We must all be made to suffer to make the lives of public servants easier

No.  This is not about taxes being increased to fund public servant salary increases or to pay for their special super – 15.4% (or 14% plus GST).

This is about yet another idiotic proposal from this “Liberal” government to criminalise the use of more than $10,000 in cash.  Another flaming turd left by that economic and political talent Kelly O’Dwyer.

TAFKAS has written about this disgraceful policy proposal before, but this nugget in the weekend media takes the cake.  In arguing for this legislative change:

Treasury official Patrick Boneham told the Senate hearing of cases including a bikie gang that used $1.5 million in cash to buy 10 luxury cars so they could be sold to launder the money.

So basically, everyone must suffer to make the lives of public servants easier.

Firstly, where is the evidence the $1.5 million in cash from the bikie gang was from criminal activity?  And are we talking about a motor bike gang or a bunch of wealthy lycra wearing cyclists on the $10,000 Italian bicycles?

Secondly, as APRA well demonstrated when they screwed CBA, cash transactions of more than $10,000 need to be reported to APRA.  Assuming $1.5 million on 10 cars translated into 10 x $150,000 cars, then someone, somewhere would have had to have reported the transactions.

You pack of lazy spoiled brats.  Get out of your ergonomic chairs in your climate controlled offices and do your jobs.  If you can’t do your jobs, consider alternative careers.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to We must all be made to suffer to make the lives of public servants easier

  1. duncanm

    .. cases including a bikie gang that used $1.5 million in cash to buy 10 luxury cars so they could be sold to launder the money

    The senate are dills. Did not one senator stand up and ask how they discovered this particular example without the new law they so desperately want?

    Its a bad example anyway, the tyransactions were an order of magnitude larger than the proposed limit of $10k.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Seconded.

    Thirded after this article just now.

    “The Flow Of Each Person Can Be Clearly Seen” – Virus Brings China’s Surveillance State Out Of The Shadows (11 Feb)

    “I was a bit shocked by the ability and efficiency of the mass surveillance network. They can basically trace our movements with AI technology and big data at any time and any place,” the man said.

    And that is the point. If Canberra forces people away from cash and into using electronic transactions those can be tracked very easily. Data on purchases, locations, habits – all feeds into the same style of surveillance the Chinese are now using on their own people.

    In other words this push to remove cash transactions is about control, just like all other lefty totalitarian regimes. The bureaucratic state is by nature totalitarian lefty unless it is pruned back from time to time, which in Australia it never is.

  3. duncanm

    BoN – when you say ‘pruning’, you mean ‘torn limb from limb, ripped from the ground, burnt to a pile of ashes and scattered to the winds’, no?

  4. Tim Neilson

    Take a look at the recent German film “Balloon”, about some people in the 1970’s trying to escape East Germany in a home made hot air balloon.

    Ask yourself whether they would have had a snowflake’s chance in hell of getting the materials for the balloon in a cash free society with the Stasi monitoring everything.

    Then consider the state of “law” enforcement in CFMEUistan, with the Hunchback of Spring Street as figurehead leader of the Setka government.

  5. No. This is not about taxes being increased to fund public servant salary increases or to pay for their special super – 15.4% (or 14% plus GST).

    Just think of how union super funds are going to boom under this proposal. Do you think the unions may have had an influencing effect of the Grand Leader of Victoristan?

  6. notafan

    Yes car dealers are already required to report cash transactions so bad example

  7. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    the uni party are true believers in the eye of sauron

  8. Rohan

    Kelly O’Dumbo has talent? Who knew?

  9. Fair shake of the sauce

    Why aren’t public servants allowed to gaze out of the office windows in the morning?

    Cos they will have not to do in the afternoon

  10. Fair shake of the sauce

    Nothing to …

  11. Rob

    Come on – who carts $1.5m in cash around?
    Who needs to cart around $1.5m in cash?
    Looks bad, smells bad, probably is bad.

  12. Squirrel

    “This is not about taxes being increased to fund public servant salary increases or to pay for their special super ”

    Maybe not, but it is almost certainly about making it easier to collect taxes (regardless of the rate or scope of those taxes), so that “we can pay for schools and hospitals…blah blah blah” and, of course, for public sector salaries, ergonomic chairs, climate-controlled offices, and all those nice leave etc. entitlements which are typically well in advance of what the private sector can afford – particularly small businesses which PS types tend to resent and mistrust because they suspect them of operating in the black economy – hence these proposed laws.

  13. Terry

    “Come on – who carts $1.5m in cash around?”
    Somebody with $1.5m in cash, I’d guess. Lucky them.

    “Who needs to cart around $1.5m in cash?”
    Somebody wishing to purchase something with their $1.5m in cash, I’d guess. Good luck to them.

    “Looks bad, smells bad, probably is bad.”
    So what? It’s their money. They can spend it as they wish. At least in a free society they can. Maybe not Australia.

  14. Roberto

    Secondly, as APRA well demonstrated when they screwed CBA, cash transactions of more than $10,000 need to be reported to APRA.

    Cash transactions over $10,000 have to be reported to AUSTRAC, not to APRA.

  15. Pyrmonter

    @ TAFKAS

    Cash transactions by a cash dealer > $10,000 have to be reported. Cash dealers include the banks and others, but not (I believe) everyone else.

  16. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    This cash ban bill is exactly the sort of heavy handed unnecessary illiberal idiocy I’d expect from labore and the greenfilth. BTW, don’t be surprised if labore and the greenfilth eventually wave the bill through the senate in order to ensure the stupid forking gliberals wear the odium for enacting the formers’ policies (again).

    I can accept the existence (through gritted teeth) of one extreme collectivist totalitarian political party that might gain representation in the legislatures of this stupid, stupid country, but do we really need three* of them, FFS?

    *Four, if you include the national agrarian socialists.

  17. Rob MW

    This is about yet another idiotic proposal from this “Liberal” government to criminalise the use of more than $10,000 in cash. Another flaming turd left by that economic and political talent Kelly O’Dwyer.

    Lol….. they’ve obviously never requested a quote for a new car, you know, the quote where absolutely everything is itemised and can be, if requested, applied to many different invoices (car parts) under $9,999.00. like all ‘flaming turd’ laws; there isn’t one that a semi-trailer can’t fit through.

  18. Clam Chowdah

    As a public servant let me say: haha suck it, bitches!

  19. Davey Boy

    The Senate hearing was also presented with the following, from John Adams:

    “There are 4 primary reasons why I oppose the government’s $10,000 cash payment limit.

    1. The proposed legislation strikes a fundamental blow to economic freedom in Australia
    2. The proposed legislation will not achieve the government’s stated public policy objectives
    3. The Black Economy Taskforce and the government have made a series of claims without supporting robust empirical evidence
    4. The proposed legislation is an attempt to entrap Australians into the banking system, which is both anti-competitive and unfair. This entrapment is concerning given the prospect of the Reserve Bank of Australia introducing unconventional monetary policy, in particular, negative nominal interest rates.

    Addressing each point in detail:

    1. Economic freedom
    The proposed legislation would place significant restrictions on Australians determining their economic affairs and will strike a fundamental blow to the freedom to conduct legal commercial transactions without being tracked by either the government or the banking system. It is for these reasons Germany rejected the introduction of a cash payment limit in 2016 when it was proposed by their government. Moreover, the phenomena of de-banking also means that the proposed law may result in the closure of legitimate legal businesses who are denied access to banking services. Also, the potential regulatory cost the proposal would impose on corporations and the economy would be significant. This would be inconsistent with the government’s deregulation agenda.

    2. Failure to achieve public policy objectives
    The bill seeks to achieve two broad objectives – reducing tax evasion as well as reducing other black economy activity including money laundering. On the tax evasion question, evidence provided by the Austrian National Bank, by a 2017 Eurpoean Policy Studies report, suggests that a cash payment limit did not assist in reducing tax evasion in Austria. Alternatively, evidence from other European countries suggests that the cash payment limit of $10,000 is too high to make a material impact on tax evasion facilitated by cash transactions. On the black economy and money laundering question, evidence from the leading European Black Economy researcher Professor Friedrich Schneider from the University of Linz, Austria, is that there is weak empirical evidence that the cash payment limit policies actually reduce the black economy. Moreover, evidence from AUSTRAC to the current Senate inquiry is that the proposed law may assist in addressing the money laundering risk involving high value dealers such as jewelers, and art / collectible dealers. However analysis by the OECD suggests that real estate transactions are the greatest risk of money laundering in Australia, especially funds coming from China. Yet Parliament has refused to act on recommendations from the OECD to address this risk. Therefore the proposed law will not address the most significant risk of money laundering in Australia

    3. Lack of empirical evidence
    The $10,000 threshold was artificially invented by the Black Economy Taskforce and was not based on any empirical or statistical analysis. The Government has no idea what impact the law will have on compliance with the tax system and has no idea how much revenue may be generated – this was the point that was made in the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum. If tax leakage is such a pressing problem for the government, data from the ATO suggest that the most obvious source of untapped tax revenue is the one-third of large corporations operating in Australia that pay no tax, including foreign multinationals. On the question of money laundering there is no robust evidence as to how much money laundering if any is conducted by so-called high-value dealers, and how the proposed law may reduce or address this risk. Rather, the evidence suggests that real estate transactions is the greatest source of money laundering risk in Australia.

    4. Unconventional monetary policy.
    There is an abundance of documentary evidence that the International Monetary Fund and other central bank forums such as the International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies have called for physical cash to be severely restricted or even eliminated in order to facilitate the effective implementation of negative nominal interest rates. These institutions constitute the core of global policy effort which some refer to as the “International War on Cash”. On page 48 of the Black Economy Taskforce final report there is a reference to the writings and commentary of the former IMF Chief Economist Ken Rogoff – that moving away from cash could enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy. Ken Rogoff is a leading global advocate of introducing negative nominal interest rates and has argued that reducing the availability of cash ahead of the next global recession can enhance negative rates in stimulating economic activity. Hence by virtue of the Black Economy Task Force final report and the technical papers of the IMF and other central bank forums, there is no doubt and it is not a conspiracy theory that the proposed law would push Australians into the banking system ahead of negative nominal interest rates becoming a reality in Australia.

    In conclusion the government should adopt the same standards adopted by former PM Kevin Rudd about the need for evidence-based policy. The burden that justifies the proposed legislation rests with the government and in the view of many the Government has failed this test.”

    That reference to Kevin Rudd was possibly made with tongue in cheek, towards the SFLs on the Senate Committee

  20. Davey Boy

    The Senate hearing was also presented with the following, from John Adams:

    “There are 4 primary reasons why I oppose the government’s $10,000 cash payment limit.

    1. The proposed legislation strikes a fundamental blow to economic freedom in Australia
    2. The proposed legislation will not achieve the government’s stated public policy objectives
    3. The Black Economy Taskforce and the government have made a series of claims without supporting robust empirical evidence
    4. The proposed legislation is an attempt to entrap Australians into the banking system, which is both anti-competitive and unfair. This entrapment is concerning given the prospect of the Reserve Bank of Australia introducing unconventional monetary policy, in particular, negative nominal interest rates.

    Addressing each point in detail:

    1. Economic freedom
    The proposed legislation would place significant restrictions on Australians determining their economic affairs and will strike a fundamental blow to the freedom to conduct legal commercial transactions without being tracked by either the government or the banking system. It is for these reasons Germany rejected the introduction of a cash payment limit in 2016 when it was proposed by their government. Moreover, the phenomena of de-banking also means that the proposed law may result in the closure of legitimate legal businesses who are denied access to banking services. Also, the potential regulatory cost the proposal would impose on corporations and the economy would be significant. This would be inconsistent with the government’s deregulation agenda.

    2. Failure to achieve public policy objectives
    The bill seeks to achieve two broad objectives – reducing tax evasion as well as reducing other black economy activity including money laundering. On the tax evasion question, evidence provided by the Austrian National Bank, by a 2017 Eurpoean Policy Studies report, suggests that a cash payment limit did not assist in reducing tax evasion in Austria. Alternatively, evidence from other European countries suggests that the cash payment limit of $10,000 is too high to make a material impact on tax evasion facilitated by cash transactions. On the black economy and money laundering question, evidence from the leading European Black Economy researcher Professor Friedrich Schneider from the University of Linz, Austria, is that there is weak empirical evidence that the cash payment limit policies actually reduce the black economy. Moreover, evidence from AUSTRAC to the current Senate inquiry is that the proposed law may assist in addressing the money laundering risk involving high value dealers such as joowelers, and art / collectible dealers. However analysis by the OECD suggests that real estate transactions are the greatest risk of money laundering in Australia, especially funds coming from China. Yet Parliament has refused to act on recommendations from the OECD to address this risk. Therefore the proposed law will not address the most significant risk of money laundering in Australia

    3. Lack of empirical evidence
    The $10,000 threshold was artificially invented by the Black Economy Taskforce and was not based on any empirical or statistical analysis. The Government has no idea what impact the law will have on compliance with the tax system and has no idea how much revenue may be generated – this was the point that was made in the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum. If tax leakage is such a pressing problem for the government, data from the ATO suggest that the most obvious source of untapped tax revenue is the one-third of large corporations operating in Australia that pay no tax, including foreign multinationals. On the question of money laundering there is no robust evidence as to how much money laundering if any is conducted by so-called high-value dealers, and how the proposed law may reduce or address this risk. Rather, the evidence suggests that real estate transactions is the greatest source of money laundering risk in Australia.

    4. Unconventional monetary policy.
    There is an abundance of documentary evidence that the International Monetary Fund and other central bank forums such as the International Centre for Monetary and Banking Studies have called for physical cash to be severely restricted or even eliminated in order to facilitate the effective implementation of negative nominal interest rates. These institutions constitute the core of global policy effort which some refer to as the “International War on Cash”. On page 48 of the Black Economy Taskforce final report there is a reference to the writings and commentary of the former IMF Chief Economist Ken Rogoff – that moving away from cash could enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy. Ken Rogoff is a leading global advocate of introducing negative nominal interest rates and has argued that reducing the availability of cash ahead of the next global recession can enhance negative rates in stimulating economic activity. Hence by virtue of the Black Economy Task Force final report and the technical papers of the IMF and other central bank forums, there is no doubt and it is not a conspiracy theory that the proposed law would push Australians into the banking system ahead of negative nominal interest rates becoming a reality in Australia.

    In conclusion the government should adopt the same standards adopted by former PM Kevin Rudd about the need for evidence-based policy. The burden that justifies the proposed legislation rests with the government and in the view of many the Government has failed this test.”

    (That reference to Kevin Rudd was possibly made with tongue in cheek, towards the SFLs on the Senate Committee)

  21. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    in particular, negative nominal interest rates

    I suspect Adams actually meant “negative real interest rates”. If we ever get into the ridiculous territory of negative nominal interest rates for “savers”, (especially if there’s no escape from holding your cash in the banking system) then this country truly will be rooted.

    Negative real interest rates will never exist for borrowers as it is a fundamentally absurd concept.

  22. Davey Boy

    MattyH – when using the word with its correct spelling, the blog spaminator automatically eats the entire post. Hence the need to modify the word to get the post published (there is apparently a list of banned words and letter combinations that others have worked out)
    I’m told it’s something to help stop Bird strikes (for example)

  23. Davey Boy

    SMIII – here is Adams take on cash ban and negative interest rates
    From what I can see, the IMF is suggesting central banks set up mechanisms to enable negative interest rates for use as a recession-fighting tactic

  24. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Davey – real and nominal rates are very distinct economic concepts.

    Let me put it this way – would you willingly deposit your savings into a bank account that was offering an interest rate of -2%? That is a nominal rate. If you place your savings in an account with a nominal rate of .5% and inflation is running at 1.5% over the course of 12 months you will have been subject to a real interest rate of -1%. This is already happening in this country, BTW.

    Real and nominal rates will be different for savers, investors and borrowers.

  25. James Hargrave

    No. We don’t want them to do their jobs. The options are
    1. New people who an do the jobs
    2. Abolishing the jobs as un-necessary
    3. Paying the existing people to ‘don’t do something just stand there’. Their not doing something will be less damaging than the current collection doing something (indeed, doing anything).

    Perhaps $50000 index linked would be a reasonable figure, but let us revert to the old idea that money has no smell. And imagine the number of prod-nosed incompetents being paid at present to oversee what may well be a simple transfer of funds to a country where cash remains the normal means of payment.

Comments are closed.