Ford closure

Ian Franklin writes: Re. “Who’s afraid of Ford’s closure? It was logical and no bad thing” (Friday). The closure of Ford is simple economics for all the reasons noted in your article. My surprise however was the speed at which the $40 million-plus assistance package from the federal and state governments was announced (well I guess they did have since Sunday apparently to consider).

Unfortunately, these schemes just do not work. Remember the 800 workers retrenched from BlueScope Steel in Wollongong in 2011 where a similar amount of money was allocated there to help create jobs? How many of those workers have been re-employed? In a society where we need to remain in the workforce longer it is a sad situation where the government throws money at it, says we have done our bit and moves along with the next 24-hour news cycle.

Niall Clugston writes: It seems to me the discussion on Ford’s closure is confusing two separate issues. Firstly, should Australia have a manufacturing base? Answer: yes, as part of a diversified economy. Secondly, is the best way to achieve this government subsidies of motor multinationals? Answer: probably not. Sure you can knock industry policy, but putting all the economy’s eggs in the commodity basket seems the height of economic irrationalism.

Troubles at the Tax Office

Les Heimann writes: Re. “Memo to Hockey: what’s really wrong with the Tax Office” (Thursday). As one who was in charge of SME review and litigation throughout Victoria in the ATO during the 1990s I am most disappointed that the ATO is said to have degenerated to the extent suggested in Chris Segue’s article.

During my time ATO officers took great pride in their objectivity. My staff and I were never on anyone’s side — except that of the truth. We wouldn’t dream of muzzling taxpayers through confidential settlements. We always resolved disputes based on logic and evidence — regardless of whether that meant the ATO “lost” a dispute. We litigated if the case against a taxpayer was evidenced and clear and we settled if the case was a 50/50 proposition.

Importantly we settled, and even wholly conceded cases, where auditors had not brought the matter to a level where the ATO could prove in law; and often we conceded cases where it was clear that the taxpayer was in the wrong but the case could not be proven through the ATO’s inability to “prove” its position. The Review and Litigation function was distinct and separated from all other ATO functions and the work standard and ethic was very high.

Of course we knew we were independent given the dislike exhibited by other areas in the ATO toward us — some areas actually feared us. For the most part only the brightest got into this area and they had to have egos and thick skins. That was the ATO in my time — and I had 36 years in the place. If Chris is right about what he says the place has fallen light years. Taxpayers should expect the “Harry S Truman” section of the ATO to be absolutely of the highest technical standard, ethical, objective, fearless, dedicated and reliable. That’s what we were in my time.

Facts on private health insurance

Phillip Berner, chief operating officer of Westfund, writes: Re. “Get Fact: did half-a-million Aussies drop health insurance this year?” (Wednesday). Ben Westcott points out that the mooted mass departure from private health insurance resulting from the income testing of the government rebate on premiums  simply hasn’t happened, and in fact the latest PHIAC data shows participation has grown. Both these sources bely the real truth of the matter.

Since 2007 the number of people with comprehensive private hospital cover has actually reduced by about 36,000. The number of people with hospital cover that excludes treatment for procedures like cardiology, hip and knee replacements and cataracts has risen dramatically in that time. Why? Because the cost of private health insurance has become so high relative to other living costs that people are electing to pay lower premiums in exchange for reduced private cover on these and other events.

People will need these procedures at some point whether they are privately insured for them or not. So when the need (inevitably) arises, Medicare will bear the cost. That future cost is estimated at some $5 billion. The fact that the sky hasn’t suddenly fallen in following income testing of the private health insurance rebate is no cause for complacency, much less the further restrictions on consumers’ access to the rebate that are currently before Parliament. The government expects to save some $1 billion pa from income testing the rebate and these additional changes. Surely no government is naïve enough to think that withdrawing an investment in the health system of nearly $4.4 billion over four years is going to have no effect? What government takes away, the public has to pay.

Should cats be exterminated?

Professor Andrew Dempster writes: Re. “The trans-Tasman cat fight: why Fluffy has to go” (Friday). It doesn’t take much research — just go to Wikipedia and you’ll see that more New Zealand extinctions happened between when Maoris arrived and when Europeans (presumably with cats) arrived. Note, for instance, the 10 species of moa made extinct, hunted for human food. Yes cats are bad for the environment, but the number one killer is you and me, people.

Vodafone class action ad censored

Brian Mitchell writes: Re. “Vodafone hang-ups: radio stations pull ads on class action” (Friday). Surely News Limited — that fearless defender of free speech — didn’t censor an ad that went to print? Gadzooks!