A “concerned Defence member” writes: Changes to tax interpretations have altered the conditions of service for deploying Department of Defence civilians. This means that those members of Australia’s premier intelligence agencies, including DSD, DIO and DIGO, have all had their pay cut in half. These members undertake their often-dangerous espionage activities in war zones such as Afghanistan, and are now being asked to pay up to $30,000 back to the government due to the ruling that they are not part of a “disciplined force”, despite their being subject to the Defence Force Disciplinary act while deployed. Their pay is now considerably lower, by at least half, than that of pay clerks and loggies over in Afghanistan, who work half of the hours that our intelligence agents do but who are exposed to the same or lower-risk profile.

This might be something worth raising with our elected representatives to see if they will commit to valuing the service of the men and women of our intelligence agencies who put themselves in harm’s way by deploying to Afghanistan in pursuit of our nation’s interests. Having them commit to covering current and future deployed staff to address this massive inequity and blatantly unfair alteration of their conditions of service (which has just stated to be enforced) is, quite simply, in our nation’s interest, not to mention the morally right thing to do.

From the HQ JOC website:

ATO Interprative Decision 2010/118 has identified that a Defence APS member does not qualify for taxation exemption under Section 23AD of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 by virtue of the interpretation that a ‘Defence Civilian’ is not a member of the ‘Defence Force’.

Historically, Section 23AG could previously be applied by any Australian citizen engaged on foreign service for a continuous period of 91 days or more, however, amendments made in Jul 2009 have significantly reduced the eligible categories, one of which specifies “deployment outside AS….as a member of a disciplined force”; ATO and Defence Conditions of Service have indicated that the new 23 AG provisions do not accommodate APS personnel; therefore, deploying individuals are encouraged to seek their own tax advice prior to deployment. Meanwhile, Defence is seeking amendment to Section 23AG to incorporate deployed APS within the eligible categories but cannot comment on the likelihood of a favourable outcome at this stage.

Gillard’s inaction costs Greening Australia? Seems that these days you don’t talk about the Gillard government’s green credentials in the corridors of Australia’s major non-political conservation group, Greening Australia. The backpedalling by the government on crucial environmental issues, particularly carbon, has cost GA dearly as evidenced by significant downsizing. Hardest hit have been the loss of senior scientific roles in GA’s Canberra HQ. Some of the state divisions are also cutting back.

Does Nicholas have the guts for leadership? In scenes eerily reminiscent of Barry O’Farrell’s infamous declaration that ‘when I lose weight and shave off the beard, then you’ll know I’m after the Liberal leadership’, heavyweight Queensland opposition MP Tim Nicholls has told Brisbane radio listeners he’s joined a gym and engaged the services of a personal trainer. Nicholls has long harboured state leadership aspirations, narrowly losing out to John-Paul Langbroek after Lawrence Springborg walked the plank following yet another LNP election loss in Queensland last year. Just before the April ’09 ballot Nicholls was asked what he had to offer that Langbroek did not. His reply: “Guts.” Something he’s now decided he clearly does not need.

The high cost of fighting classification. The Melbourne International Film Festival would probably love to appeal to the Film Classification Board about the “refused classification” rating for gay zombie p-rn flick L.A. Zombie. Except, appeals to the board cost $8000, which is why under-funded film festivals and struggling local filmmakers never appeal and the classification board just does what it pleases.