Medicare
surcharge tests patience
I
SEEK your assistance to provide advice on the Medicare Levy
Surcharge in relation to Defence personnel. While it is clear
that permanent service members are exempted persons from the
Medicare Levy because they receive medical coverage from the
ADF, their incomes that are exempted or half exempted from the
Medicare Levy are not exempted when considered for the Medicare
Levy Surcharge.
If the combined family income exceeds $100,000, the Defence
family has to pay 1 per cent of its total combined income as
a Medicare Levy Surcharge if it has no private health insurance
cover.
In some cases, if both members are serving members, the private
health insurance may only be needed for one child. If the combined
family income is less than $100,000, the family is exempted
from the surcharge.
Surely, if a Defence member’s income is exempted or half-exempted
from the Medicare levy, then this income amount should be deducted
from the total family income in relation to the Medicare Levy
Surcharge test.
Otherwise, no consideration is given to the fact that the Defence
member receives medical and dental cover as a condition of service
and does not require private health insurance.
When the Medicare Levy Surcharge was introduced, was Defence
consulted or did Defence put up a case for the exempted income
amounts of its members in relation to the Medicare Levy Surcharge
test?
WGCDR
Peter Davis
Director Personnel Reserves
- Air Force
THE
Government introduced the Medicare Levy Surcharge (MLS) as part
of a package of measures designed to encourage people to retain
or take up a private health insurance option. Individuals and
families on higher incomes, who do not have private patient
hospital cover for themselves and all of their dependants (including
their spouse or children), may be liable to pay MLS for any
period during the income year that they did not have this cover.
By removing the member’s income, as you have suggested, from
the family income test would undermine the integrity and equity
of the system.
THE
Government introduced the Medicare Levy Surcharge (MLS) as part
of a package of measures designed to encourage people to retain
or take up a private health insurance option.
Individuals and families on higher incomes, who do not have
private patient hospital cover for themselves and all of their
dependants
(including their spouse or children), may be liable to pay MLS
for any period during the income year that they did not have
this cover.
By removing the member’s income, as you have suggested, from
the family income test would undermine the integrity and equity
of the system. Members of the ADF will be exempt from MLS if
they were in an exemption category for the full income year
and:
Did
not have any dependants, or
If they had dependants, the
dependants were also in an exemption category for the full year,
or all had private patient hospital cover for the whole of the
income year.
However,
as an ADF member you will be liable for the MLS if:
You
have dependants who are not prescribed persons and do not have
private patient hospital cover, and
You have a taxable income
for Medicare Levy Surcharge purposes above the relevant threshold.
Accordingly, members who earn above the threshold amounts can
prevent the application of the surcharge by obtaining private
health insurance for any dependants who are not prescribed persons.
Although the Defence Taxation Management Office (DTMO) does
not provide personal tax advice, they can assist in helping
members locate the correct information on taxation matters.
Contact details for DTMO are:
E-mail:
taxation.management@defence.gov.au
Fax:
(02) 6265 2648 (+61 for overseas callers)
Phone: 1800 806 053 (in Australia)
Phone: +61 2 6265 7120 (overseas
callers) James Hogan Assistant Director DTMO
Opportunity
to join ATECH list
BACK
in 1994 I put together a list of all SNCOs in the new trade
of ATECH. This involved tracking down and documenting, all current
sergeants, flight sergeants and warrant officers.
In this list I tried to incorporate as much detail as possible.
I perceived the list would be used by ATECHs to track promotions
and postings of their mates. Nothing more, nothing less.
Over the years I have had corporals ask to be included in this
list. At the moment, there are just over 400 names on the list.
As I do the updating during my breaks, I could not manage inputting
another couple of hundred names.
As I get most information from telephone calls and Air Force
News, the list is bound to be tragically incorrect.
Through your paper, I would like to inform (new) ATECHs of the
list. I would appreciate the ATECH trade, especially newly promoted
SNCOs, check their details and inform me via email if they are
incorrect or lacking information.
If information is to be updated/changed on a name, could they
supply their service number, just in case there are more than
one person with the same surname.
Originally the list was paperbased. Since then, I have gained
permission to have it put on to the DRN. The list can be accessed
by going to
Public folders/All public folders/DRN Global/Personnel/ATECH.
Marty
O’Callaghan
RAAF
School of Technical Training
Expedition
planned for 7 years
SQUADRON
Leader Leonard’s letter on the “Importance of management” (Air
Force News, October 23) cites, without proper context, a few
findings of the Board of Inquiry into an avalanche on the Annapurna
Sanctuary trek.
In the main, the observations he mentioned arose from the hindsight
analysis of policy and were generally unassociated with the
planning and management of the Everest 2001 expedition itself.
They had no bearing on the successful completion of the expedition,
which placed Air Force Sergeant Brian Laursen on the summit
of Mount Everest on May 25, 2001.
They had no connection with the causes of the tragic avalanche
accident, which the Board recognised was a “one in 50-year”
event that could not have been predicted. SQNLDR Leonard suggested
that climbing Everest demands “... meticulous planning to include
finance, training, equipping and supporting the members of the
team, etc, in other words, many of the traditional ‘management’
activities”.
The Everest 2001 team, who spent more than seven years planning
the expedition, would strongly agree. The Army Alpine Association
(AAA), a voluntary after-hours association, has launched more
than 42 expeditions in the past 27 years.
They have been ultimately successful due to extensive planning
and management. It is inevitable that flaws in bureaucratic
processes will be discovered under the microscope of a Board
of Inquiry.
So the AAA also utilises another important element of management
technique, colloquially called “continuous improvement”. SQNLDR
Leonard is invited to participate in one of the AAA’s activities,
speak with the Everest 2001 team or read the AAA’s extensive
post activity reports to discover how management actually plays
a vital part in our successes.
More information about the AAA can be found at http://intranet.defence.gov.au/armyweb/Sites/AAA/
BRIG
Peter Lambert
President AAA
Chopper
pilot not the first
I
NOTE with interest the “Chopper command a dream come true” article
(Air Force News, October 23) that cites Flying Officer Simon
Press as the first Air Force pilot since the disbandment of
No. 9 Squadron to command a Black Hawk helicopter.
As 5 Aviation Regiment’s first Adjutant (1988-1989), may I be
permitted to correct this journalistic error.
Following formal handover of the Black Hawks to Army in February
1989, there were many Air Force helicopter pilots who continued
to serve
(with distinction) as pilots in command of 5AVNREGT choppers.
The most notable would be the current CAF, the then Wing Commander
Angus Houston (OC A Squadron) who continued flying (and commanding)
Black Hawks until December 1989.
In addition, there were many other Air Force pilots who commanded
Black Hawks at 5AVNREGT well into the 1990s; some of whom are
still serving as senior staff officers in Canberra.
I would not wish to detract from FLGOFF Press’ achievements,
and would hope that many Air Force officers be given the opportunity
to follow him in what is doubtless an enjoyable and challenging
posting (despite the “embedding process”).
But it would be remiss not to recognise that many have gone
before him. Might I also be permitted to suggest that, in all
likelihood, the springboard for Air Marshal Houston’s eventual
rise to CAF was his performance during the period of Black Hawk
transition to Army, his time as CO 9SQN, and as OC A SQN 5AVNREGT.
WGCDR
Trevor Owens
AFHQ
