JobKeeper and Aviation employees in Oz.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NNE of where I'd prefer
Age: 33
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JobKeeper and Aviation employees in Oz.
The Guvmint's stuff up with estimating the size of the JobKeeper scheme has got me thinking.
We all know that lots have missed out on the $1500/fortnight payment , many from the arts, casuals under a certain time with one employer etc and the 6000 odd who work for Toll Dnata being disqualified because their employer is foreign owned. Specifically, I'm wondering, how many aviation people are affected? Are there any other outfits where the foreign government ownership has meant the local salaried workers also miss out despite them paying Australian tax etc. Is there a difference between a company having foreign government ownership or having a bunch of foreign shareholders?
Craig Keely, an MP, raised the Toll Dnata case. Did he get anywhere?
We all know that lots have missed out on the $1500/fortnight payment , many from the arts, casuals under a certain time with one employer etc and the 6000 odd who work for Toll Dnata being disqualified because their employer is foreign owned. Specifically, I'm wondering, how many aviation people are affected? Are there any other outfits where the foreign government ownership has meant the local salaried workers also miss out despite them paying Australian tax etc. Is there a difference between a company having foreign government ownership or having a bunch of foreign shareholders?
Craig Keely, an MP, raised the Toll Dnata case. Did he get anywhere?
The Guvmint's stuff up with estimating the size of the JobKeeper scheme has got me thinking.
Where is the "stuffup"
The next thing the media will be on about is that we only had 100 odd deaths when it was forecast to be 50,000 as reported by SBS.
Are both of these stuff ups or conservative forecasting on an unprecedented event?
More like a "beatup" by the media.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: new zealand
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't think that overestimating a program by around double isn't a "stuff up"? Give it another name if you don't like that term but it won't change things. It was treasury's modelling alone that arrived at this figure which was announced in the PM's press release on March 30th. Now the government is saying that it was errors during applying by companies that has resulted in the discrepancy. "In a statement, Treasury and the ATO said the mistake came from businesses reporting how much financial assistance they expected to receive, instead of how many employees they thought would be eligible. "For example, over 500 businesses with '1' eligible employee reported a figure of '1,500' (which is the amount of JobKeeper payment they would expect to receive for each fortnight for that employee)," the departments said." (https://treasury.gov.au/media-release/jobkeeper-update)
This is utter rubbish as the $130b estimate came out before even one employer had applied and the statement misrepresents the situation.
"Based on the original estimates, Treasury believed the program would subsidise the wages of 6.5 million workers." This was a treasury estimate, employer application figures had absolutely nothing to do with that estimate.
Whatever it's called, it looks like a stuff up.
However, this is getting off the track. The OP raised the issue of how many aviation workers missed out by Job Keeper despite being on the payroll of companies in Australia. Let's stick to that. For example, how did Australian based Air New Zealand workers get on given the NZ gov't owns 52% - did any of those get stood down and, if so, were they disqualified from Job Keeper because of foreign involvement?
This is utter rubbish as the $130b estimate came out before even one employer had applied and the statement misrepresents the situation.
"Based on the original estimates, Treasury believed the program would subsidise the wages of 6.5 million workers." This was a treasury estimate, employer application figures had absolutely nothing to do with that estimate.
Whatever it's called, it looks like a stuff up.
However, this is getting off the track. The OP raised the issue of how many aviation workers missed out by Job Keeper despite being on the payroll of companies in Australia. Let's stick to that. For example, how did Australian based Air New Zealand workers get on given the NZ gov't owns 52% - did any of those get stood down and, if so, were they disqualified from Job Keeper because of foreign involvement?
Last edited by ringbinder; 24th May 2020 at 22:46. Reason: added link
Would everyone prefer that the government took the time to do a full costing and analysis of who gets it and who doesn’t before initiating the scheme? We would still be months away from seeing payments. This was an emergency measure formulated almost overnight, there were bound to be errors made. The old “Fast, Cheap, Good” rule applies To JK.
As for foreign companies and their Australian staff, that’s a hard one.
As for foreign companies and their Australian staff, that’s a hard one.
Would everyone prefer that the government took the time to do a full costing and analysis of who gets it and who doesn’t before initiating the scheme? .
Now, instead of seeing that those who wrongly, in my opinion, missed out finally get JobKeeper, the government is claiming the reduced amount as a win. They were prepared to fund it, and would have if the treasury estimates hadn't been so wrong, so why not do the right thing by those Australian paid staff currently excluded. Or, as a consistent alternative, no longer require them to pay Australian tax given the foreign involvement of their employer.
Will they be prevented from getting the pension when the time comes because they worked for a business that had foreign ownership component? I think not so why the disqualification now?
Incidentally, I wrote about this to Fydenburg (as my local member) where his website sates he reads all emails and replies to them. I'm still waiting despite it being three weeks ago.
p.s. dragon man, can you re-post the article as the right-hand edge has been clipped and text is missing. Otherwise, what is the link, please?
Last edited by down3gr33ns; 24th May 2020 at 23:59. Reason: added the p.s.
"Based on the original estimates, Treasury believed the program would subsidise the wages of 6.5 million workers." This was a treasury estimate, employer application figures had absolutely nothing to do with that estimate.
Employer and employees fill in Jobkeeper forms for the ATO.
Based on the data from the applications, the ATO figures line up with the Treasury estimations. Looks lke the Treasury were correct in the estimations.
Money paid to employers to be paid to employees based on the number of employees registered with the ATO.
A review of the applications found that incorrect information was supplied by the employers to the ATO.
Yeah, we have saved $60b.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it DOES appear some people have been missed out and MAYBE some money could be allocated for stimulus etc the above statement is correct.
Yet you have your financial numpties who say "oh goodie goodie, a new $60BN credit card, lets go and blow it all because everyone knows money grows on trees or is left by financial fairies at the bottom of the garden....."
Morons.
Yet you have your financial numpties who say "oh goodie goodie, a new $60BN credit card, lets go and blow it all because everyone knows money grows on trees or is left by financial fairies at the bottom of the garden....."
Morons.
Yet you have your financial numpties who say "oh goodie goodie, a new $60BN credit card, lets go and blow it all because everyone knows money grows on trees or is left by financial fairies at the bottom of the garden....."
Yes, certainly the debt is reduced with the new figures but given the initial estimates allowed for it, why not use that for the benefit of those that missed out? Or, Galdian, do you support discrimination when it comes to helping those doing it tough?
Treasury estimated a figure of $130b.
Employer and employees fill in Jobkeeper forms for the ATO
Money paid to employers to be paid to employees based on the number of employees registered with the ATO.
A review of the applications found that incorrect information was supplied by the employers to the ATO.
However, this is getting off the track.
Last edited by down3gr33ns; 25th May 2020 at 02:14. Reason: typo corrected.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking the same - sounds like a role at VA that was not required, and im sure its not required at QF.
What exactly are they doing to be 'working' in recent weeks when most of us are stood down and are not engaged except foe the Town Hall updates, which are optional.
What exactly are they doing to be 'working' in recent weeks when most of us are stood down and are not engaged except foe the Town Hall updates, which are optional.
Yes. I do support and expect the Govt to discriminate and make judgement calls when spending our money.
He is the 1 who has been screwed by the company's interpretation of the jobkeeper system,obviously his level of engagement will be very low.
Interesting too how they say the decision only applies to 1 employee,that would mean every other employee receiving jobkeeper would have been paid correctly!
Interesting too how they say the decision only applies to 1 employee,that would mean every other employee receiving jobkeeper would have been paid correctly!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You apparently reckon that money that doesn't exist (has to be borrowed) BUT was predicated on expected requirements in tough times, appears now only half the expected will be required.
BUT you still want to go out and have a big night at the pub and just put it on the credit card?
Q: yes or no, do you believe the earmarked (initial $130BN) money in any way, or at any time, has to be repaid?
Yes or No....it's not rocket science.
Cheers
Q: yes or no, do you believe the earmarked (initial $130BN) money in any way, or at any time, has to be repaid?
Now, galdian, I’ve answered your question but I see you’ve artfully avoided answering mine in post number 10. I think that puts your answer squarely in the affirmative.
As for “go out and have a big night at the pub etc.", what an immature, hysterical, trivialising and jingoistic catch phrase. You would appear to believe that those who work for an Australian employer and getting JobKeeper can “go to the pub“ (aka have some security and a semblance of an income) but those whose employers have a foreign basis are excluded and cannot do the same. Now, that’s equitable – NOT.
How do you rationalise the standing down of many thousands without any support whatsoever whilst others doing the same job for another local employer are getting government support? Indeed, there are many still working to various degrees and it is effectively the company getting the benefit via the government wage subsidy. Meanwhile, there are plenty getting NOTHING.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh boy, talk about missing the point - and my apologies if my jingoism was too simplistic, I was hoping it would set the scene in simple, maybe humorous, way.
You get a new credit card in the mail, decide to go out on a big night and blow the credit knowing you'll have to pay it back...with interest...your choice blowing money you don't have.
The federal govt has found there's XXX amount of money on their new credit card they WON'T have to blow, won't have to pay back...with interest...and you think they should just go and shout the Oz population a big night out at the pub.
IF, IF you've never denied that the $130BN should be repaid...why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent??
You get a new credit card in the mail, decide to go out on a big night and blow the credit knowing you'll have to pay it back...with interest...your choice blowing money you don't have.
The federal govt has found there's XXX amount of money on their new credit card they WON'T have to blow, won't have to pay back...with interest...and you think they should just go and shout the Oz population a big night out at the pub.
IF, IF you've never denied that the $130BN should be repaid...why would you go out and spend money - and pay interest - on the proportion of money that no longer has to be spent??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NNE of where I'd prefer
Age: 33
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this arguing about the funding, but no-one seems capable of answering my query about which others, besides Toll Dnata, are adversely affected.