Where will the police turn up next?
They are already mixing it with the department of immigration in Operation Sovereign Borders. They're smartening up the place as well. I am told departmental staff have been asked to dress sharply and get haircuts. They've even been directed not to wear their photo IDs when they leave the building. They have to be careful.
Now it's Human Services' turn. Essentially a call centre and payments organisation, the department that runs Centrelink is about to get a "tough cop on the beat". A "senior police officer" is to lead its crackdown on welfare fraud, or so a Sunday newspaper tells us. Never mind that the department's annual report shows it already has nine federal police working with it, apparently appointing an extra one to lead a taskforce could claw back an extra $1.5 billion in overpayments. The minister says so.
It got me wondering what other government departments the police could help. Communications came to mind, although that would have been in the days when the government collected radio and television licence fees. Anyone caught listening or watching without a licence was fined.
Education and Health offer few opportunities - the Commonwealth runs neither hospitals nor schools. And then it struck me. Police could be embedded in the tax office.
But although that does happen for serious financial crime (the tax office is on a joint taskforce with the Federal Police), there are no plans to get police to crack down on ordinary taxpayers claiming deductions.
Instead the tax office has lost 10 per cent of its staff. The Coalition used its first budget to bring forward staff cuts planned by Labor in order to bring about "the largest reduction to public service jobs over the forward estimates".
It makes its crackdown on fraud unbalanced. Australians who misreport their incomes for the purpose of claiming benefits are about to get further hammered but not Australians who misreport their incomes for the purpose of escaping tax.
Even within the department of human services the crackdown will be unbalanced. Minister Marise Payne says it will apply to the recipients of Newstart unemployment benefits and age and disability pensions, but not to the recipients of family tax benefits. That's because family tax benefits are "supplementary payments". They are middle-class rather than life-sustaining welfare.
It's a distinction that is running through everything the Abbott government does.
Within weeks of taking office it set up a Commission of Audit. Its terms of reference required it to "eliminate wasteful spending" but said nothing about tightening up wasteful tax concessions. The commission took the instruction to heart, saying nothing about the wasteful concessions on super but plenty about how to wind back spending on pensions.
When asked why it had examined only one sort of waste - the waste in payments intended to help people survive - the commission said tax concessions would be the subject of a separate tax white paper to be delivered in 2015.
The Coalition's first budget tightened spending on pensions and Newstart as foreshadowed but left superannuation alone. Its turn would come, we were assured...
There were reasons to believe it would. The government had told the authors of the tax white paper that nothing was off limits. They were free to point out waste wherever they found it.
The Murray financial system inquiry found that super tax breaks were not "well targeted to achieve provision of retirement incomes", which is another way of saying much of the money was wasted. The discussion paper released to set off the tax white paper process reached much the same conclusion, finding that despite the tens of billions of dollars offered annually in super tax concessions, the total effect of taxes on savings was "uncertain".
Treasury calculations prepared for this year's budget show the cost of the concession on employer contributions is set to climb from $16.3 billion to $20.15 billion by 2018-19. The cost of the concession on super fund earnings is set to climb from $13.4 billion to $30.4 billion. By way of reference, the cost of the age pension is set to climb from $41.6 billion to $50.4 billion, meaning that by then super tax concessions will cost as much as the age pension and will overtake it unless reined in.
And the bulk of the concession goes to extraordinarily high earners, the type who would be saving anyway. The treasury believes the top 1 per cent of Australian earners, a mere 132,000 people, take home between them 9 per cent of Australia's super tax concessions.
And so Joe Hockey and his departmental head John Fraser began speaking out. On Jon Faine's program on ABC radio the Treasurer called for "a bipartisan approach". Whoever was in government, "whether it's a Liberal government or Labor government, whoever it is, we're going to have the same problems", he said. Fraser told a gathering at the Australian National University it was time for a "fundamental rethink about the interaction between superannuation and tax and the whole welfare system".
And then Abbott decided it was off. Eyes fixed on the next election, be declared there would no changes to the super tax concessions, not now, not ever.
I am just one who's been taken for a ride. Welfare lobbyists who cautiously supported the winding back of pension access in return for action on super; the super industry itself, which offered up modest savings; the opposition, which drew up its own proposals, believing the offer of bipartisanship was genuine - all of us have been waiting for something we are now told won't happen.
Except that it will. After the election whoever wins will (re)discover that tax concessions skewed to Australia's highest earners exceeding the cost of the pension are not sustainable.
In the meantime, welfare cheats on far lower incomes should expect to hear from the police.In The Age and Sydney Morning Herald