Co-payments keep Medicare healthy

In The Australian today:
“It’s not a tax, it’s a charge. A tax is an unrequited payment governments secure by compulsion. A charge is the fee paid for a service. And the proposed GP co-payment isn’t even mandatory: whether doctors impose it is up to them.”

About Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas is a columnist for The Australian newspaper and the inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the SMART Infrastructure Facility at the University of Wollongong. The SMART Infrastructure Facility is a $61.8 million world-class research and training centre concerned with integrated infrastructure solutions for the future. Henry is also Senior Economic Adviser to Deloitte Australia. Prior to these concurrent roles Henry worked as a consultant economist at NECG, CRA International and Concept Economics. Henry's previous career was as an economist at the OECD in Paris, where amongst other roles he headed the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Structural Adjustment and was Counsellor for Structural Policy in the Economics Department.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to Co-payments keep Medicare healthy

  1. Baldrick

    A tax, a charge, a co-payment, a levy, a fee, a duty, a contribution, a tariff, an excise … it’s still a government impost and therefore it’s still a rabbit!

  2. CatAttack

    I don’t think we will have to worry about a co-payment if they don’t get support. We will though have a debit tax and in return Bill Shorten gets to call Abbott a liar for the next few years.

  3. Milton Von Smith

    Great piece, but I have yet to hear a sensible explanation as to why the objective should be to save socialised medicine and the Medicare system. Surely the objective should be for them to fail?

  4. lem

    Exactement, cher Henry. Ce que je disais tout le weekend.

  5. Roger

    Surely the objective should be for them to fail?
    Given the very high public support for Medicare, this is a great example of Libertarian lunacy.

    Henry, a co-payment is justified on rational economic grounds but sequestering c. 80% of the monies raised into a medical research future fund is irrational given that is the role of private companies and unjustifiable when much of rural Australia, which generates substantial wealth for the country, still goes without ready access to specialist medical services. Frankly, I’m surprised the Nats let this one through.

  6. Docket62

    Having been to a hospital emergency department in the last few years with what I considered a serious (but not urgent) injury after an argument with a chain saw, I was gob smacked by the people there who literally had sniffles, and cue jumped me even though I was bleeding on their floor. As far as I’m concerned $7 isn’t enough to keep these halfwits out. Co payments have always existed for non bulk billing doctors, we paid them when we couldn’t afford to, like everyone else, and just sucked it up. We didn’t go to the doctor unless we had to.

  7. AP

    All of these arguments about it being a tax fall on the floor when it is pointed out that if you don’t use Medicare, and pay the full charge (as would a foreigner), there is no co-payment. Therefore it is not a tax as it is not compulsory, unlike, say, the GST. No one is forcing us to use Medicare.

  8. AP

    This is yet another example of the backward thinking of the left, where tax increases are budget “savings”.

  9. Snoopy

    It’s a tax. Period.

    Who gives a shit? I’m with Hockey. Call it whatever you want.

  10. hammy

    Who gives a shit? I’m with Hockey. Call it whatever you want.

    Except that the Libs promised “no new taxes”. This is a broken promise. One of many. What hypocrites they are! They who vilified Julia Gillard over the carbon tax.

  11. Tas

    Hammy … pay attention.
    If I don’t go to the doctor I don’t pay anything.
    If I don’t turn on a light I fall over the furniture.
    See the difference.

  12. whyisitso

    Hammy of course will reply that if you don’t use carbon, you don’t pay the carbon tax!

  13. Zaphod

    “No. It is a tax on the transaction. There is no relationship at all between the value of the transaction or the spending that underpins the transaction. If either of these conditions were met it would be a co-payment. Playing silly-buggers with the research fund turns a co-payment into a tax. ”

    -Sinclair Davidson

  14. A tax on transaction?
    I’ve been calling it “Seven bucks to visit the doctor”. Silly me.

  15. Ubique

    It’s a part fee for service; the effect of a reduction in the subsidy. I can’t see it as a tax, anymore than a bus or train ticket is somehow a tax, or my electricity bill is a tax, or that an exporter paying for stevedoring services at a government run port is somehow paying a tax, instead of a fee for services, for the loading of the vessel.

  16. Baldrick

    What I do like about the $7 charge is that all the moochers at the doctors surgery I attend, flash their taxpayer funded health card and get bulk-billed … but now will have to contribute something.
    Even if it’s only to a maximum of $70 a year, I’m still paying 25 times more for my yearly private health insurance.

  17. 3 x doctors visits = 1 x pack of fags. Some people would have us believe that it’s not good value for money. FMD.

  18. James

    It is really stupid of the whole nation, obsessing with the word “tax” or no tax in every policy debate.

    Other countries have been doing it for years for Chris sake.

    Hospital emergencies should have a co-payment too. Those drunken brawlers and druggies should pay for their own treatment. They have so much money in their hands to buy alcohol and drugs, there is no excuse.

  19. candy

    Who in their right mind would think half a packet of cigarettes, bottle of cheap wine, wastage of money at the pokies, a meal at Maccas, is more important than a visit to the doctor if needed.

  20. Boambee John

    “Those drunken brawlers and druggies should pay for their own treatment”

    A better version of the scheme would have been to impose a co-payment (including in emergency departments and hospital wards) for people presenting with ailments caused by poor lifestyle choices such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, use of dangerous (illegal) drugs, and injuries caused by dangerous activities such as driving at excessive speed, and double payment for speeding while drunk.

    Something like $20 per doctor visit (including specialists) and emergency department visits, and $40 per day in a hospital ward would be a useful start.

    The left are keen on “sin” taxes, this would be one aimed specifically at sinners, not the whole community, and hard for them to oppose.

  21. Viva

    It is really stupid of the whole nation, obsessing with the word “tax” or no tax in every policy debate.

    Agreed – but that’s been the level of debate so far – people have got into a mental groove on it and can’t or won’t dig themselves out.

    Meanwhile we’re back to the Greens and Labor running the show from the Senate. Our democracy will be dysfunctional while ever senate numbers from a previous time hang over and frustrate a new “government”.

  22. Infidel Tiger

    Who in their right mind would think half a packet of cigarettes, bottle of cheap wine, wastage of money at the pokies, a meal at Maccas, is more important than a visit to the doctor if needed.

    I’d do all those things before going to the doctor.

    The only reason to go to the doctor is that they are gatekeepers to the pharmacy cabinet.

  23. struth

    Think of the pensions and medical services we could and rightly should have, if this labor light gov had done what it should have. Again I state that while trying to argue about the semantics of this bullshit that gives the other side the fuel it needs is this,……….while there is still an ABC,…..we should not be talking about medical or pensions. With billions of dollors of government waste every year not being stopped first, this is all beyond stupid. Billions wasted on indigenous crap and bludgers. Billions of dollars of waste in just about everything government does and they start on this? Priorities all wrong…….
    Billions wasted in paying public servants to do worse to our industries than unions through red tape and O H&S…..killing off the real taxpayers in the first place.
    Are this lot socialists that have not just infiltrated our institutions but taken over the liberals as well?
    This country is too full of the weak and the dumbed down to hold out much hope.

  24. Grigory M

    A better version of the scheme would have been to impose a co-payment (including in emergency departments and hospital wards) for people presenting with ailments caused by poor lifestyle choices such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, use of dangerous (illegal) drugs, and injuries caused by dangerous activities such as driving at excessive speed, and double payment for speeding while drunk.

    … and especially the very dangerous activity of sitting in front of a keyboard (or iPad or mobile phone) for long hours commenting on a blog while ingesting coffee, wine and snack foods, and allowing arteries to clog, blood pressure to rise and weight to increase at the same time as exercise decreases. NB. Includes instances where such sedentary and stressful activity results in the “patient” being delivered to the Emergency Department only for certification of death.

  25. struth

    Dollars………..hardly see enough of them to know how to spell it, it seems.

  26. .

    I tend to agree.

    With a cheap disposable testing kit, we could do our own blood, saliva and sputum tests and get tailored anti virals, anti fungals or anti biotics [or anti protozoans or anti prions etc]). We could then get a pharmacy cashier to match that to a suitable drug say, little Jimmy coughs up some green crap and the kit says microbes x and y which happens to be a kind of gram negative baccie and less of a positive one, and the best choice and cheapest is a mix of generic Cefaclor and Vancomycin.

    Quick, simple, effective, cheap etc.

    Ideally all docs would run a HMO with integrated healthcare, pathology and even a cell culturing lab, where they could cook up the best possible antibodies, dendritic tech etc and inject you with the anti-pathogenic, antidote or vaccine or immune booster before giving you slow release and quick release capsules or emulsions.

  27. .

    In short, I agree with IT because I think the consumer is getting ripped off in terms of value. Yes I’m willing to pay a fair bit for my health but you know a repeat prescription for epinephrine for a kid with anaphylaxis to bee stings is an obvious rip off.

    The GP won’t even have a testing kit for allergies, in most instances.

  28. Rob MW

    “And the proposed GP co-payment isn’t even mandatory: whether doctors impose it is up to them.”

    Henry poses a mind-bender. Breaking this supposed ‘Charge’ down, as I understand it, $2.00 of the 7.00 bucks is to go to the Doctor and $5.00 of the 7 bucks is to go to Treasury for the proposed new medical research fund.

    In order for the Doctor to get his/her $2.00 he/she must mandatorily ‘Charge’ the full $7.00 and them mandatorily send the balance (tax) to Treasury.

    Here’s the thing that Henry misses; the Government is simply using the Doctor as an ‘Intermediary’ tax-collector where the Doctor can ‘Opt-out’ if he/she chooses ‘BUT’ if they choose to ‘Opt-in’ and for their time, (the Doctors time that is) in doing the ATO’s job for the Government, the Government is authorising the Doctors to deduct $2.00 per visit as payment for services rendered.

    The mind bending part is in the vast change that the Government proposes to collect the $5.00 mandatory Tax paid to Treasury.

    It’s a real pity that employers do not get this same consideration when collecting and paying PAYG taxes on behalf of Government and superannuation on behalf of their employees.

    Having said all that, I am hugely in favour of the Medicare co-payment proposal and think that it should be even higher than the proposed $7.00 per visit.

  29. Biota

    I was in India for a while recently- there you just go to the pharmacy and get what you ask for. Good system!

  30. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1319813, posted on May 26, 2014 at 12:19 pm
    “And the proposed GP co-payment isn’t even mandatory: whether doctors impose it is up to them.”

    Henry poses a mind-bender. Breaking this supposed ‘Charge’ down, as I understand it, $2.00 of the 7.00 bucks is to go to the Doctor and $5.00 of the 7 bucks is to go to Treasury for the proposed new medical research fund.

    No no no no! Jesus I’m getting sick of this.

    1) The Government drops the Medicare benefit by $5. The Medicare benefit is what the bulk-billing doctor receives, and is also what the non-bulk-billed patient can claim from DHS.

    2) Now, the doctor can charge up to $7 directly to the patient; they were previously prohibited from charging *ANYTHING*.

    3) In certain circumstances, if the doctor does not charge, they lose an additional payment from the Government (the incentive fee).

    NO MONEY GOES TO TREASURY.

    THE FUND IS AN ADDITIONAL LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET, NOTHING MORE. The Government expect to pay less in the Medicare benefit, as it has gone down by $5.

  31. Aristogeiton

    Points 2) and 3) only relate to bulk-billing transactions. That’s why this is wrong:

    And there are complexities too in calculating the extent of the price increase for those who will be charged the co-payment. Even with bulk billing, going to a GP involves a cost in terms of time and hassle; the greater those costs are, the less is an additional $7 as a proportion of a visit’s real cost, and so the smaller the demand effects will be. And then there are the 19 per cent of instances of care that are not bulk billed: their initial price is higher but may not rise by the full $7.

    1) the relevant amount for the bulk-billed customer is $5, not $7; that is the difference in the Medicare benefit now and in 2015 in unadjusted dollar terms;

    2) I am not an economist, but the increase in the levy raises the effective cost of the transaction for the consumer only – thus it could only really decrease the billed price. Think about it: is the doctor going to charge you $7 more and you get $5 less in the Medicare benefit? The patient is now $12 worse off.

  32. Aristogeiton

    * the relevant amount for the non bulk-billed customer

  33. Aristogeiton

    “the increase in the levy” should be “the decrease in the Medicare benefit”

  34. notafan

    Does being able to get antibiotics over the counter in some countries have anything to do with say a number of STDs becoming antibiotice resistant?

  35. Docket62

    Infidel “The only reason to go to the doctor is that they are gatekeepers to the pharmacy cabinet”

    That is pure gold!

  36. Rob MW

    @ Aristogeiton
    Perhaps you need glasses or something ? I repeat my contention and add just a little bit of history that you may, or may not also be sick of.

    My contention: – “The mind bending part is in the vast change that the Government proposes to collect the $5.00 mandatory Tax paid to Treasury.” – (i.e – the intermediary)

    A little bit of history (i.e – Treasury): -

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 81

    Consolidated Revenue Fund

    “All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.”

    Now shout and get sick all you like amigo but at the end of the day there is only one Consolidated Revenue Fund. Do you like thems apples mate, or are you too sick from eating the green bastards ?

  37. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1320362, posted on May 26, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    @ Aristogeiton
    Perhaps you need glasses or something ? I repeat my contention and add just a little bit of history that you may, or may not also be sick of.

    My contention: – “The mind bending part is in the vast change that the Government proposes to collect the $5.00 mandatory Tax paid to Treasury.” – (i.e – the intermediary)

    A little bit of history (i.e – Treasury): -

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 81

    Consolidated Revenue Fund

    “All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.”

    Now shout and get sick all you like amigo but at the end of the day there is only one Consolidated Revenue Fund. Do you like thems apples mate, or are you too sick from eating the green bastards ?

    As I said above, no monies are collected by the Government into the CRF. What about this do you find hard to understand? All monies are collected by the GP to his or her own use. NO MONEY IS RETURNED TO THE GOVERNMENT.

  38. Aristogeiton

    Already covered here:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/05/24/when-is-a-co-payment-a-tax/

    Aristogeiton
    #1318350, posted on May 24, 2014 at 10:11 pm
    Sinclair Davidson
    #1318223, posted on May 24, 2014 at 6:54 pm
    lem – yes, I understand the whats and whys and even the history. Zero-price at point of sale government services create all sorts of perverse incentives. It does not change the fact that this co-payment is a tax.

    With the greatest respect, Sinc, I don’t see how this could be a tax.

    None of the money collected goes to consolidated revenue. It is kept by the treating physician because they are charging it.

    Read my comments there and rebut after consulting the sources, but I am *well aware* that all money collected by the Government goes to the CRF. THIS IS MY ENTIRE POINT. THERE IS NO MONEY COLLECTED. THE FUND IS NEW EXPENDITURE.

  39. Aristogeiton

    Put it another way. Let’s say I am a smoker and switched brands to one that tastes like crap and saves me $5 a packet. I also undertake to spend $5 a pack on charity. Is this a cigarette tax? No, I just haven’t made any saving on cigarettes at all in net terms.

  40. Rob MW

    Aristogeiton – “Put it another way.”

    I see them glasses are still not working.

    There will be no “Money Collected” eh ? So the co-payment is actually a fairy-tale, a figment of any good private bank account withdrawal. No need for cash or a credit card to make the co-payment just talk it into being payed. What a good idea now what are your thoughts on paying all accounts this way ?

    Oh….. I can see the huge benefits in this system of payments in the bankruptcy system; just talk all the creditors into thinking they have been paid/sarc

    The help that you obviously need is here

  41. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1320570, posted on May 26, 2014 at 9:12 pm
    Aristogeiton – “Put it another way.”

    I see them glasses are still not working.

    There will be no “Money Collected” eh ? So the co-payment is actually a fairy-tale, a figment of any good private bank account withdrawal. No need for cash or a credit card to make the co-payment just talk it into being payed. What a good idea now what are your thoughts on paying all accounts this way ?

    Oh….. I can see the huge benefits in this system of payments in the bankruptcy system; just talk all the creditors into thinking they have been paid/sarc

    The help that you obviously need is here

    You have a comprehension problem. Is the money paid to the Government, even ultimately? NO! So it doesn’t ever hit the CRF.

  42. mundi

    Who in their right mind would think half a packet of cigarettes, bottle of cheap wine, wastage of money at the pokies, a meal at Maccas, is more important than a visit to the doctor if needed.

    Candy, don’t you know? All those poor people never drink, never visit pokies and never buy junk food or smoke cigs.

    Except for some very large families, there is no way at all this will impact anything. Most people will blow more than that in fuel money just driving like idiots.

  43. Rob MW

    “Is the money paid to the Government, even ultimately? NO! So it doesn’t ever hit the CRF.”

    There you go again, telling more fairy-tales. I particularly like how your fairy-tale fund’s a $20,000,000,000.00 medical research fund without collecting any money contrary to the fact that the budget papers reflect, and the Treasurer’s speech suggested, that the intention of the co-payment is to fund exactly that; a medical research fund. What’s even more intriguing about your fair-tale is that you think that the Government can produce an ‘Appropriation Bill’ that somehow could/should bypass the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the disguise that the ‘Appropriation Bill’ will not be collecting any money for the Government to fund the new medical research fund.

    Mate………your logic has left me speechless.

    Are you related to Ronnie Biggs, or is creative accountancy your game ?

  44. .

    Aristo

    Correct as you may be, this is “birthday cake” territory.

    Fucking Mike Willesee

  45. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1320747, posted on May 26, 2014 at 10:03 pm
    “Is the money paid to the Government, even ultimately? NO! So it doesn’t ever hit the CRF.”

    There you go again, telling more fairy-tales. I particularly like how your fairy-tale fund’s a $20,000,000,000.00 medical research fund without collecting any money contrary to the fact that the budget papers reflect, and the Treasurer’s speech suggested, that the intention of the co-payment is to fund exactly that; a medical research fund. What’s even more intriguing about your fair-tale is that you think that the Government can produce an ‘Appropriation Bill’ that somehow could/should bypass the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the disguise that the ‘Appropriation Bill’ will not be collecting any money for the Government to fund the new medical research fund.

    Mate………your logic has left me speechless.

    Are you related to Ronnie Biggs, or is creative accountancy your game ?

    You stupid shit. You don’t even understand what an appropriation Bill is. Read my links on the other thread or shut up. You just don’t understand the policy and refuse to purge your ignorance.

  46. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1320829, posted on May 26, 2014 at 10:26 pm
    Aristo

    Correct as you may be, this is “birthday cake” territory.

    Fucking Mike Willesee

    God give me strength, Dot. I am willing to countenance I am wrong on this, but I would need to be presented with compelling evidence that rebuts the sources I have provided.

    And at least, in Willisee’s example, somebody needed to pay for the cake in the first place. We’re talking about free cake here; god forbid that the baker may be able to charge the gluttonous customer.

  47. Rob MW

    “I am willing to countenance I am wrong on this, but I would need to be presented with compelling evidence that rebuts the sources I have provided.”

    No you are not you fucking moron. Follow the constitutional process in the powers of taxation, excise and customs and not what the policy says you fucking idiot. Any arsehole can write a policy but only an appropriation bill can fund it in real or administrative terms.

    The money must be collect *first* before it can be coerced, rebated, massaged or in any other way utilised. Fucking dickhead.

  48. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1320971, posted on May 26, 2014 at 11:55 pm
    [...]
    The money must be collect *first* before it can be coerced, rebated, massaged or in any other way utilised. Fucking dickhead.

    Tell that to Wayne Swan.

  49. Aristogeiton

    All figures over forward estimates are hypothetical. The Government adjusts policy and their “estimates” accordingly. Rob. Are you retarded? If this were not the case, then we would have achieved a surplus under Labor.

  50. Rob MW

    “Tell that to Wayne Swan.”

    No, I’m telling it to you fuckwit. What the fuck did you think I was talking about in the very first instance and throughout ? Get those fucking glasses mate before you shoot the mouth off with “…….No no no no! Jesus I’m getting sick of this.”

    Two different things cockhead.

  51. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1320996, posted on May 27, 2014 at 12:15 am
    “Tell that to Wayne Swan.”

    No, I’m telling it to you fuckwit. What the fuck did you think I was talking about in the very first instance and throughout ? Get those fucking glasses mate before you shoot the mouth off with “…….No no no no! Jesus I’m getting sick of this.”

    Two different things cockhead.

    Ok, dick-suck. Let me lay it out for you plain. The Government collects no money from the c0-payment. It is a fee which, for the first time, bulk-billing GPs can charge. At present bulk-billing GPs are prohibited from charging a fee. Do you understand you stupid shite?

  52. Rob MW

    “Let me lay it out for you plain.”

    Gawd you’re a dumb cockhead.

    Given that you originally choose to comment on my comment without reading it first and stupidly chose to remark on what I had not commented on, so let me lay it out for you instead.

    You are talking (arguing) one thing which is how the ‘Policy’ (scheme) will function as written by a bunch of bureaucrats off their fucking websites. You are probably right but I don’t give a shit about that because my comment was not about how the scheme is to function.

    On the other hand, my comment was about the ‘Device’ mechanism (taxation – head of power) that will give legislative power and funding to the scheme and specifically the ‘Method’ in which they intend to ‘Collect’ the co-payment to give the scheme its financial backing which requires two sets of legislative instruments – (1) – the scheme itself and (2) – the device to power the scheme.

    Let me make this simple for you cockhead. For example, take the Primary Industries Levies (Excise) Act – the device – which financially powers the Australian Meat & Livestock Industries Act – the scheme.

    In this example, and specifically the Livestock Transaction Levy (sheep & cattle) of the Schedules, they (the Government) collect the “Levy” (tax) through a system of “Intermediaries” (private tax collectors) whom are most usually selling agents and the like and who are authorised to automatically “Deduct” the transaction levy from “Vendors” (producers) account sales.

    Because the Government has authorised these private tax collectors (intermediaries) to do a Government sponsored job on their behalf, the Government “Compensates” the intermediaries by allowing them (the intermediaries) to use the short term money market (thru their trust accounts) and keep the “Levy” for a period of one month (1) and 28 days and at the end of that period they must remit the collected levy (minus the accrued interest which they keep) to the “Levies Collection Unit” located inside DAFF.

    Now here’s the kicker, just for you cockhead, it appears that for the first time in mainstream taxation law that the Government intends to use a system a private taxation collectors (intermediaries – the Doctors) as the “Device” to power the co-payment scheme which will, in part, fund the medical research fund (scheme) with the exception of a different compensation mechanism for the intermediaries.

    This is/was the only point that I am making and in which I did not deviate from and has absolutely nothing to do with the how or why the co-payment is, or is intended to function. You assumed that I was talking about the functionality of the co-payment and jumped right in just like all good cockheads usually do. Read my original comment cockhead and this time put your fucking glasses on.

  53. Aristogeiton

    Here’s what you actually said you blovating twat:

    Rob MW
    #1319813, posted on May 26, 2014 at 12:19 pm
    “And the proposed GP co-payment isn’t even mandatory: whether doctors impose it is up to them.”

    Henry poses a mind-bender. Breaking this supposed ‘Charge’ down, as I understand it, $2.00 of the 7.00 bucks is to go to the Doctor and $5.00 of the 7 bucks is to go to Treasury for the proposed new medical research fund.

    In order for the Doctor to get his/her $2.00 he/she must mandatorily ‘Charge’ the full $7.00 and them mandatorily send the balance (tax) to Treasury.

    Here’s the thing that Henry misses; the Government is simply using the Doctor as an ‘Intermediary’ tax-collector where the Doctor can ‘Opt-out’ if he/she chooses ‘BUT’ if they choose to ‘Opt-in’ and for their time, (the Doctors time that is) in doing the ATO’s job for the Government, the Government is authorising the Doctors to deduct $2.00 per visit as payment for services rendered.
    [...]
    The mind bending part is in the vast change that the Government proposes to collect the $5.00 mandatory Tax paid to Treasury.

    All wrong.

  54. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321290, posted on May 27, 2014 at 10:06 am
    [...]
    On the other hand, my comment was about the ‘Device’ mechanism (taxation – head of power) that will give legislative power and funding to the scheme and specifically the ‘Method’ in which they intend to ‘Collect’ the co-payment to give the scheme its financial backing which requires two sets of legislative instruments – (1) – the scheme itself and (2) – the device to power the scheme.

    The change will be made to s. 20A(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973:

    “Where a medicare benefit is payable to an eligible person in respect of a professional service rendered to the eligible person or to another eligible person, the first-mentioned eligible person and the person by whom, or on whose behalf, the professional service is rendered (in this subsection referred to as the practitioner ) may enter into an agreement, in accordance with the approved form, under which:

    (a) the first-mentioned eligible person assigns his or her right to the payment of the medicare benefit to the practitioner; and

    (b) the practitioner accepts the assignment in full payment of the medical expenses incurred in respect of the professional service by the first-mentioned eligible person.”

  55. Rob MW

    You need a straitjacket for a new and improved vocational experience you fucking moron.

  56. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321308, posted on May 27, 2014 at 10:28 am
    You need a straitjacket for a new and improved vocational experience you fucking moron.

    Hey, nice rejoinder dimwit.

    By the way, so far as the relevant head of power goes, it’s not taxation, but s.51(xxiiiA):

    the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances

  57. Rob MW

    “The change will be made to s. 20A(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973:”

    Given that they intend to power a new and as yet unlegislated medical scheme – the ‘Amendment’ will read what ??????

    Gawd, finding your rationale is like looking for rocking horse shit.

  58. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321321, posted on May 27, 2014 at 10:42 am
    “The change will be made to s. 20A(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973:”

    Given that they intend to power a new and as yet unlegislated medical scheme – the ‘Amendment’ will read what ??????

    Gawd, finding your rationale is like looking for rocking horse shit.

    To outline the amount that may be charged (up to $7) and the circumstances in which it may be charged. Read the portion I posted above; the doctor cannot charge for the service at present where he or she bulk-bills. How is this so difficult for you?

    I’m not writing the amendment and the bill hasn’t been presented yet; remember it was you that wanted to go on an unlettered rant about Constitutional law.

  59. Rob MW

    “To outline the amount that may be charged (up to $7) and the circumstances in which it may be charged. Read the portion I posted above; the doctor cannot charge for the service at present where he or she bulk-bills. How is this so difficult for you?”

    That’s exactly what Hockey has been saying. Specifically you say “…….and the circumstances in which it may be charged.” – It is this method (or contract) between the doctor and the Government with respect to this ‘Circumstance’ that will in part fund the new medical scheme that I am talking about and nothing else. Whatever other agreements that the doctors and the Government have entered into with respect to the existing Medicare arrangements I don’t give a flying fuck about and in which I have not made any comment about.

  60. Rob MW

    “By the way, so far as the relevant head of power goes, it’s not taxation, but s.51(xxiiiA):
    the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances”

    That’s an incidental power you stupid fuck wit, it/they still need funding.

  61. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321344, posted on May 27, 2014 at 11:02 am
    “To outline the amount that may be charged (up to $7) and the circumstances in which it may be charged. Read the portion I posted above; the doctor cannot charge for the service at present where he or she bulk-bills. How is this so difficult for you?”

    That’s exactly what Hockey has been saying. Specifically you say “…….and the circumstances in which it may be charged.” – It is this method (or contract) between the doctor and the Government with respect to this ‘Circumstance’ that will in part fund the new medical scheme that I am talking about and nothing else. Whatever other agreements that the doctors and the Government have entered into with respect to the existing Medicare arrangements I don’t give a flying fuck about and in which I have not made any comment about.

    Well we’ve come a long way, haven’t we dumbass? First it was a “$5.00 mandatory Tax paid to Treasury”, now it’s some kind of constructive taxation supported by a preposterous chain of reasoning. Since 19% of Medicare benefit claim visits are non-bulk-billed, and the hypothetical funding is also coming (19%) from this source, I suppose that the patient is also collecting tax for the government (since they receive $5 less in a Medicare benefit). Or something.

  62. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321353, posted on May 27, 2014 at 11:08 am
    “By the way, so far as the relevant head of power goes, it’s not taxation, but s.51(xxiiiA):
    the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances”

    That’s an incidental power you stupid fuck wit, it/they still need funding.

    You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? An incidental power? Are you talking about the incidental power (s. 51(xxxix)), the incidental area of the operation of s.51(xxiiiA), or just through your ass?

  63. Leo G

    “There you go again, telling more fairy-tales. I particularly like how your fairy-tale fund’s a $20,000,000,000.00 medical research fund without collecting any money contrary to the fact that the budget papers reflect, and the Treasurer’s speech suggested, that the intention of the co-payment is to fund exactly that; a medical research fund. ” – Rob MW

    The primary intent of the co-payment is not to fund a medical research fund, but to alter the pattern of demand for medical services, particularly those that involve bulk-billing.
    You appear to be arguing that the co-payment (or at least a component of the co-payment) is an indirect tax on the basis that it increases the price of a medical service such that users are paying the tax by paying more for the medical service.
    Surely though, the real price of the medical service is not directly changed by the proposed co-payment system.
    If the co-payment was such a tax, then we should expect the service provider to compensate themselves for price of the tax by increasing the overall price of the service. Where is that intended? You might argue that it is in the $2 component, but there is no indication that the proposed combined scheduled fee and co-payment are to be marginally increased above the present scheduled fee to accommodate it.

  64. Aristogeiton

    What he seems to be arguing is that if the government made changes to, for example, the Child Care Rebate such as to decrease the benefit paid, then this is a tax on the provision of child care.

  65. Leo G

    What he seems to be arguing is that if the government made changes to, for example, the Child Care Rebate such as to decrease the benefit paid, then this is a tax on the provision of child care.

    So you think he regards the rebate as a negative tax and any reduction in the rebate as a positive (in the cardinal sense) change in the tax?

  66. Aristogeiton

    Leo G
    #1321384, posted on May 27, 2014 at 11:40 am
    What he seems to be arguing is that if the government made changes to, for example, the Child Care Rebate such as to decrease the benefit paid, then this is a tax on the provision of child care.

    So you think he regards the rebate as a negative tax and any reduction in the rebate as a positive (in the cardinal sense) change in the tax?

    I don’t know what, or if , he thinks, but that seems to be the gist of it. For example, he says:

    It is this method (or contract) between the doctor and the Government with respect to this ‘Circumstance’ that will in part fund the new medical scheme that I am talking about and nothing else. Whatever other agreements that the doctors and the Government have entered into with respect to the existing Medicare arrangements I don’t give a flying fuck about [...]

  67. Notafan

    I read the co-payment primarily as an intended behaviour changer.
    The 20 billion would have to come from the savings created by reducing the rebate, which is the effect the co-payment has. Doctors can charge the same fee but less comes from the government. Though there is nothing other than the market stopping doctors charging whatever they like is there? Other than the restrictions around bulk billing itself, which is a choice to opt into, anyhow.
    Even though bulk billing is on the face a relationship between doctors and government, it’s really a administrative convenience as it saves the patient having to pay then go get their money back. It’s clear previous governments actively encouraged bulk billing by providing additional financial incentives to doctors to bulk bill.
    If Hockey had said by reducing the rebate we will save taxpayer funds that currently sit in consolidated revenue that will be directed into medical research?

  68. Aristogeiton

    Notafan
    #1321391, posted on May 27, 2014 at 11:47 am

    It’s a bit rich calling it a co-payment. Medicare is not an insurance scheme. What Hockey didn’t want to say is: “we’ve reduced the Medicare benefit by $5 to pay for some boondoggle, but as a sop to the struggling bulk-billing practice sector we’re going to allow the GP to charge you a nominal fee for the first time”.

  69. Rob MW

    “The primary intent of the co-payment is not to fund a medical research fund, but to alter the pattern of demand for medical services, particularly those that involve bulk-billing.”

    Fuck me. No I am not arguing any “Intent”. I’m arguing the “Method” for “Funding” the intent. The intent, whatever you say it is, I don’t give a shit about. It’s what appears, at face-value, to be a succinctly different method for funding the intent, that is, different from the usual mainstream funding method that is more usually found and paralled in the much hidden primary industries levies process.

    If you and fuckhead make a decission that you two find the proposed funding arrangements as stated by the Hockey not unusual and is in fact mainstream then simply say so because that’s all I’m argueing.

  70. Notafan

    Yes but merely reducing the rebate wouldn’t have the desired affect, would it?
    People place more value on what they pay for.
    I remember being send for a scan that I was out of pocket for $250. Absolutely useless and I vowed never again. Convince me I need to pay for x y or x.

  71. Notafan

    I’m not convinced, by the way, that the bulkbilling sector is struggling. One of the regulars here suggested that BB doctors make on a fulltime basis, I assume, $300,000 PA.

  72. Rob MW

    “You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? An incidental power? Are you talking about the incidental power (s. 51(xxxix)), the incidental area of the operation of s.51(xxiiiA), or just through your ass?”

    So you are saying that they don’t need the taxation power to fund laws in respect to the enumerated powers which the parliament has power to make laws over ? – Good luck with that one you stupid fuckwit.

  73. Leo G

    Just to put this in some perspective, one of my parents has suffered from wet macular degeneration affecting both eyes and has been receiving regular injections into the eyes to preserve central vision for the past 8 years.
    The Medicare rebate covers most of the specialist’s fees but in the early years did not cover the cost of the drug which has only recently been the subject of a TGA/PBS agreement.
    The out of pocket costs were approximately $18,000 pa for the first two years, and significantly diminished their retirement savings below income replacement levels up to the present.
    Despite the high cost, they are satisfied that the personal benefit outweighed the cost certainly have never regarded those costs as taxation.

  74. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321409, posted on May 27, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    “The primary intent of the co-payment is not to fund a medical research fund, but to alter the pattern of demand for medical services, particularly those that involve bulk-billing.”

    Fuck me. No I am not arguing any “Intent”. I’m arguing the “Method” for “Funding” the intent. The intent, whatever you say it is, I don’t give a shit about. It’s what appears, at face-value, to be a succinctly different method for funding the intent, that is, different from the usual mainstream funding method that is more usually found and paralled in the much hidden primary industries levies process.

    If you and fuckhead make a decission that you two find the proposed funding arrangements as stated by the Hockey not unusual and is in fact mainstream then simply say so because that’s all I’m argueing.

    The method for funding the Medical Research Fund is an Appropriations Bill. The power of appropriation is in s. 81 of the Constitution. You seem to be mixing up the two policies (changes to Medicare and the establishment of a Medical Research Fund) because they have been presented together.

    As you pointed out earlier, there is but one CRF. Funds are not ‘earmarked’ except as an act of political salesmanship. In any event, the money is budgeted because of a saving on Medicare expenditure, not because an additional tax is being levied.

    I suppose that you subscribe to the Wayne Swan school of economics? A “save” is both a tax and a decrease in expenditure?

    The appropriation of the Medical Research Fund is not different, “succinctly”, distinctly or otherwise, from any other government expenditure.

  75. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321427, posted on May 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm
    [...]
    So you are saying that they don’t need the taxation power to fund laws in respect to the enumerated powers which the parliament has power to make laws over ? – Good luck with that one you stupid fuckwit.

    No what I’m saying is that you are a bloviating ninny who throws around concepts such as consolidated revenue, appropriations, heads of power and such without any understanding of their meaning. You sound like a D student of a High School legal studies course, or an LLB undergraduate who slept through their constitutional law course. The Commonwealth Government have the power to levy taxation, but there is no tax being levied here.

  76. Aristogeiton

    Notafan
    #1321411, posted on May 27, 2014 at 12:02 pm
    Yes but merely reducing the rebate wouldn’t have the desired affect, would it?
    People place more value on what they pay for.
    I remember being send for a scan that I was out of pocket for $250. Absolutely useless and I vowed never again. Convince me I need to pay for x y or x.

    I think that is the intent of the policy as well. If only the Government had the guts to implement the policy without immediately blowing the saving on some stupid fund.

  77. Notafan

    Yes, the medical research fund is the most bewildering part of the budget of budget emergency.

  78. Rob MW

    “The method for funding the Medical Research Fund is an Appropriations Bill. The power of appropriation is in s. 81 of the Constitution. You seem to be mixing up the two policies (changes to Medicare and the establishment of a Medical Research Fund) because they have been presented together.”

    Now you taken up contradicting yourself, is the straight jacket too tight or what ?

    I’ve already put up (in full) s81 back at #1320362, posted on May 26, 2014 at 7:07 pm.

    Let’s go to this next bit of yours: – “You seem to be mixing up the two policies (changes to Medicare and the establishment of a Medical Research Fund) because they have been presented together.”

    Specifically: – “………because they have been presented together.” – well fuck me, now you have made my point for me, thank you, now go straight to s55 and maybe you will win a toffee-apple:

    COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55

    Tax Bill

    Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

    Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

    Now fuck off before you do yourself an injury.

  79. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321532, posted on May 27, 2014 at 1:52 pm
    [...]

    Listen fuckwit, you have argued variously that:

    1) the ability of a bulk-billing doctor was a“$5.00 mandatory Tax paid to Treasury”; then
    2) that it was a constructive tax; and now
    3) I’m not sure – perhaps that appropriations bills are an exercise of the taxation power?

    This latest diatribe of yours is frankly embarrassing. You really have no clue, and I’m not going to take lessons on the Constitution from somebody who argues that s.51(xxiiiA) is an “incidental power”, and makes banal observations like “[the Commonwealth needs] the taxation power to fund laws in respect to the enumerated powers which the parliament has power to make laws over”. So every law is a law with respect to taxation because tax revenue is raised for the purpose of funding government policy? And any decrease in Government expenditure is a tax? Got it. You’re a genius.

  80. Aristogeiton

    he ability of a bulk-billing doctor to levy a fee for service to their own benefit

  81. Aristogeiton

    By “presented together” I mean the Government is representing the policies as of a piece. You do realise that policies are often implemented by government using multiple legislative instruments right? There are more than 15 bills which give effect to the “Debt Levy”. There will almost certainly be multiple instruments which give effect to these two policies. What precisely is it you think s. 55 does? As I have noted earlier, there is no tax levied here.

  82. Notafan

    Interesting statistics from Hockey on Q&A as mentioned on Bolt. In 1991 on average Australians went to the doctor, on average, four times per year,
    Now the average is eleven times per year.
    1991 seems around the time bulk billing was coming into vogue.
    Is there any analysis of that increase, or is it just free stuff?

  83. Rob MW

    “This latest diatribe of yours is frankly embarrassing. You really have no clue, and I’m not going to take lessons on the Constitution from somebody who argues that s.51(xxiiiA) is an “incidental power”, and makes banal observations like “[the Commonwealth needs] the taxation power to fund laws in respect to the enumerated powers which the parliament has power to make laws over”. So every law is a law with respect to taxation because tax revenue is raised for the purpose of funding government policy? And any decrease in Government expenditure is a tax? Got it. You’re a genius.”

    Jesus mate you really are crazy. I was joking before about your sanity but you really are the real deal.

    Joe Hockey – (SMH 15 may 2014)

    “Five dollars from the additional fee will go towards a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund and $2 into the pockets of doctors.”

  84. Aristogeiton

    Notafan
    #1321861, posted on May 27, 2014 at 6:39 pm
    Interesting statistics from Hockey on Q&A as mentioned on Bolt. In 1991 on average Australians went to the doctor, on average, four times per year,
    Now the average is eleven times per year.
    1991 seems around the time bulk billing was coming into vogue.
    Is there any analysis of that increase, or is it just free stuff?

    What’s behind the rise in bulk-billing?

    A number of factors, both on the supply and demand side of GP services, might explain the trend in bulk-billing rates before 2003 and since then. In 2000, the Australian Medical Association claimed in a submission to a Senate inquiry that the rebate for general practice had not kept pace with the costs of providing the services, forcing more doctors to charge, and hence not to bulk-bill. This is a plausible explanation for at least some of the fall in bulk-billing before 2003.

    A range of government policy changes during the period from 2003-2007 contributed to higher bulk-billing rates for GPs (notably MedicarePlus and Strengthening Medicare). Two of these are likely to have contributed to higher bulk-billing rates. The first was the introduction of an incentive payment (starting at $5-$7.50, depending on location and patient, and now at $7.05-$10.65) for bulk-billed consultations.

    The second was the increase in the Medicare benefit to 100% of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) fee for GP services, as introduced in January 2005. The MBS fee reflects the cost of providing the service and, prior to this point, the government paid 85% of this fee for each GP service. This effectively increased the price per service that GPs could receive when they bulk-billed.

    Another important factor contributing to rising bulk-billing rates has been the increasing numbers of GPs. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimated that the number of primary care practitioners in 2009 was 25,707, a significant increase from 20,616 in 1999. Greater competition may mean that GPs need to compete on price to attract sufficient patients. We know this from the differences in bulk-billing rates by region, with areas with fewer GPs having much lower bulk-billing rates.”

    http://theconversation.com/factcheck-were-just-67-of-gp-visits-bulk-billed-when-tony-abbott-was-health-minister-17652

  85. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321873, posted on May 27, 2014 at 6:48 pm
    “This latest diatribe of yours is frankly embarrassing. You really have no clue, and I’m not going to take lessons on the Constitution from somebody who argues that s.51(xxiiiA) is an “incidental power”, and makes banal observations like “[the Commonwealth needs] the taxation power to fund laws in respect to the enumerated powers which the parliament has power to make laws over”. So every law is a law with respect to taxation because tax revenue is raised for the purpose of funding government policy? And any decrease in Government expenditure is a tax? Got it. You’re a genius.”

    Jesus mate you really are crazy. I was joking before about your sanity but you really are the real deal.

    Joe Hockey – (SMH 15 may 2014)

    “Five dollars from the additional fee will go towards a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund and $2 into the pockets of doctors.”

    Who cares what he says. That is not what is happening here dimwit. That this is the case is evidenced by the current structure of the Medicare regulation, and the statements from DHS and the AMA about how the policy will work. Everyone, not just bulk-billed customers, are having their Medicare benefit cut by $5. Bulk-billing GPs are now able to charge up to $7. The $5 is the hypothetical saving from the cut to the Medicare benefit. If you can’t follow along, then be buggered.

  86. Notafan

    Thankyoup Aristo that explains the rise in bulk billing but is the rise in doctor visits because it is free or are there other factors?
    Is the eleven per just GP visits or does it include other services?
    You don’t have to answer really when I have time I’ll do some googling.

  87. Rob MW

    “That is not what is happening here dimwit.”

    But that was what my original comment was about; you know the one where you unilaterally and fallaciously decided to comment back which started your one-flew-over-the-cuckoo’s nest witch-hunt. You know the one where you said: – “No no no no! Jesus I’m getting sick of this.”

    See here’s the thing, that is exactly ‘what is happening here’ you crazy fuckwit.

  88. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1321902, posted on May 27, 2014 at 7:09 pm
    “That is not what is happening here dimwit.”

    But that was what my original comment was about; you know the one where you unilaterally and fallaciously decided to comment back which started your one-flew-over-the-cuckoo’s nest witch-hunt. You know the one where you said: – “No no no no! Jesus I’m getting sick of this.”

    See here’s the thing, that is exactly ‘what is happening here’ you crazy fuckwit.

    Sure. DHS and the AMA are full of shit and you know best genius. Along the way I particularly enjoyed your insights into constitutional law. As an undergraduate I was taught the subject by Suri Ratnapala, but it seems the man didn’t know squat.

  89. Aristogeiton

    Notafan
    #1321896, posted on May 27, 2014 at 7:07 pm
    Thankyoup Aristo that explains the rise in bulk billing but is the rise in doctor visits because it is free or are there other factors?
    Is the eleven per just GP visits or does it include other services?
    You don’t have to answer really when I have time I’ll do some googling.

    Sorry mate, not sure.

  90. Notafan

    Okay can’t find much other than a discussion on AbC dated 22 May 2014. Claims the 11 visit is average in countries with modern health systems.
    Also John Deeble says at the time bulk billing was being encouraged as there was no way to encourage doctors to charge the scheduled fee.
    However the number of GPs have apparently increased 25% so that with an increase in supply other pressures will keep the price down.

  91. Rob MW

    “As an undergraduate I was taught the subject by Suri Ratnapala, but it seems the man didn’t know squat.”

    Then send this thread to Suri and ask him for an assessment. I have no problem at all, either now or in the past, with discussing these issues and importantly, clarifying my comments with Suri. I would very much look forward to a repeat or new discussion with Suri particularly around one of his favourite subjects – property law.

    In the meantime, take your misdirecting bullshit and fuck-off.

  92. Aristogeiton

    Educate yourself of fuck off dimwit.

  93. Rob MW

    Just as I thought, you’re a perfect example of how, when called upon to ante-up, you’re nothing but piss & wind. You can’t even manage lying straight in bed amigo, you really should give that up because you will get caught out every time.

  94. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1322133, posted on May 27, 2014 at 9:03 pm
    Just as I thought, you’re a perfect example of how, when called upon to ante-up, you’re nothing but piss & wind. You can’t even manage lying straight in bed amigo, you really should give that up because you will get caught out every time.

    Don’t let me stop you dumbfuck. I’m sure that Suri would be happy to receive unsolicited the inane ramblings of a blowhard know-nothing such as yourself. Your radical theories on constitutional law could change everything. Suri will finally realise he, and all other Australian constitutional law scholars, were wrong all their lives. Or not you stupid fuck.

    Now purge your ignorance or slink off to your hole you lying, misdirecting prick. You’ve been trying to give the impression that you have an intimate knowledge of constitutional law over this entire exchange, but with every assertion you just remove all doubt of your profound ignorance. How are we looking on s.51(xxiiiA) being an “incidental power”, or on the profound relevance of s. 55? Who do you think you’re fooling? It’s not me, dumbass.

    Look, read the above links on the policy or just fuck off. You’re embarrassing yourself.

  95. Rob MW

    Shit that’s original mate especially since you are the instigator of the exchange.

    An ‘Incidental Power’ when necessary, is a power related to more than one that is required to correctly fulfil the prescription of a law for the purposes of administration, expenditure and in compliance.

    Now shove it up your arse mate.

  96. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1322249, posted on May 27, 2014 at 10:04 pm
    Shit that’s original mate especially since you are the instigator of the exchange.

    Boo hoo. Did your feelings get hurt because you were, and continue to be, profoundly wrong, and someone had the temerity to point this out?

    An ‘Incidental Power’ when necessary, is a power related to more than one that is required to correctly fulfil the prescription of a law for the purposes of administration, expenditure and in compliance.

    It took you almost an hour to cobble that drivel together? What you initially said was that “[s.51(xxiiiA) is] an incidental power you stupid fuck wit”. Which it is not. It is a concurrent power. “[E]verything which is incidental to the main purpose of a power is contained within the power itself so that it extends to matters which are necessary for the reasonable fulfilment of the legislative power over the subject matter [... such that] the Parliament may in the exercise of any of the substantive powers given by s. 51 make all laws which are directed to the end of those powers and which are reasonably incidental to their complete fulfilment” (Burton v Honan (1952) 86 CLR 169 per Dixon CJ). Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere et illud videtur sine quo res ipsa valere non potest. This is both implied and expressly conferred by s. 51(xxxix). The measure must be reasonably proportionate or reasonably appropriate and adapted to the pursuit of a purpose or object within the enumerated power (Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 79). I don’t know where to start with the beggarly drivel you wrote, so I won’t bother.

    Now shove it up your arse mate.

    After you fuckstain.

  97. Rob MW

    Concurrent powers are powers shared by both the Commonwealth and the States however; if the Commonwealth makes a law for its own jurisdiction that is subject to the Exclusive Powers of Taxation, Excise or Customs then the concurrent power must be incidental (related) to the Exclusive Power of Taxation. This is to say that more than one power is required to give effect to the Commonwealth law.

    The States do not have the power of taxation so the States cannot use a concurrent power to raise money bills.

    I’m talking about a Commonwealth law, fuck only knows what your talking about. You are such a fucking idiot.

    Like I said shove it up your arse and do your fucking homework. Fucking moron.

    So I had fucking dinner and watched a little TV with my family for a couple of hours.

    Btw – good copy and paste particularly if you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about, just that it looks good and fits the bill eh ? Try Wikipedia next time you might have better luck.

  98. Leo G

    The States do not have the power of taxation so the States cannot use a concurrent power to raise money bills.

    Prior to 1942 the States at times collected their own income taxes. That situation didn’t change through any change to the Constitution. The States still have the Constitutional power to collect taxes.

  99. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1322381, posted on May 27, 2014 at 11:52 pm
    Concurrent powers are powers shared by both the Commonwealth and the States however; if the Commonwealth makes a law for its own jurisdiction that is subject to the Exclusive Powers of Taxation, Excise or Customs then the concurrent power must be incidental (related) to the Exclusive Power of Taxation. This is to say that more than one power is required to give effect to the Commonwealth law.

    The States do not have the power of taxation so the States cannot use a concurrent power to raise money bills.

    The first part is absolute nonsense, so I’m not going to bother. So far as the last sentence is concerned, “money bill” should not be used as it is ambiguous; it is not clear if you are using it in the sense of a bill imposing taxation or to refer to an appropriation bill. In the case of the former, as Leo points out, the taxation was continues to be a concurrent power. In the case of the latter, this depends on the consitutions of the various states (see, e.g. Constitution of Queensland 2001, Chapter 5; Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) s.2.

    This is all a glorious distraction. You have contended that the Government intends to impose a tax that GPs will collect. I have demonstrated why this is not the case. So, in a manner beloved of the desperate liar, you’ve deemed s.51(xxiiiA) an “incidental power” with some foul-mouthed aplomb, and seemingly argued that the “co-payment” must be a tax by operation of s.55. Both propositions are absolute nonsense. Along the way you’ve demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between appropriation bills and taxation bills, and between bills of the Federal Parliament and State Legislatures.

    I’m talking about a Commonwealth law, fuck only knows what your talking about. You are such a fucking idiot.

    I can see you are confused. The passage discusses the law related to the incidental area of enumerated powers of the Federal Parliament. All enumerated heads of power have an incidental area of operation. If you are capable of understanding this, you are capable of understanding why saying “[s.51(xxiiiA) is] an incidental power you stupid fuck wit” is nonsense.

    Like I said shove it up your arse and do your fucking homework. Fucking moron.

    I already did my homework. That’s how I got my LLB, my G. Dip, and admitted to practice.

    So I had fucking dinner and watched a little TV with my family for a couple of hours.

    They must be so proud.

    Btw – good copy and paste particularly if you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about, just that it looks good and fits the bill eh ? Try Wikipedia next time you might have better luck.

    The cases I mentioned contain the loci classici on the subject of the incidental area of the operation of the enumerated powers. Wikipedia is not a particularly accurate nor authoritative source of information on legal matters.

    What has happened here is that you’ve lied to the wrong person. Along the way you’ve shown yourself to be a mendacious, know-nothing gobshite. You don’t fool me. You will never prevail in an argument by lying if the other participant knows you are lying and can prove it. You desperately need some basic civics before you will be fit for any future adult discussion on politics or law; I would suggest some readings on Australian Federalism for starters. Perhaps something with colourful pictures would be your style? Or you could just watch some more television. I think “Yo Gabba Gabba!” is best suited to a man of your intellect.

  100. Rob MW

    Look you fucking moron, read it and weep.

    HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - (concurrent power of probably and including – s51 (xxxiiA) – S51(xiv) – administered by the Dept of Health

    The above Act is made to the concurrent power but is pretty fucking useless unless it is incidental (related) to an exclusive funding (taxation) power:

    MEDICARE LEVY ACT 1986 - (exclusive power – s51(ii) and s55 – Administered by Treasury – (the Australian Taxation Office)

    Now put your grubby little tail between your legs and hide. Talk about a first class idiot.

  101. Rob MW

    Look you fucking moron, read it and weep.

    HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - (concurrent power of probably and including – s51 (xxxiiA) – S51(xiv) – administered by the Dept of Health

    The above Act is made to the concurrent power(s) but is pretty fucking useless unless it is incidental (related) to a funding (taxation) Act:

    MEDICARE LEVY ACT 1986 - (exclusive power – s51(ii) and s55 – Administered by Treasury – (the Australian Taxation Office)

    Now put your grubby little tail between your grubby little legs and hide. Talk about a first class fool.

  102. Rob MW

    I have a comment stuck in moderation due to links and after that gets posted I answer this bit: – “In the case of the former, as Leo points out, the taxation was continues to be a concurrent power.”

    And this bit: – “…….and seemingly argued that the “co-payment” must be a tax by operation of s.55. Both propositions are absolute nonsense.”

  103. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1323012, posted on May 28, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    I have a comment stuck in moderation due to links and after that gets posted I answer this bit: – “In the case of the former, as Leo points out, the taxation was continues to be a concurrent power.”

    And this bit: – “…….and seemingly argued that the “co-payment” must be a tax by operation of s.55. Both propositions are absolute nonsense.”

    Piss off. I’ve read the Uniform Tax Cases; taxation is still a concurrent power. I’m not taking lessons on constitutional law from a bullshitter such as yourself, and frankly don’t care to hear you bloviate about s. 55, whatever point your feeble mind imagined you to be making. No toffee apple for you dipshit. Now crawl back down your hole.

  104. Rob MW

    First comment is still stuck in moderation nevertheless: -

    “Piss off. I’ve read the Uniform Tax Cases; taxation is still a concurrent power.”: - jesus mate so you are going to use this knowledge to get Queensland out of debt……….have you told Von Newman yet ? I’m with you…….fuck the High Court in the same manner you fucked off Hockey words/sarc

    And now this bit: – “…….and seemingly argued that the “co-payment” must be a tax by operation of s.55. Both propositions are absolute nonsense.”: - take the fucking caveat out mate then find any place where I have argued that it “…….must be a tax by operation……”. There is a big difference between resembles and contrast. If it walks like a duck then what is it ? I have argued that the co-payment is not mainstream via the $2.00 that falls voluntarily into the doctors pocket thus providing an incentive to create an ‘intermediary’ or in broad terms, a de-facto tax collector. Nothing more than that and nothing less.

    How about this, next time you feel the urge to comment on someone else’s comment you instead just mind your own fucking business from the outset, that way, like your screen name, you won’t look like a dickless pervert collecting bird shit.

  105. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1323138, posted on May 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm
    First comment is still stuck in moderation nevertheless: -

    “Piss off. I’ve read the Uniform Tax Cases; taxation is still a concurrent power.”: – jesus mate so you are going to use this knowledge to get Queensland out of debt……….have you told Von Newman yet ? I’m with you…….fuck the High Court in the same manner you fucked off Hockey words/sarc

    You’re the blowhard who wanted to show everyone how much you knew about constitutional law. How’d that work out for you smartass? It worked out with you being wrong and looking like an asshole as usual. Leo told you that you were wrong as well, but I suppose that he doesn’t possess your colossal intellect. You seem to be too stupid to understand the difference between the way a policy is sold and the manner in which it is implemented; Hockey, by the way, says it is not a tax – but I suppose you only take him literally when it suits you. Fuck the High Court? The Uniform Taxation Cases were High Court decisions. Was there a referendum held while I was away? No. Read the Constitution; it’s a concurrent power.

    And now this bit: – “…….and seemingly argued that the “co-payment” must be a tax by operation of s.55. Both propositions are absolute nonsense.”: – take the fucking caveat out mate then find any place where I have argued that it “…….must be a tax by operation……”. There is a big difference between resembles and contrast. If it walks like a duck then what is it ? I have argued that the co-payment is not mainstream via the $2.00 that falls voluntarily into the doctors pocket thus providing an incentive to create an ‘intermediary’ or in broad terms, a de-facto tax collector. Nothing more than that and nothing less.

    Great scholarship. The co-payment is not “mainstream via the $2.00 the $2.00 that falls voluntarily into the doctors pocket thus providing an incentive to create an ‘intermediary’ or in broad terms, a de-facto tax collector”, huh? What the fuck does that mean? I’m going to go with nothing. The entire $7 goes to the doctor. How is that a tax, being the compulsory exaction of money by a government for public purposes, being neither a pecuniary penalty nor a fee for services rendered (Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263)? The money is exacted by the GP, for private purposes and also constitutes a fee for services rendered. Wrong again dumbshit. Of course you still haven’t explained what the fuck s. 55 has to do with whatever nonsense you wrote; don’t bother – I don’t care for your answer because I already know: nothing. You could have saved yourself the heartache if you read and understand the above links, but that’s not your style is it? Just pile bloviation upon bloviation and obfuscation upon distraction and you’re sure to prevail?

    How about this, next time you feel the urge to comment on someone else’s comment you instead just mind your own fucking business from the outset, that way, like your screen name, you won’t look like a dickless pervert collecting bird shit.

    How about the next time you decide to show the whole world how much you know about the Constitution you pick a better mark, and generally refrain from embarrassing yourself by your staggering ignorance. So far as I know, no memorial exists to the orator Aristogeiton. Wrong for a final time, dumbass. You just don’t know when to quit.

  106. Sinclair Davidson

    Now guys – let’s all have a cuppa tea and a lie down. Passion is good, but this discussion is degenerating.

  107. Gab

    No, it’s a good old-fashioned thread of doom. We haven’t had one of these since the pc mob moved in here.

  108. .

    WHAT THE FUCK SINCLAIR? WHAT HAVE THE BULLY BOY PRIESTS AND BANKSTERS DONE WITH SOON AND REYNOLDS?

    FOR THE SAKE OF POSTERITY. THE THREAD MUST GO ON (APLOGIES TO THE GREAT LADY BETTE MIDDLER).

    A RIDDLE OF KING SOLOMON.

    LETS SAY YOU HAVE TWO TRIBES WITH A CONSUMPTION TAX AND A WELFARE STATE, AND ONE HAS HARD MONEY AND 100% RESERVE REQUIREMENTS AND USES PYRAMIDS IN AGRICULTURE. IT IS OBVIOUS (EXCEPT FOR THOSE WITH SLOW LEARNING CURVES) WHY THE ONE WITH FRAUDULENT MONEY WILL FAIL.

    ARISTOGEITEN MUST NEVER PRACTICE AS A BARRISTER OR SOLICITOR.

    ARISTO…YOU EEEEEDIOT!

  109. Gab

    You left out WHERE’S YOUR EVIDENCE, Dot.

  110. .

    WHAT HAS THIS GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

    WELL LET’S CONSIDER EINSTEIN’S BOGUS THEORY OF RELATIVITY. YOU GET THIS TROUT YOU SEE AND THE FAT CNUT EATS ALL THESE FROGS CONTAINING DDT AND IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE.

    ARISTO. EXPLAIN YOURSELF FELLA. CAN’T YOU SEE THE LOGIC HERE?

    YOU MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO WORK AS A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL.

  111. .

    WHERE’S THE FUCKING EVIDENCE???

    GO!!!

  112. Aristogeiton

    Rob MW
    #1322906, posted on May 28, 2014 at 11:42 am
    Look you fucking moron, read it and weep.

    HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 – (concurrent power of probably and including – s51 (xxxiiA) – S51(xiv) – administered by the Dept of Health

    Per Health Insurance Commission v Peverill (1994) 179 CLR 226 the head of power is, relevantly, s. 51(xxiiiA). Of course I already pointed that out above, but I am glad you finally joined the party.

    You still don’t really understand what a concurrent power means; it is irrelevant that the power is concurrent. You’ve become distracted by your own obfuscation here.

    The above Act is made to the concurrent power but is pretty fucking useless unless it is incidental (related) to an exclusive funding (taxation) power:

    MEDICARE LEVY ACT 1986 – (exclusive power – s51(ii) and s55 – Administered by Treasury – (the Australian Taxation Office)

    Now put your grubby little tail between your legs and hide. Talk about a first class idiot.

    Weren’t you the one bloviating about the Consolidated Revenue Fund? Money is not earmarked, it goes into one big pot to be spent on whatever the government likes. I’ll quote myself above:

    The change will be made to s. 20A(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973

    Where is the change to the Medicare Levy? There isn’t one. If there was one it would be a tax increase. But there isn’t. So irrelevant.

    Also, ‘incidental (related) to an exclusive funding (taxation) power’ is not what incidental power means. It’s not an exclusive power, it’s concurrent. Not that either point helps or harms your cause; it just further demonstrates your colossal ignorance.

    Here’s the kicker though; this Act is not enacted in exercise of the taxation power. The relevant provisions were enacted in Part VIIB of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth); an exercise of the taxation power. Of course if you understood the operation of s. 55 of the Constitution you would know this. But you don’t. Because you are a blowhard know-nothing.

    I can’t believe that you are too stupid to understand what an ass you’ve made of yourself. Scratch that; I can.

    Now fuck off.

  113. Aristogeiton

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1323231, posted on May 28, 2014 at 3:31 pm
    Now guys – let’s all have a cuppa tea and a lie down. Passion is good, but this discussion is degenerating.

    Ok. I’m done here anyway.

  114. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1323247, posted on May 28, 2014 at 3:38 pm
    [...]
    YOU MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO WORK AS A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL.

    Too late. Blame the Supreme Court and the expansive meaning given to ‘good fame and character’ and ‘fit and proper’.

  115. .

    My Graeme Bird schtick has really lost its shine. I’ve never really had to be corrected on it before.

  116. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1323288, posted on May 28, 2014 at 4:10 pm
    My Graeme Bird schtick has really lost its shine. I’ve never really had to be corrected on it before.

    I was not aware of the man’s existence before now. I am poorer for the experience.

    I remember a number of years ago there was some crazy-eyed vexatious litigant on campus handing out flyers in all caps complaining about the High Court and his ongoing legal battles over everything. It reminded me of that guy’s website. I wish I could find it.

  117. Sinclair Davidson

    . – losing your touch. It’s WHERE’S YOUR EVIDENCE FELLA. GO!.

  118. Sinclair Davidson

    Anyway – I’m sure we could all have a frank exchange of views without being told to “fuck off” or be called “fuckwits”. Not that I mind – but these sorts of thing do tend to cross-contaminate the threads and I’m trying to reduce that sort of thing.

  119. Aristogeiton

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1323313, posted on May 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm
    Anyway – I’m sure we could all have a frank exchange of views without being told to “fuck off” or be called “fuckwits”. Not that I mind – but these sorts of thing do tend to cross-contaminate the threads and I’m trying to reduce that sort of thing.

    No problem Sinc. I henceforth resolve to be more Philiapa Martyr than JC, and will try not to abuse your ‘everything but the big C’ policy.

  120. Gab

    I’m trying to reduce that sort of thing.

    Fascist. Enemy of free speech. Blah blah blah….

  121. Sinclair Davidson

    Yes, yes. All that and more.

    Even I am going to notice one of Henry’s threads turning into a thread of doom. Imagine my surprise when two normally quiet well-behaved types are going at each other hammer and tongs.

  122. Gab

    Imagine my surprise when two normally quiet well-behaved types are going at each other hammer and tongs.

    Yeah but they’re taking long breaths between each attack. So that’s something.

  123. Grigory M

    The discussion has been somewhat robust. Fun to watch. ;)

  124. Aristogeiton

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1323331, posted on May 28, 2014 at 4:38 pm
    Yes, yes. All that and more.

    Even I am going to notice one of Henry’s threads turning into a thread of doom. Imagine my surprise when two normally quiet well-behaved types are going at each other hammer and tongs.

    Sinc, I’ve never been quiet and well behaved.

    Also, what is it you hate about freedom?

  125. Sinclair Davidson

    Sinc, I’ve never been quiet and well behaved.

    It’s all relative – I have 4 children. :)

  126. Notafan

    So are we all agreed that the co-payment is not a tax?

  127. Leo G

    “The first comment is now up.
    Go back to here dipshit:” – Rob MW

    Shouldn’t that be: “Go back to here- nota bene dipshit”?
    NB Dot: Soon and Reynolds?

  128. Sinclair Davidson

    So are we all agreed that the co-payment is not a tax?

    No. I’m going to be tenderising the Libs on this point hopefully tomorrow or Friday.

  129. Grigory M

    So are we all agreed that the co-payment is not a tax?

    Heh – Notafan, you stirrer. ;)

  130. Gab

    Let us know where and what time, Sinclair and I’ll bring the popcorn.

  131. Aristogeiton

    Notafan
    #1323348, posted on May 28, 2014 at 4:52 pm
    So are we all agreed that the co-payment is not a tax?

    You are a bad person.

  132. Sinclair Davidson

    I’ll link it here and the IPA will have it up on their site.

  133. Aristogeiton

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1323351, posted on May 28, 2014 at 4:54 pm
    So are we all agreed that the co-payment is not a tax?

    No. I’m going to be tenderising the Libs on this point hopefully tomorrow or Friday.

    I would be interested to hear the result of this.

  134. Sinclair Davidson

    No doubt I’ll be annoying a whole bunch of people – saying the co-payment is a tax, and the $20 billion research fund is a complete waste of money. Oh yes – and that Abbott has broken a promise.

  135. Gab

    Yeah, I wouldn’t want me along either, Sinclair. I doubt I could control my anger.

  136. Aristogeiton

    Sinclair Davidson
    #1323375, posted on May 28, 2014 at 5:05 pm
    No doubt I’ll be annoying a whole bunch of people – saying the co-payment is a tax, and the $20 billion research fund is a complete waste of money. Oh yes – and that Abbott has broken a promise.

    It is a complete waste of money. Hockey’s explanation is a joke: ‘but we’ll save money when we cure cancer’. The Government have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to snatch deficit from the jaws of surplus.

  137. Really, the whole budget was pretty weak sauce. The pity is that they could have gone full tilt and not gotten any worse publicity from it, and galvanised rather than demoralised their base.

  138. Leo G

    I’m going to be tenderising the Libs on this point hopefully tomorrow or Friday.

    The Libs are tender in all the wrong places. Some sort of political gonad dysgenesis, I fear.

  139. Thing is there is a reasonable amount of medical research that won’t pay off in commercial terms but will in societal — largely to do with low cost known substances. But will there be a focus on that? Unlikely.

  140. Aristogeiton

    Driftforge
    #1323381, posted on May 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm
    Really, the whole budget was pretty weak sauce. The pity is that they could have gone full tilt and not gotten any worse publicity from it, and galvanised rather than demoralised their base.

    Weak sauce? Wrong! Have you read the Fairfax? It’s an heartless austerity budget of vicious cuts to the bone that will hit ordinary Australians the hardest.

  141. Aristogeiton

    Driftforge
    #1323386, posted on May 28, 2014 at 5:10 pm
    Thing is there is a reasonable amount of medical research that won’t pay off in commercial terms but will in societal — largely to do with low cost known substances. But will there be a focus on that? Unlikely.

    If I had any faith in the ability of government to distinguish between the two I might have a different view.

  142. Gab

    ‘but we’ll save money when we cure cancer’.

    How many trillions have been thrown at curing cancer over the years and still there is no cure. Not saying it shouldn’t continue but there are already global research conglomerates operating for just this very goal. So Hockey’s ridiculous and paltry $20 bil will do nothing in the scheme of things and his only justification is that perhaps an Australian will find a cure. Also, I do not recall Abbott declaring the medical research fund as a promise before the election, so really he has no mandate for it.

    Pay the $20 bil towards reducing the debt if the Libs insist on breaking a promise regards raising taxes. At least it would go some way to assuage the Libs voter base that it will achieve something tangible.

  143. Gab

    And which cancer will Hockey decide should be targeted? Not all cancers are the same.

  144. Aristogeiton

    Gab
    #1323398, posted on May 28, 2014 at 5:15 pm
    ‘but we’ll save money when we cure cancer’.

    How many trillions have been thrown at curing cancer over the years and still there is no cure. Not saying it shouldn’t continue but there are already global research conglomerates operating for just this very goal. So Hockey’s ridiculous and paltry $20 bil will do nothing in the scheme of things and his only justification is that perhaps an Australian will find a cure. Also, I do not recall Abbott declaring the medical research fund as a promise before the election, so really he has no mandate for it.

    Pay the $20 bil towards reducing the debt if the Libs insist on breaking a promise regards raising taxes. At least it would go some way to assuage the Libs voter base that it will achieve something tangible.

    Let’s assume that we do cure cancer (I think it is probably not possible, because of the nature of the disease and its infinite adaptability). Let’s also assume that curing cancer in our citizens leaves us better off in economic terms, and not with a bunch of decrepit, semi-vegetative state clients. What is our benefit? We patent the treatment and make some money? There’s no benefit in witholding it, leaving aside the ethical issues with doing so. Do we make more on the patent than we spent? India and other countries will just pirate the thing. It will come off patent eventually. The ‘benefits’ are diffused to everyone who can afford the treatment and the cost is all ours. I don’t see how this can be about ‘saving money’, even if you believe that the endeavour will be successful.

  145. Notafan

    What about if Hockey gets rid of his dumb medical research fund, can we agree then that it’s not a tax?
    :)

  146. Rob MW

    Sinclair Davidson
    “No doubt I’ll be annoying a whole bunch of people – saying the co-payment is a tax, and the $20 billion research fund is a complete waste of money. Oh yes – and that Abbott has broken a promise.”

    And you would probably be right on the tax Sinc, not sure about the waste of money however, although I’m probably putting hope over an impossibility (wife passed 1996 – melanoma). Someday maybe.

    Συγγνώμη για τη γλώσσα. Το μόνο που είχε να κάνει ήταν να μην κατάχρηση αρχικό σχόλιο μου όπως ήταν μόνο μια θεωρία.

  147. Leo G

    What is our benefit?

    You’ve missed the main benefit. The Australian annual age-standardised death rate (all causes) is about 0.65%. Cure cancer, all else being equal, and the rate drops to 0.47%. If the death rate were uniform by age, the median life expectancy could be increased by up to 40 years (assuming the cure doesn’t cause deaths).

  148. Aristogeiton

    Συγγνώμη για τη γλώσσα. Το μόνο που είχε να κάνει ήταν να μην κατάχρηση αρχικό σχόλιο μου όπως ήταν μόνο μια θεωρία.

    I am not sure if this is directed at me; my Demotic Greek is non-existent so I have to rely on Google Translate. In any event, I looked over the thread and I bear a lot of the responsibility for the degeneration of the discussion; one should not drink and post. Let’s just back away slowly.

  149. Rob MW

    I have little doubt that I should lose the passion I have for researching laws that fuck severely interfere with other people’s property, particularly real property, and or laws that draw on one’s bank account, particularly business accounts, where the liability is nothing more than a non-existent yet compelled benefit.

    Without reservation I to apologise to you for my behaviour………..although I did in fact like the bird-shit jibe. Stupid sense of humour I suppose, sorry. I’ll keep that one if you don’t mind.

    In any event the theory referred in (Greek) is this; I’ll use links to support:

    2 Intermediary

    “A reference in this Schedule to the intermediary is a reference to the person required, under the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 , to pay to the Commonwealth, on behalf of the producer, an amount equal to the amount of levy imposed by this Schedule.”

  150. Leo G

    Looks like our two noble friends had time to reflect on the three Delphian Maxims over a cup, or more, of cha. Reflecting on one’s own hubris is to look round and see, “boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away”.

Comments are closed.