Employee Share Scheme Reporting for 2013 - Start preparing now

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) has announced a new visa pricing structure and fee increases effective on and from 1 July 2013. This will include introduction of additional fees for dependant family members being included in an application.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

The Federal Treasurer, Honourable Wayne Swan, MP delivered his sixth budget (Budget) at 7:30 PM AEST on May 14, 2013. This Global Watch describes some tax changes proposed by the Government in the 2013-14 Budget as well as certain announcements made prior to the Budget. Employers should evaluate how these changes affect their global mobility programs, including increased costs under their tax equalization policy.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

It is that time of year again when companies need to get ready for their 2013 Employee Share Scheme (ESS) reporting requirements which are due on 14 July and 14 August 2013.

Over the last 12 months, we have seen a significant increase in the data matching activities of the ATO in relation to ESS income. The ATO’s data matching activities have resulted in employees seeking additional information from their employer on how the amounts reported on their ESS statements have been determined.

In particular, companies should consider the ATO’s data matching when deciding how to report for their internationally mobile employees. For these employees, it may be the case that only a portion of the ESS income is subject to Australian income tax. Where the employer has reported the full ESS income and the employee has only reported a portion of the ESS income in their income tax return, the ATO is issuing data matching notices to these employees. Employers should consider only reporting the ESS income that is subject to income tax in Australia to avoid this mismatch.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) recently announced reforms to the Visitor visa program which go into effect March 23, 2013. The number of subclasses will be reduced from nine to five. Work activities carried out by business visitors will be restricted with the introduction of a new short-stay temporary work visa (Subclass 400). These changes will have significant impacts to companies in Australia who currently rely on business visas for workers engaging in short-term work.

From March 23, the visitor visa program will consist of the following visa subclasses: Temporary work (short stay activity) visa - Subclass 400Visitor visa - Subclass 600Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) - Subclass 601Medical Treatment visa - Subclass 602eVisitor – Subclass 651These new visa subclasses will replace the: Subclass 456 Business (Short stay) visa; Subclass 459 Sponsored Business Visitor (Short stay) visa; Subclass 977 ETA (Business Entrant - Short Validity) visa; Subclass 956 ETA (Business - Long Validity); and Subclass 651 eVisitor visa. The validity of any of these outgoing visa subclasses already granted will not be affected by these changes. Applicants holding these visas are therefore not required to apply for any of the new visa subclasses which become available on March 23.

The Regulations that provide the framework and outline the criteria for these new subclasses have not yet been released.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

On 8 March 2013, the Assistant Treasurer released an Exposure Draft of legislation for public consultation proposing to remove the 50% CGT discount concession for foreign and temporary residents who dispose of assets after 8 May 2012. The Exposure Draft extends the proposed changes to certain Australian tax residents who change their residence to or from Australia while holding certain assets.

This announcement is important for not only individuals but also for employers with globally mobile populations in and out of Australia.

The proposed changes do not affect the CGT exemption for an individual's main residence (home).

Affected individuals should seek advice and consider the following actions: Individuals who were a foreign resident or temporary resident on 8 May 2012 should obtain a market valuation of affected assets as at that date;Australian tax residents who became non-residents (foreign residents) during the tax year ended 30 June 2012 (and after 30 June 2012 too) need to revisit choices they made (or are about to make) in their tax return under the deemed disposal rule; andAustralians tax residents who became non-residents prior to 1 July 2011 and chose not to have a deemed disposal of all of their assets when they became a non-resident, should also seek advice in relation to the Exposure Draft Legislation.Employers with globally mobile populations should consider the potential impact of these proposed changes on their: Existing mobile employee population, especially Australian citizens overseas;Tax equalisation accruals (if the employees are equalised on personal income); andGlobal Mobility policies for future assignments, especially for outbound assignments for Australian tax residents.More detail on the proposed changes for different types of individuals For detailed information on the proposed changes including how the gains are allocated between the periods where the 50% CGT discount concession is available and the period when it is not, please refer to our Global Watch. Taxation Determination (TD) 2013/4 issued on 27 February 2013 sets out the Commissioner's determination of reasonable amounts for food and drink expenses incurred by employees in receipt of a Living Away From Home Allowance (LAFHA) for 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.

The key points of this Final Determination are as follows: i) Where food and drink expenses do not exceed amounts that are reasonable as set out in the TD, the expenses do not need to be substantiated.ii) Where food and drink expenses exceed amounts that are considered reasonable, substantiation must be provided in full. If excess amounts are not substantiated, the reasonable amount will be exempt, but the excess paid to the employee will be subject to FBT.iii) Based on feedback the ATO received, the final TD differs from the draft (previously issued on 28 September 2012) by removing the three tied salary band system for determining reasonable food and drink expenses.iv) The reasonable food and drink allowance for one adult for 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 is $233 for one adult. This is less than the reasonable food and drink allowance for one adult for the prior year of $250 (as specified in TD 2012/5).Given the reduction in this reasonable food and drink allowance amount, the Final Determination includes a transitional measure. The transitional measure applies where an employee and employer had an existing employment agreement in force as at 27 February 2013 that specified the food and drinks allowance at a rate in Taxation Determination TD 2012/5 and that employment agreement is not varied in a material way or renewed. Where the transitional measure applies, the rates in TD 2012/5 will continue to be accepted by the Commissioner as reasonable amounts for 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.

For a full copy of the Final Determination, please find a link to TD 2013/4 which details the reasonable amounts for food and drink.

If you have any queries or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact your PwC general contact or Tony Halcrow on +61 2 8266 7279.

Today, the Senate have passed Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 4) Bill 2012('the Bill') which includes the new rules on the tax treatment of Living-Away-From-Home ('LAFH') concessions.

As expected, the Senate have not made any amendments to the new rules and it is expected that the Bill will shortly receive Royal Assent.

The new rules will apply from 1 October 2012.

In the evening of 21 August 2012, the Australian Government introduced a much revised Bill to reform the Living-Away-From-Home (LAFH) rules.

Following the recommendations by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics (Committee), the much revised Bill now: Retains the reformed LAFH rules for allowances and reimbursements in the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) regime (the previous version of the Bill included LAFH allowances in the income tax regime and some of the food and drink expenses in the FBT regime).Extends LAFH concessions to Fly-In Fly-Out (FIFO) and Drive-In Drive-Out (DIDO) workers even when these employees do not maintain a home in Australia.Provides a little more guidance on what a "material variation" to an employment contract is for the purposes of the transitional rules.Unfortunately, there have been no changes in the revised Bill that mean that temporary residents who are not living away from an Australian home and who are not FIFO or DIDO workers would qualify for LAFH concessions from 1 October 2012.

The Bill has now been passed by the House of Representatives. In order for the Bill to become law, it must be passed by the Senate and receive Royal Assent from the Governor General. The Senate does not sit again until 10 September 2012.

Given the Bill is not opposed by the Opposition party, it is expected that the Bill will be passed into law in its current form and will apply from 1 October 2012. Employers should now finalise their response to the proposed changes.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

On 28 June 2012, the Australian Government introduced into Parliament the bill in relation to the new rules for Living-Away-From-Home (LAFH) concessions. This bill is not yet law.

The bill was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and the Committee invited submissions and held a public hearing in relation to the bill. The Committee released its report on 15 August 2012.

The Committee supports the introduction of the tightened eligibility criteria for the LAFH concessions and has made several recommendations in relation to the bill.

The key recommendations are:

expanding the definition of Fly-in Fly-Out (FIFO) and Drive-In Drive-Out (DIDO) workers to include workers who do not meet the test of maintaining a usual place of residence within Australia so that these workers can claim LAFH concessions;retaining the taxation treatment of LAFH allowances wholly within the FBT regime rather than in the income tax regime; andthat Treasury provide clarification in relation to what constitutes a ‘material variation’ to a worker’s contract for the purposes of the transitional rules.Read our full Alert on the paper.The Federal Government promised Australia would be in surplus again by 2012-13 and the Federal Treasurer, the Honourable Wayne Swan, MP did not disappoint when he delivered his 5th Budget at 7:30 PM May 8, 2012.

Some of the key proposals in the budget that may increase the costs to your company and/or employees of sending them into or out of Australia on assignment are:

Increase to the non-resident tax rates: it is proposed that effective 1 July 2012 the first tax band will now be up to $80,000 and will have a flat tax rate of 32.5%. This will create additional costs for companies (if the employees are equalised) or outbound employees (if the employees not equalised) where the employee breaks Australian tax residence but continues to derive Australian sourced income. The 32.5% flat tax rate will increase to 33% from 1 July 2015.

Termination Payments: Golden handshake payments may no longer benefit from concessional tax rates from 1 July 2012 where the employee in receipt of this payment already has other adjusted taxable income in excess $180,000 (the threshold at which the top marginal tax rate applies in Australia). Consideration should be given as to whether retiring employees may wish to retire on or before 30 June 2012. The concessional tax rates should still apply for genuine redundancies.

CGT concessions and non-residents: non-residents will no longer be eligible for the 50% CGT discount on capital gains accrued after 7:30pm May 8, 2012. This may represent an additional cost to outbound Australians on assignment overseas (or their employer if tax equalised on personal income). Australians already residing overseas holding assets still taxable in Australia will need to consider getting these valued as at 8 May 2012 as the discount concession should still apply to gains that have accrued up to 8 May 2012.

Managed investment trusts: non-residents are currently subject to a 7.5% withholding tax on 'other income' distributions from Australian managed funds. This tax rate will increase to 15% effective 1 July 2012.

Superannuation: two measures were announced: the concessional contribution cap will remain at $25,000 from 1 July 2012 for all employees, with the Government deferring any decision to increase the cap in certain circumstances at this time. Any contributions in excess of this cap will be subject to excess contributions tax which is borne by employees. high income earners will be taxed on pre-tax superannuation contributions at 30% instead of the current 15% contribution tax rate for any part of the contribution that increases their adjusted taxable income above A$300,000. This may make foreign Superannuation an even more attractive proposal for inbound temporary visa holders working in Australia.To find out more, read the IAS Global Watch Alert (8 May 2012) on this topic.It is that time of year again when companies need to get ready for their 2012 Employee Share Scheme (ESS) reporting requirements. The deadlines are fast approaching to provide employees with an ESS Statement by 14 July 2012 and to provide the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) with an ESS annual report by 14 August 2012.

This is now the third year of ESS reporting and the ATO can be expected to enforce the above deadlines. Companies should start preparing now.

The ATO is starting to match the data that it obtains from ESS reporting against the information disclosed in employees’ income tax returns. Companies should consider this when deciding how to report for their employees, particularly internationally mobile employees.

It is also known that the ATO is sharing information with Office of State Revenue (OSR) authorities to assist with payroll tax reviews. Accordingly, companies should consider whether or not they are adopting the appropriate treatment of ESS awards for payroll tax purposes.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

Reforms to the Living-Away-From-Home (LAFH) concessions will not only impact foreign nationals (at whom the reforms are aimed) but also domestic Australian employees and their employers.

Employers need to be aware of the potential increased cost to business and changes to administration and reporting obligations arising from LAFH arrangements involving domestic employees. These costs and changes will arise in relation to employees receiving allowances rather than reimbursements.

Domestic employees are those employees that are not temporary residents, for example Australian citizens or permanent residents.

The reforms are expected to apply from 1 July 2012. The final form of the proposed reforms has yet to be announced by the Government.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

Customs Compliance Activity - Cargo Reporting of Assembly or Consolidation Orders

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Further to our E-Alerts of 15 March and 19 February 2013, the Australian Jobs Bill 2013recently passed both houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent on 27 June 2013 becoming the Australian Jobs Act 2013 ('the legislation'). The Act will require private and public projects with capital expenditure of $500 million or more to develop an Australian Industry Participation (AIP) Plan intended to ensure that Australian entities have full, fair and reasonable opportunity to supply goods and services to major projects.

Previously, AIP Plans were only required by project proponents seeking to access the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme (EPBS), a voluntary duty reduction scheme that eliminates the five percent tariff on imported eligible goods not produced in Australia for Projects over $10 million in applicable sectors.

The legislation introduces a number of key measures that will have broad implications for project proponents and their Engineering, Procurement and Construction Managers. These include:

Capturing all projects above the capital expenditure threshold that seek to establish a new facility or expand or upgrade an existing facility. The legislation also allows for the grouping of a number of facilities provided the additional facilities are reasonably necessary for operation of the principle site. Requiring a draft AIP Plan to be submitted at least 90 days prior to the prescribed trigger date for the project. The trigger date is defined as the first trigger event for the project during the interim period or the earliest trigger event after the interim period (ending two years after the commencement of the Bill). Trigger events are legislatively defined and generally refer to pre–Front End Engineering Design activities that relate to the usual actions typically undertaken by a project proponent to assess the economic and financial viability of a project, including the commencement of project concept design, the estimation of costs, the preparation of process flows or the engagement of a party to perform an environmental assessment of the project (there are 12 trigger dates prescribed in the legislation).Given that the requirements are targeted at the early design and feasibility stages of a project, existing projects with the trigger dates occurring at any time prior to 90 days of the commencement of the Act will escape the measures, provided that no trigger events occur during the interim period (i.e. all trigger events in respect of the project must have occurred prior to 90 days after the commencement of the Act). The interim period begins from the 91st day that the Act commences and ends 2 years after commencement.Mandatory AIP plans will require project proponents to demonstrate that Australian entities will have full, fair and reasonable opportunity to bid for the supply of goods and services to the project in respect of all work packages worth $1 million or more. The legislation also compels project proponents to take all reasonable steps to ensure that procurement entities associated with the project will satisfy the proponent's AIP Plan objectives. A summary of AIP Plan obligations must also be made available to the public.The legislation also includes anti-avoidance provisions to prevent project proponents from breaking down projects and/or work packages when done for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding major project status and/or key work package thresholds. Going forward, project proponents will therefore need to ensure there is commercial justification surrounding how the project is defined and how work packages are formulated.Parties that do not comply with AIP requirements may be subject to compliance actions, including the publication of an adverse publicity notice ('name and shame') and/or court ordered injunctions to compel project proponents to engage in activities to ensure compliance with their AIP obligations (or refrain from activities in contravention to those obligations).The new laws also establish an Australian Industry Participation Authority to administer the changes and assigns it significant information gathering powers to ensure that parties are compliant with their AIP obligations.The Australian Industry Participation Authority has also been tasked with assisting businesses to develop capabilities and connections required to capture supply opportunities and supporting the continued work of the Government's Supplier Advocates who assist local firms to raise their competitiveness and connect them with new business opportunities.To have a more detailed discussion about what the above means for you, please contact your usual PwC advisor or any of the contacts to the right of this page. The following provides a summary of key changes to fuel tax credit rates and excise arrangements that will apply in respect of taxable fuel acquired from 1 July 2013. As you may be aware, fuel used in heavy vehicles (>4.5 tonne) is eligible for a full fuel tax credit less the road user charge. The Road user charge is levied by the Australian Government as a means to recover road maintenance costs attributable to heavy vehicle use. The Australian Government recently announced that the road user charge will increase on 1 July 2013 to 26.14 cents per litre. The result is a net fuel tax credit of 12.003 centre per litre being available in respect of petrol and diesel acquired for use in heavy vehicles travelling on public roads.

Taxpayers should be aware that the road user charge does not apply in respect of taxable fuel acquired for use in auxiliary equipment on board vehicles travelling on public roads, such as refrigerated trailers, bin lifts and compactors, street sweepers and vacuum pumps. Further, businesses that have applied the road user charge in respect of fuel used in such equipment may be entitled to a refund going back up to four years.

Carbon charge amounts for liquid and gaseous fuels will increase from 1 July 2013, reducing fuel tax credit rates for fuels and activities other than those excluded from the measures. Specifically, the carbon charge will not apply to liquid and transport gaseous fuels used in heavy vehicle transportation, primary industries (fisheries, forestry and agriculture) and fuel put to a non-combustion use (e.g. as an input to manufacture). The carbon charge will also not apply to taxable fuel acquired by a taxpayer that has entered the Liquid Fuel Opt-in Scheme.

The new rates and fuel tax credits in respect of liquid fuel are outlined below.

Petrol (cents per litre (cpl))Diesel and other liquid fuels (cpl)In the interim, to have a more detailed discussion about what the above means for you, please contact your usual PwC contact or the contacts to the right of this page.

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs) recently released Practice Statement B_IND08: Valuation – Transfer Pricing Policy(the Statement), replacing the existing Practice Statement PS2009/21.

The Statement tightens and clarifies the rules surrounding the application for a Valuation Advice (a Customs ruling on technical customs valuation issues) relating to transfer pricing arrangements. In particular, the Statement outlines: the legislation and policy framework relevant to customs valuation and transfer pricing arrangementsthe substantive documentation required to support a Valuation Advice applicationwhen transfer pricing studies will be acceptable evidence in a Valuation Advice applicationthe requirement to support the customs valuation methodology being adopted, not simply relying on Berry Ratio or OECD methodologies to support transactions are at arm’s length. Customs note that these transfer pricing methodologies are not analogous to customs valuation methodologiesthe requirement to demonstrate that the relationship between the purchaser and the vendor has not influenced the price of the goods (via qualitative or quantitative measures) in cases where the transaction value methodology is proposed to be adoptedconsideration of the types of payments which will not be considered to form part of the 'price paid or payable' for imported goods, such as market support paymentsthe obligation to amend the customs value of goods declared on past transactions where a compensating transfer pricing adjustment is made, irrespective of whether the goods are subject to customs duty or not, and the impact compensating adjustments have for Goods and Services Tax (GST) statements made on past import declarations and the obligation an importer has to ensure adjustments are properly accounted for and reported to Customs.An opportunity to develop transfer pricing documentation which supports both transfer pricing and customs valuation pricing, delivering efficiency, consistency and compliance in both disciplines.Increased complexity of demonstrating that transactional product pricing is at arm's length for customs purposes, especially where relying on transfer pricing arrangements utilising a 'profit based' transfer pricing methodology, such as the Transactional Net Margin Method.Greater challenge from Customs on proposed arm's length product prices put forward, as Customs intend to undertake their own research that could include analysing import data (such as the prices of identical or similar goods declared by other importers) to develop 'test values' to possibly assist in determining whether the relationship between the purchaser and vendor under consideration has influenced the price of imported goods.Increased compliance costs associated with reporting and disclosing the customs duty and GST impacts of transfer pricing adjustments.Where renewing a Valuation Advice, the application will need to conform with the new Statements' requirements and previous positions adopted will need to be supported as it will not necessarily be the case that previous decisions will be 'rolled over'.To have a more detailed discussion about what the above means for you, please contact your usual PwC contact or any of the contacts on the right. Recently, the Minister for Industry and Innovation released the draft Australia Jobs Bill 2013 for public comment. The draft Bill forms part of the Government's recently announced A Plan for Australia Jobs Industry and Innovation Statement and seeks to legislate the development of Australian Industry Participation (AIP) arrangements that maximise supply opportunities for Australia firms.

Under the proposed changes, major projects in all sectors of the economy with capital expenditure of $500 million or more will be required to implement AIP Plans outlining how local industry will be given a full, fair and reasonable opportunity to supply goods and services to a project. Currently, AIP Plans are only required by project proponents seeking to access the Enhanced Project By-law Scheme (EPBS), a voluntary scheme that eliminates the five percent tariff on eligible goods not produced in Australia for Projects over $10 million in applicable sectors. The changes would place additional requirements on EPBS projects worth $2 billion or more by requiring dedicated Australian Industry Opportunity Officers to be imbedded within the procurement teams of individual companies.

The exposure draft of the proposed legislation includes a number of additional key measures that will have broad implications for project proponents and Engineering, Procurement and Construction Managers (EPCMs). These include: Capturing all projects above the capital expenditure threshold that seek to establish a new facility or expand or upgrade an existing facility. The draft legislation also allows for the grouping of a number of facilities provided the additional facilities are reasonably necessary for operation of the principle site.Requiring a draft AIP Plan to be submitted at least 90 days prior to the earliest of a number of legislatively defined pre FEED events occurring in relation to the project, including the commencement of project concept design, the estimation of raw materials, the preparation of block diagrams or process flows or the engagement of a party to perform an environmental assessment of the project.Mandatory AIP plans will require project proponents to demonstrate that Australian entities will have a full, fair and reasonable opportunity to bid for the supply goods and services to the project in respect of all work packages worth $1 million or more. The draft legislation also compels project proponents to take all reasonable steps to ensure that procurement entities associated with the project will satisfy the proponent's AIP Plan objectives, such as refraining from requesting bids in respect of packages worth $1 million or more unless their is a clear understanding of the capability and capacity of Australia entities to supply those goods or services.The exposure draft also includes anti-avoidance provisions to prevent project proponents from breaking down projects and/or work packages when done for the sole or dominant purpose of avoiding major project status and/or key work package thresholds. Going forward, project proponents will therefore need to ensure there is commercial justification surrounding how the project is defined and how work packages are formulated.Parties that do not comply with AIP requirements may be subject to compliance actions, including the publication of an adverse publicity notice ('name and shame') and court ordered injunctions to compel project proponents to engage in activities to ensure compliance with their AIP obligations (or refrain from activities in contravention to those obligations).The draft legislation also establishes the new Australian Industry Participation Authority to administer the new legislation and assigns it significant information gathering powers to ensure that parties are compliant with their AIP obligations.The Australian Industry Participation Authority will also be tasked with assisting businesses to develop capabilities and connections required to capture supply opportunities and supporting the continued work of the Government's Supplier Advocates who assist local firms to raise their competitiveness and connect them with new business opportunities.The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced on 17 February 2013 the Government’s Industry and Innovation Statement, "A Plan for Australian Jobs" (the Plan). The Plan aims to increase Australian manufacturing ability, with a view to ensuring Australian business are given early notification of supply opportunities and a fair chance of winning contracts, specifically in major resource, oil and gas, infrastructure projects. The Plan will be funded by cutting $1 billion in Research and Development tax incentives currently provided to companies with an annual turnover of $20 billion or more.

The centre pieces of the Plan include: The establishment of a new Australian Industry Participation Authority to assist businesses to build capabilities and connections to win work on major projects.Introduction of new legislation that will require any projects worth $500m or more to implement an Australian Industry Participation Plan (AIPP) to encourage companies to consider and use Australian businesses in their projects.Requirement for projects worth $2bn or more, that apply for customs duty concessions under the Enhanced Project By-Law Scheme (EPBS), to employ Australian Industry Opportunity officers within their global supply offices. Additionally, these companies will have to report to the Government every six months in regards to their efforts to procure local materials or cease using a duty concession.Reforming the anti-dumping system to afford stronger protection to Australian industry against unfair overseas competition including establishing a new Anti-Dumping Commission to investigate complaints, increase Customs funding for investigations and introduction of stronger remedies against overseas producers who deliberately contravene the legislation.A support package for Australian industry, which includes: an investment of more than $500 million in establishing up to 10 Industry Innovation Precincts to drive business innovation and growth in areas of Australian competitive advantageestablishment of a new Industry Innovation Network to allow businesses in various regions to take part in Precinct activities, including access to knowledge, support, services and partnershipsimplementation of measures that help small and medium Australian businesses win tenders and gain access to financeinvestment of $380m to create Venture Australia to facilitate venture capital investment, andcreating a new $350m round of Innovation Investment Fund.For project proponents, even greater scrutiny and transparency of how you engage and contract with local industry.For new projects, it will now be imperative that a robust AIPP framework be developed to ensure accountability and defence of key decisions and issues such as procurement and contracting, defining and communicating early supply opportunities for local industry, offshore sourcing, workforce and recruitment, external stakeholder liaison and engagement.Potential increased complexity to securing customs duty concessions and access to R&D incentives for major protects. Improvement in access to projects for local suppliers and increased Government support to Australian companies to win major project work.We will keep you briefed of any further developments. In the interim, to have a more detailed discussion about what the above means for you, please contact your usual PwC contact or the contacts on the right. On 3 December 2012, the Government released its interim response to the final report (‘the Report’) of the Low Value Parcel Processing Taskforce (‘the Taskforce’).

The Report responded to the Productivity Commission’s 2011 report into the retail sector, which found that there are in-principle grounds to reform the Low Value Threshold (LVT) if this can be done in a cost efficient manner. Further, the Report found that significant change would be required to improve the efficiency of handling and administrating low value imports.

Broadly, the Government agreed that there is a strong case for lowering the threshold to achieve tax neutrality and that key efficiency-related reforms need to be implemented to allow for this. As the LVT level was not within the terms of reference of the Report, the Government has not commented on this issue in its response.

Key comments in response to the Taskforce’s recommendations included: that electronic data interchange in the international mail stream would be critical to implementing the reforms and that the Government and Australia Post are partaking in ongoing discussions with the Universal Postal Union in this regardthat any reduction in the LVT would be for GST only at first instance, with the threshold for duty remaining at the $1,000 level until systems can be developed for the efficient and effective collection of dutythat the Government will look to introduce legislation to separate GST and duty for LVT purposesthat the Government supports simplified GST assessment arrangementsThe Government will not make any final decision about reforms or about the lowering of the threshold until detailed business cases are prepared and the costs associated with any possible changes have been determined. The Government’s final response will be released in 2013.

To have a more detailed discussion about what the above means for you, please contact your usual PwC contact or the contacts on the right.

In its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (2012-2013), the Government announced its commitment to providing $13.5 million towards enhancing the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service's (Customs) assurance system at the border.

The measures will include the provision of additional staff to undertake compliance activities, with a view to increasing the amount of revenue collected at the border.

In particular, Customs will be provided with additional staff to review Tariff Concession Orders (TCOs) on imported goods. TCOs are used to gain duty-free entry for goods that are not produced in Australia. This targeted review on TCOs will assist in assessing whether TCOs are still currently valid and appropriate in the current market.

We anticipate Customs compliance efforts will align with their 2012/13 Compliance Program which focuses on key economic and revenue related issues, including: undervaluation and incorrect description of imported goodstransfer pricing and valuation of goods in related party transactionstreatment of royalties, commissions and price related costslow value threshold utilisation and issuesuse of duty concessions, such as Free Trade Agreements and TCOs, andimporting companies involved in the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF), pharmaceutical, chemicals, cosmetics and food and beverage industry sectors.We will keep you briefed on any further developments.

In the interim, to have a more detailed discussion about this matter, please contact your usual PwC contact or the contacts on the right.

On 6 September 2012, the Final Report of the Low Value Parcel Processing Taskforce ('the Taskforce') was released. The Taskforce was asked to investigate more efficient approaches for handling and administrating the increased number of low value imports, including options for collecting GST and duty on these imports.

The Report responded to the Productivity Commission’s (‘the Commission’) report into the retail sector in 2011, which found that the Low Value Threshold (LVT) was not the main factor in the struggle of Australian retailers to compete with international retailers and that there are in-principle grounds to reform the LVT if it can be done in a cost efficient manner.

Whilst the Taskforce was not asked to recommend a new threshold level, the Taskforce highlighted the fact that the proportion of collection costs to GST revenue increases as the threshold falls below $500, indicating that revenue collection would not be cost effective at a threshold level less than $500.

The Taskforce found that improving the efficiency of handling and administrating low value imports would require significant change. The Taskforce devised possible solutions to the efficiency problem and divided these solutions into three principle categories: Prospective solutionsPotential solutions that were not feasible in the short to medium termUnviable solutionsThe table below lists some of the proposed solutions outlined the Final Report (by category). Prospective solutionsLonger term solutionsUnviable solutionsself-assessment of duty and/or GST liability when purchase is madecollection of duty and/or GST by overseas suppliers before dispatch of goodsimproving processes, work practices and removal of duplication when receiving and dealing with packages at gateway and when inspecting and processing packages on arrivaluse of electronic data provision in cargo and mail environments to streamline automated assessment of duty and/or GSTpre-registration for payment of duty and/or GST once liability is assessed at the borderautomation of postal import declaration processes on arrivalrealignment of responsibility for revenue assessment and collection between Customs and Border Protection, Australia Post, express carriers and other freight forwardersthat the border agency fees and charges should apply to goods valued below $1,000 to which GST is appliedthat the Government consider the option of deferring GST payment for all GST registrantsthat the Government consider duty and/or GST collection from financial intermediariesSimplified tariff arrangementsCollection of GST on foreign exchange transactionsReverse charging GST to registered purchasersCollection of duty and/or GST by overseas postal authoritiesDeclaration of duty and/or GST liability through the income tax assessment processThe Government has discussed the report with the Retail Council of Australia and will continue to seek the views of other stakeholders, including retailers, consumers and the States and Territories before formulating a response to the Report.

The impact to business will not be known until the Government formulates its response to the report. In the event that the Government decides to lower the LVT, it would certainly go towards providing the tax neutrality traditional retailers are seeking when competing against imported online purchases.

We will keep you briefed of any further developments.

In the interim, to have a more detailed discussion about what the above means for you, please contact your usual PwC contact or the contacts on the right.

The Government announced on 1 August 2012 the Review of the Legal and Administrative Framework for Excise Equivalent Goods that will consider the further improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of the excise equivalent goods framework, including opportunities for streamlining arrangements and reducing costs to business.

Excise duty is a tax on locally manufactured petroleum, tobacco and some alcohol products. Equivalent goods imported into Australia are known as Excise Equivalent Goods and are subject to customs duty at rate equal to the corresponding excise duty that would have applied had the goods been domestically produced.

A Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership has been established between the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Home Affairs to conduct the review. The Partnership will consider and make recommendations on various matters, including: Transferring excise equivalent goods into the excise regimeReviewing the point at which excise duty is imposed on imported excise equivalent goodsConsolidating the collection and administration of excise and excise equivalent goods within the ATOReviewing the control of duty free stores, providores and catering bonds, whilst maintaining border integrity and the efficiency and effectiveness of current border controlsExamining whether the administration of excise equivalent goods should be consolidated under the one administration andRevising the import declaration requirements for excise equivalent goods intended to be used in domestic excise manufacture.Treasury is currently seeking comment from industry and interested parties should consider lodging a submission prior to the due date of 31 August 2012.As part of the Government's Clean Energy Future package, from 1 July 2012 most business users of liquid fuel will pay an effective carbon price through the fuel tax system by receiving a reduced fuel tax credit or, in the case of aviation fuel, paying an increased excise or excise equivalent customs duty.

However, from 1 July 2013, large users of liquid fuels will be able to opt-in to the carbon pricing mechanism as an alternative to paying an equivalent carbon price through the fuel tax system. The details of the Opt-in scheme will be set out in regulations.

The proposal for the Liquid Fuels Opt-in Scheme has been released on the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's (DCCEE) website. This consultation paper sets out the proposed details of the Opt-in Scheme that will inform the preparation of the regulations. In addition to providing an overview of the Scheme, the paper proposes the fuels that will be covered, eligibility thresholds to Opt-in and liability under the Opt-in Scheme.

The DCCEE invites interested parties to submit feedback on the proposed detail of the Opt-in Scheme by Friday 20 July 2012. The email and postal address details for lodging a submission are available from the link above.

2012 Employee Share Scheme reporting - be prepared

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) has announced a new visa pricing structure and fee increases effective on and from 1 July 2013. This will include introduction of additional fees for dependant family members being included in an application.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

The Federal Treasurer, Honourable Wayne Swan, MP delivered his sixth budget (Budget) at 7:30 PM AEST on May 14, 2013. This Global Watch describes some tax changes proposed by the Government in the 2013-14 Budget as well as certain announcements made prior to the Budget. Employers should evaluate how these changes affect their global mobility programs, including increased costs under their tax equalization policy.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

It is that time of year again when companies need to get ready for their 2013 Employee Share Scheme (ESS) reporting requirements which are due on 14 July and 14 August 2013.

Over the last 12 months, we have seen a significant increase in the data matching activities of the ATO in relation to ESS income. The ATO’s data matching activities have resulted in employees seeking additional information from their employer on how the amounts reported on their ESS statements have been determined.

In particular, companies should consider the ATO’s data matching when deciding how to report for their internationally mobile employees. For these employees, it may be the case that only a portion of the ESS income is subject to Australian income tax. Where the employer has reported the full ESS income and the employee has only reported a portion of the ESS income in their income tax return, the ATO is issuing data matching notices to these employees. Employers should consider only reporting the ESS income that is subject to income tax in Australia to avoid this mismatch.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) recently announced reforms to the Visitor visa program which go into effect March 23, 2013. The number of subclasses will be reduced from nine to five. Work activities carried out by business visitors will be restricted with the introduction of a new short-stay temporary work visa (Subclass 400). These changes will have significant impacts to companies in Australia who currently rely on business visas for workers engaging in short-term work.

From March 23, the visitor visa program will consist of the following visa subclasses: Temporary work (short stay activity) visa - Subclass 400Visitor visa - Subclass 600Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) - Subclass 601Medical Treatment visa - Subclass 602eVisitor – Subclass 651These new visa subclasses will replace the: Subclass 456 Business (Short stay) visa; Subclass 459 Sponsored Business Visitor (Short stay) visa; Subclass 977 ETA (Business Entrant - Short Validity) visa; Subclass 956 ETA (Business - Long Validity); and Subclass 651 eVisitor visa. The validity of any of these outgoing visa subclasses already granted will not be affected by these changes. Applicants holding these visas are therefore not required to apply for any of the new visa subclasses which become available on March 23.

The Regulations that provide the framework and outline the criteria for these new subclasses have not yet been released.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

On 8 March 2013, the Assistant Treasurer released an Exposure Draft of legislation for public consultation proposing to remove the 50% CGT discount concession for foreign and temporary residents who dispose of assets after 8 May 2012. The Exposure Draft extends the proposed changes to certain Australian tax residents who change their residence to or from Australia while holding certain assets.

This announcement is important for not only individuals but also for employers with globally mobile populations in and out of Australia.

The proposed changes do not affect the CGT exemption for an individual's main residence (home).

Affected individuals should seek advice and consider the following actions: Individuals who were a foreign resident or temporary resident on 8 May 2012 should obtain a market valuation of affected assets as at that date;Australian tax residents who became non-residents (foreign residents) during the tax year ended 30 June 2012 (and after 30 June 2012 too) need to revisit choices they made (or are about to make) in their tax return under the deemed disposal rule; andAustralians tax residents who became non-residents prior to 1 July 2011 and chose not to have a deemed disposal of all of their assets when they became a non-resident, should also seek advice in relation to the Exposure Draft Legislation.Employers with globally mobile populations should consider the potential impact of these proposed changes on their: Existing mobile employee population, especially Australian citizens overseas;Tax equalisation accruals (if the employees are equalised on personal income); andGlobal Mobility policies for future assignments, especially for outbound assignments for Australian tax residents.More detail on the proposed changes for different types of individuals For detailed information on the proposed changes including how the gains are allocated between the periods where the 50% CGT discount concession is available and the period when it is not, please refer to our Global Watch. Taxation Determination (TD) 2013/4 issued on 27 February 2013 sets out the Commissioner's determination of reasonable amounts for food and drink expenses incurred by employees in receipt of a Living Away From Home Allowance (LAFHA) for 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.

The key points of this Final Determination are as follows: i) Where food and drink expenses do not exceed amounts that are reasonable as set out in the TD, the expenses do not need to be substantiated.ii) Where food and drink expenses exceed amounts that are considered reasonable, substantiation must be provided in full. If excess amounts are not substantiated, the reasonable amount will be exempt, but the excess paid to the employee will be subject to FBT.iii) Based on feedback the ATO received, the final TD differs from the draft (previously issued on 28 September 2012) by removing the three tied salary band system for determining reasonable food and drink expenses.iv) The reasonable food and drink allowance for one adult for 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 is $233 for one adult. This is less than the reasonable food and drink allowance for one adult for the prior year of $250 (as specified in TD 2012/5).Given the reduction in this reasonable food and drink allowance amount, the Final Determination includes a transitional measure. The transitional measure applies where an employee and employer had an existing employment agreement in force as at 27 February 2013 that specified the food and drinks allowance at a rate in Taxation Determination TD 2012/5 and that employment agreement is not varied in a material way or renewed. Where the transitional measure applies, the rates in TD 2012/5 will continue to be accepted by the Commissioner as reasonable amounts for 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014.

For a full copy of the Final Determination, please find a link to TD 2013/4 which details the reasonable amounts for food and drink.

If you have any queries or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact your PwC general contact or Tony Halcrow on +61 2 8266 7279.

Today, the Senate have passed Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 4) Bill 2012('the Bill') which includes the new rules on the tax treatment of Living-Away-From-Home ('LAFH') concessions.

As expected, the Senate have not made any amendments to the new rules and it is expected that the Bill will shortly receive Royal Assent.

The new rules will apply from 1 October 2012.

In the evening of 21 August 2012, the Australian Government introduced a much revised Bill to reform the Living-Away-From-Home (LAFH) rules.

Following the recommendations by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics (Committee), the much revised Bill now: Retains the reformed LAFH rules for allowances and reimbursements in the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) regime (the previous version of the Bill included LAFH allowances in the income tax regime and some of the food and drink expenses in the FBT regime).Extends LAFH concessions to Fly-In Fly-Out (FIFO) and Drive-In Drive-Out (DIDO) workers even when these employees do not maintain a home in Australia.Provides a little more guidance on what a "material variation" to an employment contract is for the purposes of the transitional rules.Unfortunately, there have been no changes in the revised Bill that mean that temporary residents who are not living away from an Australian home and who are not FIFO or DIDO workers would qualify for LAFH concessions from 1 October 2012.

The Bill has now been passed by the House of Representatives. In order for the Bill to become law, it must be passed by the Senate and receive Royal Assent from the Governor General. The Senate does not sit again until 10 September 2012.

Given the Bill is not opposed by the Opposition party, it is expected that the Bill will be passed into law in its current form and will apply from 1 October 2012. Employers should now finalise their response to the proposed changes.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

On 28 June 2012, the Australian Government introduced into Parliament the bill in relation to the new rules for Living-Away-From-Home (LAFH) concessions. This bill is not yet law.

The bill was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics and the Committee invited submissions and held a public hearing in relation to the bill. The Committee released its report on 15 August 2012.

The Committee supports the introduction of the tightened eligibility criteria for the LAFH concessions and has made several recommendations in relation to the bill.

The key recommendations are:

expanding the definition of Fly-in Fly-Out (FIFO) and Drive-In Drive-Out (DIDO) workers to include workers who do not meet the test of maintaining a usual place of residence within Australia so that these workers can claim LAFH concessions;retaining the taxation treatment of LAFH allowances wholly within the FBT regime rather than in the income tax regime; andthat Treasury provide clarification in relation to what constitutes a ‘material variation’ to a worker’s contract for the purposes of the transitional rules.Read our full Alert on the paper.The Federal Government promised Australia would be in surplus again by 2012-13 and the Federal Treasurer, the Honourable Wayne Swan, MP did not disappoint when he delivered his 5th Budget at 7:30 PM May 8, 2012.

Some of the key proposals in the budget that may increase the costs to your company and/or employees of sending them into or out of Australia on assignment are:

Increase to the non-resident tax rates: it is proposed that effective 1 July 2012 the first tax band will now be up to $80,000 and will have a flat tax rate of 32.5%. This will create additional costs for companies (if the employees are equalised) or outbound employees (if the employees not equalised) where the employee breaks Australian tax residence but continues to derive Australian sourced income. The 32.5% flat tax rate will increase to 33% from 1 July 2015.

Termination Payments: Golden handshake payments may no longer benefit from concessional tax rates from 1 July 2012 where the employee in receipt of this payment already has other adjusted taxable income in excess $180,000 (the threshold at which the top marginal tax rate applies in Australia). Consideration should be given as to whether retiring employees may wish to retire on or before 30 June 2012. The concessional tax rates should still apply for genuine redundancies.

CGT concessions and non-residents: non-residents will no longer be eligible for the 50% CGT discount on capital gains accrued after 7:30pm May 8, 2012. This may represent an additional cost to outbound Australians on assignment overseas (or their employer if tax equalised on personal income). Australians already residing overseas holding assets still taxable in Australia will need to consider getting these valued as at 8 May 2012 as the discount concession should still apply to gains that have accrued up to 8 May 2012.

Managed investment trusts: non-residents are currently subject to a 7.5% withholding tax on 'other income' distributions from Australian managed funds. This tax rate will increase to 15% effective 1 July 2012.

Superannuation: two measures were announced: the concessional contribution cap will remain at $25,000 from 1 July 2012 for all employees, with the Government deferring any decision to increase the cap in certain circumstances at this time. Any contributions in excess of this cap will be subject to excess contributions tax which is borne by employees. high income earners will be taxed on pre-tax superannuation contributions at 30% instead of the current 15% contribution tax rate for any part of the contribution that increases their adjusted taxable income above A$300,000. This may make foreign Superannuation an even more attractive proposal for inbound temporary visa holders working in Australia.To find out more, read the IAS Global Watch Alert (8 May 2012) on this topic.It is that time of year again when companies need to get ready for their 2012 Employee Share Scheme (ESS) reporting requirements. The deadlines are fast approaching to provide employees with an ESS Statement by 14 July 2012 and to provide the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) with an ESS annual report by 14 August 2012.

This is now the third year of ESS reporting and the ATO can be expected to enforce the above deadlines. Companies should start preparing now.

The ATO is starting to match the data that it obtains from ESS reporting against the information disclosed in employees’ income tax returns. Companies should consider this when deciding how to report for their employees, particularly internationally mobile employees.

It is also known that the ATO is sharing information with Office of State Revenue (OSR) authorities to assist with payroll tax reviews. Accordingly, companies should consider whether or not they are adopting the appropriate treatment of ESS awards for payroll tax purposes.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

Reforms to the Living-Away-From-Home (LAFH) concessions will not only impact foreign nationals (at whom the reforms are aimed) but also domestic Australian employees and their employers.

Employers need to be aware of the potential increased cost to business and changes to administration and reporting obligations arising from LAFH arrangements involving domestic employees. These costs and changes will arise in relation to employees receiving allowances rather than reimbursements.

Domestic employees are those employees that are not temporary residents, for example Australian citizens or permanent residents.

The reforms are expected to apply from 1 July 2012. The final form of the proposed reforms has yet to be announced by the Government.

Read our full Alert on the paper.

Bing Ads Updates: New Sitelink And Ad Position Reporting

Bing Ads rolled out some new reporting features in their March release. Here’s a look at the two of the biggest changes.

Ad Extensions Details

Adding to its suite of ad extensions reports, Bing Ads included a new “Ad Extensions Details” report. This reporting view shows sitelink performance data by campaign (and ad group if selected). Ad extension reporting by keyword and by ad was already available.

Top vs. Other

The Keyword Performance Report got a new feature with the “Top vs. Other” column. This new column shows the performance of ads when they are in the mainline (top of the page above the organic results) and the right side bar. You’ll find Top vs. Other by scrolling to the bottom of the Available Columns section in the report builder.

When running a report using Top vs. Other, you’ll see keyword performance data on any or all of these options:

Bing and Yahoo! search – OtherBing and Yahoo! search – TopSyndicated search partners – OtherSyndicated search partners – TopUnknown – You’ll see this if you are looking at results prior to the feature release of 3/14

See the March release for the full list of updates.

Related Topics: Microsoft: Bing Ads | Top News

About The Author: Ginny Marvin writes about paid online marketing topics including paid search, paid social, display and retargeting. Beyond Search Engine Land, Ginny provides search marketing and demand generation advice for ecommerce companies. She can be found on Twitter as @ginnymarvin. See more articles by Ginny Marvin

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

China: 'Positive' reporting on Africa

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Harry Verhoeven and Iginio Gagliardone, Special to CNNDecember 19, 2012 -- Updated 0320 GMT (1120 HKT)China Daily's Africa edition is the latest Chinese media venture on the continent.New "Africa edition" of China Daily part of Chinese media influence on the continentIt offers "positive reporting" on Africa, say Harry Verhoeven and Iginio GagliardoneChinese media must avoid mistakes of Western press, they argueEditor's note: Harry Verhoeven is Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford's Department of Politics & International Relations and is the Convenor of the Oxford University China-Africa Network (OUCAN). Iginio Gagliardone is Research Fellow at the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy at the University of Oxford.

(CNN) -- Last week, Beijing's leading English-language newspaper, China Daily, begun publishing a weekly Africa edition, focusing on financial news and targeting Africa's growing middle class.

Earlier this year, China's international broadcaster, CCTV, launched an impressive media operation in Africa, producing one hour a day of content from the continent as well as feature programs on African affairs, through a newsroom of more than 40 Chinese and 70 African staff members.

var currExpandable="expand13";if(typeof CNN.expandableMap==='object'){CNN.expandableMap.push(currExpandable);}var mObj={};mObj.type='video';mObj.contentId='';mObj.source='business/2012/11/12/pkg-curnow-china-in-africa.cnn';mObj.videoSource='CNN';mObj.videoSourceUrl='';mObj.lgImage="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121112052934-pkg-curnow-china-in-africa-00030401-story-body.jpg";mObj.lgImageX=300;mObj.lgImageY=169;mObj.origImageX="214";mObj.origImageY="120";mObj.contentType='video';CNN.expElements.expand13Store=mObj;Both initiatives add to the more established activities of China's news agency, Xinhua, which in recent years has deepened its partnerships with African media outlets and provides them with news from across the world as well as from the dozens of African countries where it has correspondents.

var currExpandable="expand14";if(typeof CNN.expandableMap==='object'){CNN.expandableMap.push(currExpandable);}var mObj={};mObj.type='video';mObj.contentId='';mObj.source='business/2012/09/03/marketplace-africa-kenya-china-broadcasting-cctv.cnn';mObj.videoSource='CNN';mObj.videoSourceUrl='';mObj.lgImage="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120903014633-marketplace-africa-kenya-china-broadcasting-cctv-00003512-story-body.jpg";mObj.lgImageX=300;mObj.lgImageY=169;mObj.origImageX="214";mObj.origImageY="120";mObj.contentType='video';CNN.expElements.expand14Store=mObj;The lightning growth of Chinese media is part of the dramatic expansion of the presence of Chinese diplomats, peacekeepers, commercial actors (state-owned or private) and ordinary citizens that has been transforming the African continent in the last 10-15 years

From Angola's oilfields and Dakar's markets to Congo's mines and Nairobi newsrooms, supply and demand centers are being reconfigured, cultural encounters are shaking social networks and alternative political alliances are emerging. The new developments in the media offer an interesting lens to highlight the trade-offs and learning curves that define the increasingly complex China-Africa story.

Read related: Chinese media make inroads into Africa

Chinese media present a radical challenge to Western style journalism.
Dr Harry Verhoeven & Dr Iginio GagliardoneIn a context of Africa's growing importance to the global economy, Chinese media present a radical challenge to Western style journalism.

As was highlighted at a recent conference at Oxford University, Chinese news media are seeking to compete with players such as CNN and Al Jazeera, but they are rolling out what they claim is a different approach to journalism. What Chinese media are offering to Africa is "positive reporting," a style of journalism that focuses on collective achievements rather than divisive issues like political crises or sensational negative news like famines.

Their message is that Africa, similarly to China, has received too much negative publicity in the Western-dominated global media. In this view, Chinese and African voices are finally finding ways to tell their own stories which offer a healthy correction to stereotypes of Africa as the "hopeless continent," with endless wars, HIV and hunger.

The Africa of today, while still consumed by many intractable problems, is no longer the Africa of the 1990s: Millions of Africans are seizing on unprecedented opportunities to build new lives.

This optimistic message about Africa turning a corner has faced criticism on different fronts. One of the most pertinent charges is that "positive reporting" fails to deliver on one of the main mandates of journalism: acting as a watchdog and keeping those in power in check, rather than praising them for their successes.

The tight controls on the media landscape that dominate public debates in China are being mirrored in coverage of Africa, which does not question Beijing's ties with unsavory regimes like Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Dos Santos's Angola, and which does little of the important investigative journalism that is required to ensure Africa's real economic growth does not just accrue to the top 1% in society.

Read related: Is the West losing out to China in Africa?

Yet however justified the questioning of uncritical positive reporting about African economies and their political regulators is, the main risk of reporting Africa is not simply on the tone of the reporting: rather, it is the ability to shed clichés and use the resources available to promote a better knowledge of the continent.

A major potential pitfall is that an equally stereotypical positive image will substitute a stereotypical negative image of Africa.
Dr Harry Verhoeven & Dr Iginio GagliardoneA major potential pitfall is that an equally stereotypical positive image will substitute a stereotypical negative image of Africa. There is a crowd of self-appointed experts of the continent who are reinventing clichés to stress Africa's untapped potential, when just a few years ago they were the propagators of a relentless Afro-pessimism.

This is unhelpful in terms of understanding what is happening in dynamic but confusing countries like Ethiopia, Nigeria or Mozambique. Nor can it be considered empowering for ordinary Africans who will continue to feel that media coverage ignores the complex dilemmas, challenges and opportunities they face as the continent tries to reinvent itself.

Read related: The Africans looking to make it in China

A second major danger lies in a creeping ideologization of the debate: An opportunity to bring new energy to the debate on how to produce good journalism risks being wasted by entrenchment of old positions and repetition of sterile debates.

The Cold War world witnessed a battle between positive and negative reporting that did not do much good to journalism. Western-style journalism risks being complacent and stressing its moral superiority in supporting "investigative work" while not realizing that uncovering corruption in Africa and not having the resources to follow up on that story will produce little or no results, apart from praise to the brave (probably white, middle aged) journalist who reported it.

Similarly, Chinese journalists may feel too attached to their idea of telling upbeat stories that they will miss many opportunities to learn about the complexities of the continent. That is a shame, because Chinese media would gain enormous international respect -- and a strong bond with African media consumers -- if they were able to expose corruption cases in which Chinese companies and individuals are involved.

We believe that in today's rapidly changing Africa, there is great room for experimentation and mutual learning: the continent could be at the forefront of an overdue exercise in soul searching by the international media, whether Asian, Arab, African or Western.

Above all, we expect that China will not just continue to reshape Africa in the coming years, but that Africa itself will force the likes of CCTV and Xinhua to participate in more intensive internal and external discussions about freedom of expression, the links between media, human rights and development, and the commercial durability of an artificial good news show.

As China engages Africa through the media, it is also in turn engaged and forced to think critically about itself: the greatest geopolitical force for change on the continent could find itself more changed than it originally signed up for.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Harry Verhoeven and Iginio Gagliardone.

View the original article here

Reporting conflict in Syria

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Some months ago, I reflected on the difficulties of reporting from Syria. The deaths of Marie Colvin and a dozen other journalists in the country so far this year has given us cause to think long and hard about the very real dangers there. But so too does the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria, and the need to try to separate fact from fiction.

Damascus prides itself on being the oldest, continually inhabited city in the world. It also has the longest history of rumours passing for fact.

I spent three days in Syria earlier this week, talking to all sides involved in the current conflict. Waking up on my first morning, social media was alive with reports that the mobile phone network was down. True enough, I could access the hotel wi-fi but not place a call. On Twitter and Facebook, people claimed the phones had been turned off as the precursor to a major military assault. The truth it seems was more prosaic. It's the high school exam season in Syria - diplomats claimed the real reason was the phone network had been turned off to prevent students cheating. Even in a conflict zone, good grades count for a lot.

In the aftermath of the massacre at Houla last month, initial reports said some of the 49 children and 34 women killed had their throats cut. In Damascus, Western officials told me the subsequent investigation revealed none of those found dead had been killed in such a brutal manner. Moreover, while Syrian forces had shelled the area shortly before the massacre, the details of exactly who carried out the attacks, how and why were still unclear. Whatever the cause, officials fear the attack marks the beginning of the sectarian aspect of the conflict.

In such circumstances, it's more important than ever that we report what we don't know, not merely what we do. In Houla, and now in Qubair, the finger has been pointed at the shabiha, pro-government militia. But tragic death toll aside, the facts are few: it's not clear who ordered the killings - or why.

Given the difficulties of reporting inside Syria, video filed by the opposition on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube may provide some insight into the story on the ground. But stories are never black and white - often shades of grey. Those opposed to President Assad have an agenda. One senior Western official went as far as to describe their YouTube communications strategy as "brilliant". But he also likened it to so-called "psy-ops", brainwashing techniques used by the US and other military to convince people of things that may not necessarily be true.

A healthy scepticism is one of the essential qualities of any journalist - never more so than in reporting conflict. The stakes are high - all may not always be as it seems.

Jon Williams is the BBC World News editor.

View the original article here

Gevaren van Fluoride- en massa medicatie rapportage

Mass medication through water systems of the world began in 1951 with fluoridation. The optimum level was originally set at the rate of 1 part per million (1ppm) and considered safe.Fluoridation of the public drinking water however has many risks and dangers.

The most obvious question we must ask in trying to assess the purpose of this unusual action taken to medicate the public water supplies, is to enquire as to its real purpose. Health authorities approved fluoridation ostensibly is for the improvement of the teeth of the people. The assumption is that fluoride will improve tooth enamel and that all people will require the same amount of this chemical regardless of their age.

Firstly there is irrefutable evidence from prominent medical researchers, showing this chemical that is sufficiently toxic as to have asserted its place as a rat poison, is also harmful to humans when ingested.

In spite of this, fluoride not only continues to be used in many chemical and even pharmaceutical products but has for decades been deliberately pumped into our Australian public water supplies in spite of extensive demonstrations of objection by groups and individuals. This has left a situation where those members of the community who do not wish to have the quality of their drinking water downgraded in this way must purchase water filters in their home, laboratories, factories and hospitals. Food processing and therapeutic products and industries have been particularly affected. It would be difficult to assess the negative damage to the health of the whole community.

Logical arguments have had no influence in changing the decisions of health departments and medical authorities on a national scale in Australia and will have not the power to do so as long as state governments retain the authority on health issues. Over the years, many scientists and individuals from many countries in the world have put forward their objections. These include the following points as a basis for their argument.....

Regarding the claimed benefit to dental health:

Firstly why should it be seen to be a priority over any other health issues prevalent in the community, such as heart trouble, cancer, diabetes and other diseases? Only a minute percentage of public water will be consumed by children in the suggested time frame when there is potential benefit to their developing teeth. In fact, over-dosing of fluoride produces irregularities in the enamel of children. Appreciating that the recommended safe dose is 1ppm but difficult to guarantee that pumping stations produce an accurate dilution of the toxin in amounts that are totally safe......and that a tube of toothpaste contains up to 1500 ppm and a can of commercial fruit juice contains about 2.8 ppm and mouth rinses from 230-900 ppm we can only conclude that the majority of people in western countries are probably over the toxic limit of ingestion of fluoride prior to any water content analysis. This factor alone leaves commercial enterprises open to exhaustive litigation as the councils and water authorities and even dentists. Gum irritations and allergies are common, not only in those using fluoride toothpaste but in drinking water and medical drugs that are fluorinated.

African American children are shown to be more susceptible to fluorosis or tooth mottling than whites. This demonstrates a need to consider racial constitution as a factor in mass medicine. Those who choose to medicate with fluoride and are persuaded it is to their dental benefit are free to do so through controlled tablet intake.

REGARDING GENERAL HEALTH ISSUES:

Need for Pure Water

It has always been acknowledged that pure water is the basis of good health so accent should be directed by responsible community guardians towards extracting any untoward elements in the water rather than injecting toxic substances into it, even at 1ppm. There is no way to demonstrate that there is any scientific way to control the amount of fluoride any individual will ingest through their water intake because of personal differences in habit, thus making it, along with any other proposed mass medication, an offence against medical principles.

Compulsory Medication is Unethical

To endure compulsory medication through water, the most essential element for health represents a pollution that offends both our aims to good health and is a crime against our democratic principles of personal freedom of choice.

Proven Dangers and Risks

Excessive fluoride or fluorine components in the body that can occur with certain medical drugs produce mild to extreme symptoms and even fatal consequences. The dangers are not only physical such as interfering with thyroid function but include extreme mental and emotional irregularities. This has been a line of research following outbreaks of violent and irrational behavior of young teenagers that have been demonstrated over the last years.

Obesity - Heart Disease - Kidney problems- Cancer -

Obesity is now reaching epidemic proportions in western countries. The toxic affect of fluoride upon the function of the thyroid gland is considered to be a causative factor. As aluminium cookware was last century considered a serious cause of cancer and dementia, fluoride toxicity is suspected of being a factor in this as in many other diseases such as bone deformation, premature aging and nerve and brain diseases. Seemingly co-incidental with fluoridation of water supplies in the twentieth century has been the explosion of cancer and other serious health issues.

Brain and Mental Disease

Many generally prescribed medications and drugs in western countries contain fluoride in considerable amount to make them questionable negative factors and suspected of being the cause of many allergies and conditions as serious as psychotic behavior, depression, and inhibited mental abilities. Warnings include many specific drugs such as Prozac, Luvoc, Lescol, Lipitor, Crestor, Baycol with the last having been removed from the American market after fatalities from adverse reactions.

Pregnancy

Pregnant Women are advised to take no fluoride as it can damage brain function and hormones in the foetus.

Elderly

Elderly are at equal risk as fluoridated water is indicated as a possible main cause of Alzheimer's and dementia.

Children

Children have been harmed by fluoridation and medications containing flurorine and derivatives to the extent that the numerous cases have led to parents forming support groups to lobby for changes. Most recent research shows the link between fluoride and Asperger's disease and autism because of the accumulative lead component involved.

Political Tarnish:

Motivation for the introduction of tons of fluoride into public water supplies is tarnished by considerations that are politically rather than therapeutic in their aims. This is a subject that has been explored by some who seek a reason for such an extreme and illogical action such as fluoridation. Some go further to claim that the practice violates the Nuremberg code regarding restriction on human experimentation.

Industrial Pollution:

The practice is claimed as a convenient dumping ground for industrial wastes. Some believe that the aluminium and fertilizer industries that produce fluoride as a by-product found a convenient and profitable disposal of toxic waste in the public water supply. Fluoride buried in the earth kills plant life. In the air kills stock. In the water...?

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTION:

There is an almost overwhelming amount of evidence accumulating in scientific journals and forums warning of the dangers and risks of our present water fluoridation system upon health. It is widely accepted that it is unsafe a method and entirely uncontrollable in dosage. The factor of chemical allergy and damage to physiological function also give cause for great concern. On these issues there are many doctors and scientists adding their voice and is best said by Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner for Medicine (2000). "I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

Dr Peter Mansfield physician from UK and member of the advisory board to the government review of fluoridation (2000) states...

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.' It is a preposterous notion." The very existence of an organization 'Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children', founded by Andreas Schuld, a recognized leading expert on fluorides, says enough.

International Consent/Dissent:

The International Dental Federation (FDI) first recommended water fluoridation in 1951. In Europe, since that date it is estimated that more than 53 million people who endured water fluoridation for years are now free of its pollution. Many countries have now ceased the practice. There are now only 6 countries where the people are still compelled to drink fluoridated water: USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Columbia and Singapore.

Australia - fluoridation, in spite of hot protest and many public demonstrations is now in many states. At one time the Tasmanian government sought to pass a Bill to "Prohibit public meetings on fluoridation." Our Australian Constitution allows 'the provision of..medical and dental services, but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription.' On this basis in time fluoridation and any further attempt at mass medication will be banned.

Austria - Some report fluoride has never been added to the water supply but others say in 1956. and that caries in children decreased after stopping in 1973.

Belgium -on the basis that drinking water is not the place to deliver medicinal treatment to people fluoridation was never accepted

Canada -The Green Party of Canada seeks to end water fluoridation in Canada by introducing legislation that will ban fluoridation in Canada at the federal level, effectively overriding any and all local mandates that say otherwise. At present fluoridation of water is in current use but remains a highly controversial issue.

Japan introduced in 1952, stopped 1972 with subsequent rejection of artificial fluoridation. Sweden introduced in 1952 and withdrawn 1971 Sweden banned fluorides in drinking water, toothpaste and food.

Norway - In the later 1990's decision was taken against ever fluoridating the water

Finland introduced 1959 in one town stopped 1993 for the right of individual freedom to enjoy pure water.

Netherlands introduced 1953 withdrawn 1976 after legal ruling of the Supreme Court that there was no legal basis for fluoridation.

China- Fluoridation is banned

Czech Republic - since 1993 no treatment with fluoride has taken place on the basis of it being uneconomical, against ecological patterns, unethical, and its toxicological influence debatable.

Denmark - No Danish city has ever been fluoridated

European Union Less than 2% of the drinking water in Europe is fluoridated.

France - Fluoride is not added to treatment of water for ethical as well as medical reasons.

Germany introduced 1952 and withdrawn in 1971. It is now banned as unethical. German Democratic Republic introduced in 1959 and withdrawn 1990.

Greece - has never fluoridated water, perhaps in order to retain democratic freedom?

Hungary - once fluoridated but ceased in 1960's and now chooses to remain so.

India - has been working hard to eliminate naturally occurring fluorides from drinking water that is high in the natural groundwater. 17 of its 32 states are afflicted with people suffering crippling skeletal fluorosis without adding more toxic material.

Israel - after serious study and recent suspension of mandatory fluoridation in 2006, it is now rejected.

Italy -has strict laws against adding fluorides to drinking water.

New Zealand - is in two minds and is recently urging promotion of fluoridation.

Northern Ireland - for a short period only fluoridation in two localities but later ceased.

Scotland - never had fluoridation been introduced and in 2004 plans to add fluoride to the country's water system continued to be rejected.

Spain- a few areas practiced fluoridation of the water supplies

Switzerland in 2003 the country voted to cease Basel's water fluoridation program that had been functioning for about 40 years.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics introduced 1960 stopped 1990

United States of America 60% of the States fluoridate their water but 200 cities have withdrawn it.

UK- fluoridation is considered by many who are fighting for its ban, to be illegal medical research. They argue that its implementation is against freedom and constitutional rights of the individual. Against all opposition, efforts of health agencies continue to push for further fluoridation of Britain, with the same power as occurred at a critical time before decision to join the European Union and surrender of the national will to its dictates.

From the information which is available to us all on the internet, the problems are considerable and cannot be commented on in detail enough to satisfy our enquiry here. There are about 202,000 postings on the dangers of fluoridation and 432,000 and 727 videos on the subject on the side effects of fluoridation, presenting us with a considerable amount of data to consider if we wish to explore this controversial matter for ourselves and assess without bias the reports of professionals.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Gevaren van Fluoride- en massa medicatie rapportage

Mass medication through water systems of the world began in 1951 with fluoridation. The optimum level was originally set at the rate of 1 part per million (1ppm) and considered safe.Fluoridation of the public drinking water however has many risks and dangers.

The most obvious question we must ask in trying to assess the purpose of this unusual action taken to medicate the public water supplies, is to enquire as to its real purpose. Health authorities approved fluoridation ostensibly is for the improvement of the teeth of the people. The assumption is that fluoride will improve tooth enamel and that all people will require the same amount of this chemical regardless of their age.

Firstly there is irrefutable evidence from prominent medical researchers, showing this chemical that is sufficiently toxic as to have asserted its place as a rat poison, is also harmful to humans when ingested.

In spite of this, fluoride not only continues to be used in many chemical and even pharmaceutical products but has for decades been deliberately pumped into our Australian public water supplies in spite of extensive demonstrations of objection by groups and individuals. This has left a situation where those members of the community who do not wish to have the quality of their drinking water downgraded in this way must purchase water filters in their home, laboratories, factories and hospitals. Food processing and therapeutic products and industries have been particularly affected. It would be difficult to assess the negative damage to the health of the whole community.

Logical arguments have had no influence in changing the decisions of health departments and medical authorities on a national scale in Australia and will have not the power to do so as long as state governments retain the authority on health issues. Over the years, many scientists and individuals from many countries in the world have put forward their objections. These include the following points as a basis for their argument.....

Regarding the claimed benefit to dental health:

Firstly why should it be seen to be a priority over any other health issues prevalent in the community, such as heart trouble, cancer, diabetes and other diseases? Only a minute percentage of public water will be consumed by children in the suggested time frame when there is potential benefit to their developing teeth. In fact, over-dosing of fluoride produces irregularities in the enamel of children. Appreciating that the recommended safe dose is 1ppm but difficult to guarantee that pumping stations produce an accurate dilution of the toxin in amounts that are totally safe......and that a tube of toothpaste contains up to 1500 ppm and a can of commercial fruit juice contains about 2.8 ppm and mouth rinses from 230-900 ppm we can only conclude that the majority of people in western countries are probably over the toxic limit of ingestion of fluoride prior to any water content analysis. This factor alone leaves commercial enterprises open to exhaustive litigation as the councils and water authorities and even dentists. Gum irritations and allergies are common, not only in those using fluoride toothpaste but in drinking water and medical drugs that are fluorinated.

African American children are shown to be more susceptible to fluorosis or tooth mottling than whites. This demonstrates a need to consider racial constitution as a factor in mass medicine. Those who choose to medicate with fluoride and are persuaded it is to their dental benefit are free to do so through controlled tablet intake.

REGARDING GENERAL HEALTH ISSUES:

Need for Pure Water

It has always been acknowledged that pure water is the basis of good health so accent should be directed by responsible community guardians towards extracting any untoward elements in the water rather than injecting toxic substances into it, even at 1ppm. There is no way to demonstrate that there is any scientific way to control the amount of fluoride any individual will ingest through their water intake because of personal differences in habit, thus making it, along with any other proposed mass medication, an offence against medical principles.

Compulsory Medication is Unethical

To endure compulsory medication through water, the most essential element for health represents a pollution that offends both our aims to good health and is a crime against our democratic principles of personal freedom of choice.

Proven Dangers and Risks

Excessive fluoride or fluorine components in the body that can occur with certain medical drugs produce mild to extreme symptoms and even fatal consequences. The dangers are not only physical such as interfering with thyroid function but include extreme mental and emotional irregularities. This has been a line of research following outbreaks of violent and irrational behavior of young teenagers that have been demonstrated over the last years.

Obesity - Heart Disease - Kidney problems- Cancer -

Obesity is now reaching epidemic proportions in western countries. The toxic affect of fluoride upon the function of the thyroid gland is considered to be a causative factor. As aluminium cookware was last century considered a serious cause of cancer and dementia, fluoride toxicity is suspected of being a factor in this as in many other diseases such as bone deformation, premature aging and nerve and brain diseases. Seemingly co-incidental with fluoridation of water supplies in the twentieth century has been the explosion of cancer and other serious health issues.

Brain and Mental Disease

Many generally prescribed medications and drugs in western countries contain fluoride in considerable amount to make them questionable negative factors and suspected of being the cause of many allergies and conditions as serious as psychotic behavior, depression, and inhibited mental abilities. Warnings include many specific drugs such as Prozac, Luvoc, Lescol, Lipitor, Crestor, Baycol with the last having been removed from the American market after fatalities from adverse reactions.

Pregnancy

Pregnant Women are advised to take no fluoride as it can damage brain function and hormones in the foetus.

Elderly

Elderly are at equal risk as fluoridated water is indicated as a possible main cause of Alzheimer's and dementia.

Children

Children have been harmed by fluoridation and medications containing flurorine and derivatives to the extent that the numerous cases have led to parents forming support groups to lobby for changes. Most recent research shows the link between fluoride and Asperger's disease and autism because of the accumulative lead component involved.

Political Tarnish:

Motivation for the introduction of tons of fluoride into public water supplies is tarnished by considerations that are politically rather than therapeutic in their aims. This is a subject that has been explored by some who seek a reason for such an extreme and illogical action such as fluoridation. Some go further to claim that the practice violates the Nuremberg code regarding restriction on human experimentation.

Industrial Pollution:

The practice is claimed as a convenient dumping ground for industrial wastes. Some believe that the aluminium and fertilizer industries that produce fluoride as a by-product found a convenient and profitable disposal of toxic waste in the public water supply. Fluoride buried in the earth kills plant life. In the air kills stock. In the water...?

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTION:

There is an almost overwhelming amount of evidence accumulating in scientific journals and forums warning of the dangers and risks of our present water fluoridation system upon health. It is widely accepted that it is unsafe a method and entirely uncontrollable in dosage. The factor of chemical allergy and damage to physiological function also give cause for great concern. On these issues there are many doctors and scientists adding their voice and is best said by Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner for Medicine (2000). "I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

Dr Peter Mansfield physician from UK and member of the advisory board to the government review of fluoridation (2000) states...

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.' It is a preposterous notion." The very existence of an organization 'Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children', founded by Andreas Schuld, a recognized leading expert on fluorides, says enough.

International Consent/Dissent:

The International Dental Federation (FDI) first recommended water fluoridation in 1951. In Europe, since that date it is estimated that more than 53 million people who endured water fluoridation for years are now free of its pollution. Many countries have now ceased the practice. There are now only 6 countries where the people are still compelled to drink fluoridated water: USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Columbia and Singapore.

Australia - fluoridation, in spite of hot protest and many public demonstrations is now in many states. At one time the Tasmanian government sought to pass a Bill to "Prohibit public meetings on fluoridation." Our Australian Constitution allows 'the provision of..medical and dental services, but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription.' On this basis in time fluoridation and any further attempt at mass medication will be banned.

Austria - Some report fluoride has never been added to the water supply but others say in 1956. and that caries in children decreased after stopping in 1973.

Belgium -on the basis that drinking water is not the place to deliver medicinal treatment to people fluoridation was never accepted

Canada -The Green Party of Canada seeks to end water fluoridation in Canada by introducing legislation that will ban fluoridation in Canada at the federal level, effectively overriding any and all local mandates that say otherwise. At present fluoridation of water is in current use but remains a highly controversial issue.

Japan introduced in 1952, stopped 1972 with subsequent rejection of artificial fluoridation. Sweden introduced in 1952 and withdrawn 1971 Sweden banned fluorides in drinking water, toothpaste and food.

Norway - In the later 1990's decision was taken against ever fluoridating the water

Finland introduced 1959 in one town stopped 1993 for the right of individual freedom to enjoy pure water.

Netherlands introduced 1953 withdrawn 1976 after legal ruling of the Supreme Court that there was no legal basis for fluoridation.

China- Fluoridation is banned

Czech Republic - since 1993 no treatment with fluoride has taken place on the basis of it being uneconomical, against ecological patterns, unethical, and its toxicological influence debatable.

Denmark - No Danish city has ever been fluoridated

European Union Less than 2% of the drinking water in Europe is fluoridated.

France - Fluoride is not added to treatment of water for ethical as well as medical reasons.

Germany introduced 1952 and withdrawn in 1971. It is now banned as unethical. German Democratic Republic introduced in 1959 and withdrawn 1990.

Greece - has never fluoridated water, perhaps in order to retain democratic freedom?

Hungary - once fluoridated but ceased in 1960's and now chooses to remain so.

India - has been working hard to eliminate naturally occurring fluorides from drinking water that is high in the natural groundwater. 17 of its 32 states are afflicted with people suffering crippling skeletal fluorosis without adding more toxic material.

Israel - after serious study and recent suspension of mandatory fluoridation in 2006, it is now rejected.

Italy -has strict laws against adding fluorides to drinking water.

New Zealand - is in two minds and is recently urging promotion of fluoridation.

Northern Ireland - for a short period only fluoridation in two localities but later ceased.

Scotland - never had fluoridation been introduced and in 2004 plans to add fluoride to the country's water system continued to be rejected.

Spain- a few areas practiced fluoridation of the water supplies

Switzerland in 2003 the country voted to cease Basel's water fluoridation program that had been functioning for about 40 years.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics introduced 1960 stopped 1990

United States of America 60% of the States fluoridate their water but 200 cities have withdrawn it.

UK- fluoridation is considered by many who are fighting for its ban, to be illegal medical research. They argue that its implementation is against freedom and constitutional rights of the individual. Against all opposition, efforts of health agencies continue to push for further fluoridation of Britain, with the same power as occurred at a critical time before decision to join the European Union and surrender of the national will to its dictates.

From the information which is available to us all on the internet, the problems are considerable and cannot be commented on in detail enough to satisfy our enquiry here. There are about 202,000 postings on the dangers of fluoridation and 432,000 and 727 videos on the subject on the side effects of fluoridation, presenting us with a considerable amount of data to consider if we wish to explore this controversial matter for ourselves and assess without bias the reports of professionals.

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.