in cabins but now they don’t. Smoking is allowed in certain outdoor areas of the ship and a designated smoking lounge is also available. Norwegian Cruise Line Norwegian Cruise Line permits smoking on certain areas of open decks, in a casino if you are a player and in the cigar bars. Smoking is not allowed in cabins and balconies. Smoking is allowed on the starboard side of the Waterfront on the Getaway and Breakaway, except for in the dinning areas. Holland America Holland America allow smoking on balconies but not in cabins. Opens decks and designated areas in most public rooms are free to smoke in. If you are in the casino you can only smoke if you are an active player. Disney Cruise Line Smoking is prohibited in any indoor areas for Disney cruises. For the Disney Magic and Disney Wonder ships smoking is allowed on the starboard side of the deck 4 at 6pm to 6am and decks 9 and 10 in the Quiet Cove Area. On the Disney Dream and Disney Fantasy, smoking Is allowed from 6pm to 6am in designated areas on decks 4, 12 and 13. Should people be allowed to smoke on cruises? Image: Getty

Cruising

What family violence survivors want policy makers to know

For a long time, policy makers and legislators seeking to address the problem of <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/research-areas/statistics-prevalence-and-community-attitudes/">domestic and family violence</a> have sought higher penalties and <a href="https://www.agd.sa.gov.au/documents/Discussion-Paper-coercive-control.pdf">tougher laws</a>. But when it comes to finding practical solutions to this complex problem, the voices of those with lived experience of the system have not always been heard. A recent <a href="https://www.rightsnetworksa.com/_files/ugd/8cf77c_bcc168e3171a46c48efd0aac455df0b0.pdf">study</a> I coauthored with Suryawan Rian Yohanesh from <a href="https://www.unitingcommunities.org/">Uniting Communities</a> (an NGO focused on overcoming disadvantage) involved interviews with survivors of domestic and family violence about what changes they’d like to see. Our interviewees told us they want changes giving them control over legal processes like <a href="https://www.police.sa.gov.au/your-safety/intervention-orders">intervention orders</a> (sometimes called “Apprehended Violence Orders” or AVOs), which are legal orders designed to stop perpetrators of violence or abuse from being near or interacting with their partners or children. Currently, if you want to obtain one of these orders, the police and prosecutor often lead the process. They generally decide whether it goes to court, what evidence is collected or used and what parameters that order has (such as whether the perpetrator can collect kids from school or access firearms). The abuse survivor can feel shut out of these decision-making processes. <h2>Getting the first response right</h2> Survivors of violence, and those working to support survivors, want programs focused on getting the first response right every time. As one service provider said: <blockquote> Being told that your abuse is ‘not serious enough’ or there is no abuse identified is one of the most damaging things that can happen. It can impact the relationship of trust going forward. It is therefore critical first responders are adequately trained in trauma-informed care and practice, and have training in best practice responses to domestic violence, so that the victims can also be referred to suitable support services. </blockquote> If that first response (by police, for example) is dismissive or re-traumatising, it can leave survivors vulnerable to ongoing violence and harm, and distrustful of the legal system. As one survivor said: <blockquote> I didn’t feel like I was taken seriously or believed. [I was] made to feel like I was being judged as hysterical, ridiculous and time wasting. This made me feel unsafe to approach police again which was fairly scary, because they were the place I was supposed to be able to count on to help, and I wasn’t sure where else I could go. </blockquote> This type of response can be devastating for women and families already experiencing disadvantage or isolation, including <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/project/improving-family-violence-legal-and-support-services-for-indigenous-women/">First Nations women</a>, culturally and linguistically diverse women, <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/women-disability-and-violence-barriers-to-accessing-justice-final-report/read/">women with disabilities</a> and <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/domestic-and-family-violence-regional-rural-and-remote-communities">women living in regional areas</a>. Many of these groups already face myriad practical barriers when it comes to reporting violence. A mishandled first response can reinforce <a href="https://theconversation.com/narcissism-and-the-various-ways-it-can-lead-to-domestically-abusive-relationships-116909">narcissistic or controlling behaviour</a> by perpetrators, who use these experiences as evidence of their own power. To say, “See, I told you nobody would believe you.” One interviewee said: <blockquote> The system that is being built to protect women from this type of abuse can be turned into a weapon in the hands of those men that are seeking to perpetuate control against their partner or their family. </blockquote> Survivors said they want greater focus on perpetrator accountability by exposing the true impact of the violence on the lives of others, not just the aspects of the behaviour leading to criminal offences or breaches of the law. This means engaging professionals to help the survivor confront the perpetrator with the broader health, financial and social impacts of their behaviour. <blockquote> With this support team, the victim survivor could be encouraged to develop a strong recorded, accumulative evidence case. And these other professionals could be empowered to confront the defendant about the harm that he is causing to his partner, and in many cases also to his children. </blockquote> These practices should be <a href="https://www.anrows.org.au/project/improving-family-violence-legal-and-support-services-for-indigenous-women/">informed by cultural knowledge</a> and supported by community leaders who can help improve awareness of the rights of women. The support team could also help identify pathways for safe repair of relationships, social connection and financial security. <h2>Longer term support</h2> Survivors also need longer term support packages, including opportunities to <a href="https://www.monash.edu/arts/gender-and-family-violence/study/scholarship-opportunity-graduate-certificate-of-family-violence-prevention#:%7E:text=For%20the%20first%20time%2C%20the,for%20family%20violence%20victim%2Dsurvivors.&text=Timeframe%3A%20For%20successful%20scholarship%20candidates,be%20completed%20by%20October%202022.">access tertiary education or training</a> and specialist legal and financial services. As one participant told us: <blockquote> I’d really like to see some kind of focal point, resources for [domestic violence] survivors. To support people to rebuild their lives. Getting the universities and tertiary institutions to help with retraining and teaching, employment. Somewhere where people can break back in. Including social life, as well as financial security and employment. </blockquote> Those with lived experience of domestic and family violence want perpetrators to be held to account – not just in the courtroom, but in their workplaces and their social networks. They want to be put at the centre of the system, and be recognised as the powerful agents for change they are. <blockquote> No legislation is good enough until people with lived experience have been consulted […] All these people with lived experience are not being heard. They are the ones that have the knowledge. Every time you don’t go to the coal face you miss the point. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-these-people-with-lived-experience-are-not-being-heard-what-family-violence-survivors-want-policy-makers-to-know-180872" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation.</a> Image: Shutterstock </blockquote>

Legal

Nat Barr loses it at Tanya Plibersek and Barnaby Joyce live on air

Natalie Barr has lost her patience with the federal election campaign, as she slammed Tanya Plibersek and Barnaby Joyce in a fiery Sunrise segment. In the on-air debate on Monday morning, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce asked Ms Plibersek on if Labor's policy to help first homebuyers, by buying a stake in their properties, applied to voters' taxable or gross income. Tanya was unable to answer the question directly, leading Joyce to erupt "Which one is it Tanya?!" and Barr to say she felt sorry for Australian voters. The two senior politicians were each grilled about their party's policies on helping first homebuyers, after the Coalition proposed a plan to allow Aussie families to withdraw up to $50,000 from their superannuation to buy their first property. Labor is proposing the Federal government would contribute up to 40 per cent of the purchase price of a first home. The plan would be only be accessible to voters on a taxable income of up to $90,000 per annum for singles, or $120,000 for couples, but the figures are unclear if they are gross or net payments. "Which one is it Tanya?! It's your policy," an exasperated Mr Joyce asked. "Can you explain your policy? It's the last week of the election!" "How do you not understand your own policy?" Barr piled onto Ms Plibersek, asking, "Can you answer the question?" Ms Plibersek eventually confirmed Labor's policy was based on taxable income, to which Mr Joyce implied she was told the figure by an off-camera staffer. Natalie Barr then wrapped up the segment before it could delve further into an on-air screaming match. "Can anyone feel sorry for the people of Australia this morning, trying to work out what on earth we are voting on this Saturday," Barr said. Ms Plibersek added "I feel embarrassed the deputy Prime Minister carries on like that, I really do." Barr fired back, "I feel sorry for us, because we've got to walk into those polling booths and we have to try and work out what on earth we're voting on!" Earlier in the segment, Tanya Plibersek slammed the Coalition's housing affordability scheme, citing why such measures had not worked in the past as housing prices would skyrocket. "There is a reason why John Howard, Peter Costello… and Malcolm Turnbull rejected this policy," Ms Plibersek said. "All the Liberals in the past have rejected it because you shouldn't have to choose between housing today and poverty in old age." "Scott Morrison and his government have been around for almost a decade. It's harder to buy a home, it's harder to rent and it's more expensive and there's more homelessness than ever." Image credits: Sunrise

Poverty isn’t a temporary experience in Australia. We need urgent policy tackling persistent disadvantage

We often hear a job is the best way to get someone out of poverty. In many cases this is true, and anti-poverty strategies should prioritise improving people’s access to jobs. But this isn’t the complete solution. For many – particularly those with disability or substantial caring responsibilities that limit their scope to work – the income support system remains crucial to avoiding persistent poverty. It may not feel like it at a time of rising living costs, but the incomes of Australians have on average risen substantially over the last three decades and continue to trend upwards – we have never been richer. However – <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/deep-persistent-disadvantage" target="_blank" rel="noopener">as highlighted by the Productivity Commission</a> – some in the community continue to be left behind. Our new <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/4107629/Breaking-Down-Barriers-Report-4-May-2022.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study of income poverty</a> shows persistent poverty remains a significant problem in Australian society. Looking back over the first two decades of this century, we found around 13% of the population are persistently poor. We defined these as people who persistently have to live on incomes that are <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:At-risk-of-poverty_rate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">less than 60% of</a> the median income in Australia (a definition employed by Eurostat for European Union member countries). Poverty then isn’t simply a temporary experience in Australia, and tackling persistent disadvantage needs to be a policy imperative. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461194/original/file-20220504-21-epehk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Poverty isn’t simply a temporary experience in Australia. Shutterstock</figcaption></figure> Why do people descend in poverty – and often stay there? Understanding what drives poverty and its persistence is an essential first step to alleviating it. Using data from the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (<a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">HILDA</a>) Survey, we examined the extent and nature of persistent poverty among the same sample of Australians tracked over time. Specifically, we looked at <ul> <li>why do people descend into poverty?</li> <li>why do some people remain in poverty, while others escape it?</li> <li>why some of those who escape poverty remain out of poverty while others fall back into it.</li> </ul> We also examined the degree to which the depth of poverty (how far someone’s income is below the poverty line) impacts on the likelihood of staying in poverty. We found persistent poverty is more prevalent among: <ul> <li>women</li> <li>single-parent families</li> <li>older people</li> <li>Indigenous Australians</li> <li>people with a disability</li> <li>less-educated people, and</li> <li>people living in more disadvantaged regions.</li> </ul> This is consistent with <a href="https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/poverty-in-australia-2020-overview-html-version/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previous studies of poverty</a> made at a single point in time. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those in deep poverty – the poorest of the poor – are the most likely to be persistently poor (up to five times more likely than the average person in the community). The very poor are therefore a policy priority – not only because they are very poor now, but because they are more likely to remain poor. ‘Falling’ into poverty Similarly, among those initially not in poverty, those with incomes closest to the poverty line – the poorest of the non-poor – are at greater risk of falling into persistent poverty. Another policy priority therefore needs to be preventing those close to the poverty line falling into actual poverty. When we examined the “trigger events” for people falling into poverty or rising out of it, we found the household’s success in the labour market is critical. In other words, people need to be able to get a job. An increase in the number of employed people in the household is strongly associated with lifting people out of poverty. There is also a strong association between a lack of work and the risk of persistent poverty. Clearly, then, policy measures geared towards increasing employment, and retaining employment for those already employed, are key to reducing persistent poverty. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461457/original/file-20220505-24-cgvjbn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Another policy priority needs to be preventing those close to the poverty line falling into actual poverty. Shutterstock</figcaption></figure> It’s not just about jobs, though But employment isn’t the only factor of importance. Any change in family type, but particularly becoming a single-parent family, increases the risk of poverty. More broadly, the household context plays a crucial role in determining individuals’ poverty experiences. Who you live with, what they do, and what happens to them are important. The household perspective then is critical to understanding poverty and designing appropriate policy responses. The onset of disability or substantial caring responsibilities is also much more likely to tip you into poverty and keep you there. Put simply, those who are more likely to experience persistent poverty tend to be constrained in their ability to participate in the labour market. Having a job may not be an option at all. Focusing only on labour market-related anti-poverty policy measures therefore isn’t enough to fully address persistent poverty in the Australian community. Many of those highly exposed to persistent poverty have very constrained access to paid work, because of factors such as: <ul> <li>long-term health conditions</li> <li>high caring responsibilities for young children or</li> <li>significant disabilities.</li> </ul> Even among couple-parent households, we found the more dependent children in the household, the lower the probability of exiting poverty. This highlights the importance of child care assistance to facilitate employment participation and sustained income adequacy for families with young children. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/461458/original/file-20220505-26-km89qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>Many of those highly exposed to persistent poverty have very constrained access to paid work, because of factors such as long-term health conditions. Shutterstock</figcaption></figure> An unavoidable conclusion But even improvements in child care assistance aren’t enough. The simple fact is that, for a significant number of people, income support will continue to determine their living standards. The unavoidable conclusion is that boosting income support payments beyond their current austere levels remains a crucial pillar of policy for governments genuinely committed to reducing persistent disadvantage. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be on the agenda of either of the major parties.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181343/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/esperanza-vera-toscano-788145" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Esperanza Vera-Toscano</a>, Senior research fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roger-wilkins-95906" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roger Wilkins</a>, Professorial Fellow and Deputy Director (Research), HILDA Survey, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The University of Melbourne</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/poverty-isnt-a-temporary-experience-in-australia-we-need-urgent-policy-tackling-persistent-disadvantage-181343" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Bunnings forced to recall electric blower

Bunnings has recalled a popular gardening tool that poses a risk of electric shock and injury. Some models of Ozito's portable electric blower are being taken off the shelves due to a defect with the impeller that can break during use and rupture the casing, releasing sharp objects at high speed and showing live parts. "Bunnings is promoting the recall of a Ozito portable Electrical Blower, model number OZBL1800WA and is green in colour, which customers were first advised about in 2015," Adrian Pearce, Bunnings general manager of merchandise, said. "Bunnings supported our supplier Ozito with their initial voluntarily recall and since then the recall has been advertised many times including on radio, print, and emails to our customers, with the current advertising designed to address any outstanding purchases made between 2009 and 2015. "Bunnings takes the safety of its customers very seriously and we encourage any remaining owners of this model to return the product to their nearest Bunnings." People who have purchased the product have been asked to stop using the blower immediately. They are encouraged to return it to their nearest Bunnings store for a full refund. For further information, customers are urged to contact Bunnings' customer relations team on 1800 811 436. Image: Bunnings

News

Past policies have created barriers to voting in remote First Nations communities

The rate of voter participation in federal elections by people living in remote Indigenous communities has been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lower than the national average</a> since First Nations people were granted the right to vote in 1962. In recent years, the rate has been in <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decline</a>. Rates are lowest in the Northern Territory. The low rate of participation among First Nations people living in remote communities could affect the lower house election results in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari. Warren Snowden has stepped down after 20 years holding the seat. Determining rates of voter participation Measuring the number of First Nations people (or any particular demographic group) who vote in federal elections is challenging. Electoral rolls do not include information about cultural identity. Census figures, which could be used as a basis for comparison against voter turnout rates, are imprecise. Data from the 2005 NT Assembly general election <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20https:/press.anu.edu.au/publications/directions-australian-electoral-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">show</a> voting rates were 20% lower in electorates with the highest Indigenous populations. In his study of the 2019 federal election, Australian National University researcher <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Will Sanders</a> found <blockquote> perhaps only half of eligible Aboriginal citizens […] may be utilising their right to vote. </blockquote> Reports from the Northern Territory’s most recent Assembly election also found <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-21/poor-indigenous-voter-turnout-at-nt-election/12580688" target="_blank" rel="noopener">record low</a><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-15/coronavirus-impacting-on-remote-voter-turnout-nt-election/12559066">turnout</a> across Indigenous communities. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Research</a> <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shows</a> rates of informal votes are also higher in remote Indigenous communities. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> NLC accuses the Australian Electoral Commission of 'failing' Aboriginal voters [Matt Garrick, ABC] Northern Territory land council has accused the AEC of failing Aboriginal people by not engaging more bush voters to have their say at the federal election.<a href="https://t.co/fCKRluGaoD">https://t.co/fCKRluGaoD</a> <a href="https://t.co/J3a04DyJJB">pic.twitter.com/J3a04DyJJB</a> — First Nations Tgraph (@FNTelegraph) <a href="https://twitter.com/FNTelegraph/status/1514025685521952770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 12, 2022</a></blockquote> Barriers to First Nations people voting Decisions made at the federal level over the last three decades appear to have provided significant obstacles to voting in some First Nations communities. First is the 1996 abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Election Education and Information Service. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Two</a> <a href="http://doi.org/10.22459/DAER.05.2012;%20https:/press.anu.edu.au/publications/directions-australian-electoral-reform" target="_blank" rel="noopener">studies</a> point to this abolition as a potential reason for a decline in voting rates in remote Indigenous communities since the mid-nineties. Established in 1979, this service existed specifically to increase voter registration rates among First Nations people. This was done by, for example, providing voter education and election materials in Indigenous languages. The second decision was the 2005 abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. First Nations people participated in five of the Commission’s elections administered by the same Australian Electoral Commission responsible for federal elections. Although voting was voluntary, <a href="https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41511/3/2003_DP252.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> shows participation was higher in northern and central Australia than in southern Australia. The third relevant policy change was the passage of the 2006 Electoral Integrity Bill. This introduced more stringent rules for the identification required to vote, making it more difficult for people in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">at least one remote community</a> to register to vote. The Morrison government’s unsuccessful 2021 proposal to introduce even tougher <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7488468/govt-accused-of-trumpist-move-to-suppress-voting/?cs=14264" target="_blank" rel="noopener">voter identification laws</a> would likely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/27/proposed-voter-id-laws-real-threat-to-rights-of-indigenous-australians-and-people-without-homes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exacerbate this problem</a>. The fourth policy decision was a 2012 change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, known as the “Federal Direct Enrolment and Update”. This enabled the Australian Electoral Commission to register eligible Australians to vote based on information available through several government agencies. These include Centrelink/the Department of Human Services, the Australian Taxation Office, and the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information Service. But the Electoral Commission has <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">chosen not to use this mechanism for enrolment in parts of Australia</a> where mail is sent to a single community address (“mail exclusion areas”). This means people living in many remote communities are not automatically added to the electoral roll, unlike most of the rest of Australia. West Arnhem Regional Council mayor Matthew Ryan and Yalu Aboriginal Corporation chairman Ross Mandi launched an official complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner over this issue in June last year. They <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-19/nt-voters-racial-discrimination-human-rights-commission/100227762" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argued</a> failure to apply the Federal Direct Enrolment and Update in remote communities represents a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> of residents in one remote community on South Australia’s APY lands found a lack of information contributed to low participation in elections. Obstacles included: <ul> <li> a lack of materials available in appropriate languages </li> <li> uncertainty about how to cast a formal vote </li> <li> problems related to literacy, and </li> <li> a lack of appropriate identification necessary to enrol. </li> </ul> In October last year, the Australian Electoral Commission announced new funding for its <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/2021/10-28.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Indigenous Electoral Participation program</a> with the aim of increasing enrolment rates; the upcoming election will show if the program is working. Lingiari Given that voting is compulsory in Australia, non-participation is a concern in any election. But these issues are likely to be particularly relevant in the 2022 federal election, at least in the seat of Lingiari. Lingiari covers all of the Northern Territory outside the greater Darwin/Palmerston area. So it is the one House of Representatives division where Indigenous Australians (many of them living in remote communities) have clear electoral <a href="http://doi.org/10.25911/5df209771dd57" target="_blank" rel="noopener">power</a>. Providing more mobile polling booths could help make voting easier for people in remote Indigenous communities. Currently, these booths can be present for as little as two hours during an entire election period. There is also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2010.01552.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener">evidence</a> Indigenous people are more likely to vote in elections for Indigenous candidates, and for candidates who have visited their community. Warren Snowden has represented the electorate since its creation in 2001, but he is not contesting this election; the seat is up for grabs. Indigenous people will determine who takes Snowden’s place. But how many of them vote may be limited by their ability to enrol, the availability of information in an appropriate language, and access a polling booth.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181194/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/morgan-harrington-1207111" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Morgan Harrington</a>, Research Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/past-policies-have-created-barriers-to-voting-in-remote-first-nations-communities-181194" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: The Australian Electoral Commision (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/auselectoralcom/48720382352/in/album-72157710806573631/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Flickr</a>)

Legal

Aus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy

Australia has finally accepted New Zealand’s offer to settle some of the refugees from the <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/factsheet_offshore_processing_overview.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offshore processing</a> regime – about nine years after it was first made in 2013. The NZ deal will provide certainty for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/24/australia-agrees-450-refugees-can-be-resettled-in-new-zealand-nine-years-after-deal-first-offered" target="_blank" rel="noopener">450 people</a> who have been in limbo, many for more than a decade. But in the March 24 <a href="https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/KarenAndrews/Pages/australia-new-zealand-resettlement-arrangement.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcement</a>, Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews made clear the deal does not change Australia’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-and-new-zealand-reach-refugee-resettlement-agreement/20vyv2d8w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hard-line approach</a>. This makes the deal a bandage on a <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed policy</a> that continues to haemorrhage cash, destroy lives and erode the international system for refugee protection. Who is – and isn’t – included in the NZ deal? The original offer, made by the then NZ Prime Minister John Key in 2013, was refused by the Australian government until now. The Coalition government claimed the deal could be a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/01/decision-to-bring-children-from-nauru-an-admission-of-failure-by-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pull factor</a>” for asylum seekers coming by boat to Australia. Under the agreement, NZ will settle up to 150 of Australia’s “offshore processing” refugees per year for three years. These refugees arrived in Australia by sea between 2012 and 2014 and were sent to Nauru or Manus Island “offshore processing” detention centres. The deal can include the <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us-subsite/files/population-and-number-of-people-resettled.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">112 people</a> who are in Nauru or those temporarily in Australia under offshore processing arrangements. Some <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2022/3/623a66584/unhcr-news-comment-on-the-australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1,100</a> people have been returned temporarily to Australia, mostly for medical treatment. They mostly live in the community with <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/potential-return-of-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum-to-nauru-and-png-proof-of-policy-failure/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">no support and insecure visa status</a> but some remain in detention. Those already being considered for settlement to another country, such as the United States or Canada, aren’t eligible for the NZ program. More than 100 men who remain in Papua New Guinea aren’t included in this deal. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> The always wise, always insightful <a href="https://twitter.com/BehrouzBoochani?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BehrouzBoochani</a> on Australia, the NZ refugee resettlement offer, and why it took nine years...<a href="https://t.co/IdxPBGpAz0">https://t.co/IdxPBGpAz0</a> — Ben Doherty (@BenDohertyCorro) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenDohertyCorro/status/1508944829509926915?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 29, 2022</a></blockquote> Under current known arrangements, people remaining in PNG could be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal-everything-we-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referred</a> by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to NZ through its regular refugee programme. Even after the NZ and US options are exhausted, it’s estimated at least <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/australians-welcome-nzs-generosity-to-refugees-in-offshore-processing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">500 refugees will be without a solution</a>. And they’re not the only ones. There are some <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Factsheet_Legacy%20Caseload_final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30,000 people</a> in what’s called the “legacy caseload” who arrived by sea between 2012 and 2014 and weren’t transferred to Nauru and PNG. They remain in Australia subject to harmful measures. They’re stuck in limbo on temporary visas, unable to reunify with family members, and receive <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/urgent-call-government-protect-asylum-seekers-and-refugees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inadequate support</a> to secure housing or health care. Australia distorts the global refugee system <a href="https://www.refworld.org/docid/51af82794.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australia has primary responsibility</a> for refugees who seek its protection. The Australian government has repeatedly tried and failed to find countries willing to settle refugees it refuses to protect. It reportedly offered multiple countries, from the Philippines to Kyrgyzstan, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/08/australias-refugee-deal-a-farce-after-us-rejects-all-iranian-and-somali-asylum-seekers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">millions of dollars</a> to settle refugees from Australia’s offshore camps – without success. Resettlement to a third country is an important solution, available to less than 1% of refugees globally whose lives, liberty, safety, health or other fundamental rights are at risk <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/46f7c0ee2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in the country where they have sought refuge</a>. This isn’t the case for refugees seeking asylum in Australia, where there’s a well-established asylum system. It’s difficult to think of the NZ solution as “resettlement” in its true meaning. Resettlement places are important to <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">relieve pressure on developing countries</a> that host almost 90% of the world’s refugees. Conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, South Sudan, Afghanistan, plus now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have created a need for resettlement in a third country for almost <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1.5 million</a> refugees worldwide. Resettlement has been disrupted over the last two years due to COVID, leaving even more people in urgent need. Under these extraordinary “refugee deals” with the US and NZ, the Australian government is trying to solve a political problem of its own making at the expense of people in desperate need. Like Australia, the US and NZ offer only a limited number of resettlement spots each year. When these spots go to Australia’s refugees, who are Australia’s responsibility, someone else misses out. Continuing damage This is Australia’s second go at offshore processing. Its first iteration, the “Pacific Solution”, lasted from 2001 until 2008. The second commenced in 2012 and continues. Offshore processing remains costly. Australian taxpayers have spent, on average, around <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf#page=14&zoom=auto,-135,786" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A$1 billion per year</a> to maintain offshore processing since 2014. This is despite a dramatic drop in the number of people held in Nauru and PNG. At the peak in April 2014, Australia detained a total of 2,450 people. By December 2021, there were <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">219 people remaining offshore in Nauru and PNG</a>. People transferred to Manus Island and Nauru suffered mandatory and indefinite detention in harsh conditions. Their treatment has been called out by the United Nations repeatedly as <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/united-nations-observations.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cruel and inhuman</a> and described by Amnesty International as <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018835563/amnesty-international-celebrates-deal-for-nz-to-take-refugees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">torture</a>. The abuse of men, women and children in offshore processing centres has been thoroughly documented in a <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b743d9_e4413cb72e1646d8bd3e8a8c9a466950.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">communiqué</a> to the International Criminal Court, <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/43063/documents/791#page=27&zoom=auto,-134,1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">parliamentary inquiries</a> and domestic legal challenges. Australia’s offshore processing sets a bad regional precedent for <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160913_Pathways_to_Protection.pdf#page=20&zoom=page-fit,-625,841" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refugee protection in Southeast Asia</a> and beyond. The policy objective of using cruelty as a deterrent to “stop the boats” and “save lives at sea” didn’t work. If boats didn’t arrive, this was due to Australia’s <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interception and turnback of boats at sea</a>. What needs to change? Refugee policy can be <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/principles-australian-refugee-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">principled</a> and driven by compassion while protecting borders and respecting international law. Australia should formally end offshore processing. The small number of people still held offshore in Nauru and PNG should be transferred back to Australia. Everyone who has been subject to the policy since 2012 who doesn’t have a permanent solution could be offered settlement in Australia. This <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-2013/pacificsolution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">occurred</a> in the first iteration of offshore processing and could happen again. Money and lives can be saved.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180241/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/natasha-yacoub-1259499" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Natasha Yacoub</a>, International refugee lawyer and scholar, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNSW Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/aus-nz-refugee-deal-is-a-bandage-on-a-failed-policy-its-time-to-end-offshore-processing-180241" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

What happens to your money when borders close?

It’s probably on everybody’s bucket list to travel the world…or wherever they can afford. After two years of closed borders thanks to Covid, some individuals are still waiting for their refund for the trips that never happened. Australian owned and operated online travel company checkmyfares.com has recently come under fire for not refunding the money to their customers who weren’t able to travel. Jonathan Sanderson spent $3,200 on flights to Fiji and was unable to go due to the pandemic which saw Australia’s borders close. Almost two years since the borders shut, Mr Sanderson is still waiting for his money. "I want my refund and I want it now," he told <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/travel-company-refuses-customers-holiday-their-refunds/aaf75d38-735a-483e-8a27-e1eeeabd74f1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Current Affair</a>. "I think it's disgusting. I can't believe a company like this can operate in Australia and get away with it.” Fifi Sajuit was another customer waiting on $6,700 for a cancelled trip to Canada. She received confirmation from Air Canada that her tickets were refunded when in fact they weren’t. Ms Sajuit was eventually refunded most of her money after the episode aired, but she claims they “treated me really badly” every time she asked for it. Consumer advocate Adam Glezer slammed the company’s behaviour toward customers, saying money should always be given back “as soon as possible”. "You shouldn't be holding on to anyone's money for any lengthy period of time at all," he said. "If a travel agent of any kind receives money back, they should be giving it back as soon as possible." The company issued a statement to the program saying they had been working with clients non-stop throughout the pandemic. Image: Checkmyfares.com

Travel Trouble

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Qantas apologises after rejecting cancer patient's refund request

What to expect from the federal budget

Millions of high-risk Australians aren’t getting vaccinated. A policy reset could save lives

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

“You’re a flop!” Kyle Sandilands hits back at Dan Andrews’ controversial new policy

Returning and Earning for your community

"What am I going to do?”: Centrelink mother points out crucial flaw in new budget policy for parents

The most feel-good way to recycle

Airlines to cough up millions in refunds and fines over delays and cancellations

Restaurant owner praised for hiring policy that targets "oldies"

Last chance for Aussies to claim the $1500 tax break

What you need to know about smoking on major cruise lines

What family violence survivors want policy makers to know

Nat Barr loses it at Tanya Plibersek and Barnaby Joyce live on air

Poverty isn’t a temporary experience in Australia. We need urgent policy tackling persistent disadvantage

Bunnings forced to recall electric blower

Past policies have created barriers to voting in remote First Nations communities

Aus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy

What happens to your money when borders close?

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Qantas apologises after rejecting cancer patient's refund request

What to expect from the federal budget

Millions of high-risk Australians aren’t getting vaccinated. A policy reset could save lives

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

“You’re a flop!” Kyle Sandilands hits back at Dan Andrews’ controversial new policy

Returning and Earning for your community

"What am I going to do?”: Centrelink mother points out crucial flaw in new budget policy for parents

The most feel-good way to recycle

Airlines to cough up millions in refunds and fines over delays and cancellations

Restaurant owner praised for hiring policy that targets "oldies"

Last chance for Aussies to claim the $1500 tax break

What you need to know about smoking on major cruise lines

What family violence survivors want policy makers to know

Nat Barr loses it at Tanya Plibersek and Barnaby Joyce live on air

Poverty isn’t a temporary experience in Australia. We need urgent policy tackling persistent disadvantage

Bunnings forced to recall electric blower

Past policies have created barriers to voting in remote First Nations communities

Aus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy

What happens to your money when borders close?

Our Partners

Join Over60