Why you shouldn't be scared of these super changes
The election might be over, but the next big scare campaign is just getting started. The subject this time is the Albanese government's planned changes to taxes on superannuation.
There seems to be an endless supply of news articles on this topic, ranging from concerned tutting to full-blown doomsaying and accusations of class war. Almost all this coverage misses the mark; these changes, while modest, are an important first step in reforming Australia's broken and unequal superannuation system.
So, what's changing?
Currently, most people get a tax concession on their superannuation earnings (the money made by your super investments). Rather than being taxed at your marginal tax rate, the money made from your super investments is only taxed at 15 per cent. That is a lot less than the top income tax rate of 45 per cent (plus the Medicare levy).
But the government is proposing to raise the tax on superannuation balances of over $3 million. These people will pay an additional 15 per cent on earnings.
Importantly though, it is only on the amount above $3 million. For instance, if you have $4 million in super, you will only pay additional tax on a quarter of your earnings.
The tax is projected to raise $2.3 billion in its first full year, and $40 billion over a decade.
If $3 million in super sounds like a lot of money; that's because it is. Very few of us have anywhere near that amount of super. According to Treasury, the tax will initially affect 80,000 people or one in 200 (0.5 per cent) super account holders. For comparison, according to the most recent Tax Office data, less than half of people in their 60s have more than $250,000 in super.
To be clear, this is a modest change to a broken system.
Superannuation tax concessions were originally justified to help people save for a comfortable retirement. But they have become a tax avoidance machine that funnels money to the top and subsidises inheritances for rich families.
Tax concessions on superannuation cost the government about $60 billion every year, nearly as much as the Age Pension. They disproportionately benefit high-income earners, with more flowing to the top 10 per cent ($22 billion) than the bottom 70 per cent combined.
Crucially, the $2.3 billion raised by this reform is a lot smaller than the $22 billion the top 10% currently receive in tax concessions. Even after the changes, superannuation tax concessions will still disproportionately benefit high-income earners.
So, what's all the fuss about?
The most common criticism is that the $3 million threshold is not 'indexed' to inflation, and so although only the very, very rich have $3 million in super at the moment, with time it might be a lot more of us. This is greatly overblown; according to Treasury modelling even in 30 years, only the top 10 per cent of taxpayers may have to pay any additional tax at all.
Also, a future government can always just raise the bracket if they want to. Income tax brackets are not indexed either, and governments change them regularly. Yet commentators are acting like taxes on super can't ever again be adjusted, with some making claims that the tax will affect many Gen Z people when they retire ... in 40 years!
History shows how silly this is. Australia's income tax brackets have changed drastically and frequently in the last 40 years. If Australia had the same tax brackets now as it did 40 years ago, anyone earning over $36,000 a year would be in the top tax bracket of 60 per cent - including anyone in a minimum wage job working full-time, and even some working part-time.
If people are truly concerned about this "indexation issue", they could simply support the Greens' amendment to lower the threshold to $2 million and index this amount to inflation. This would still only affect the very rich.
According to the most recent Tax Office data, less than one in 100 (0.6 per cent) of super account holders have more than $2 million in superannuation.
For those that are truly concerned with the welfare and future of Gen Z, there are better priorities than speculating that in 40 years they maybe ... might ... if you include some questionable assumptions ... pay a bit more tax.
For instance, climate change will certainly drastically impact their lives, yet Australia continues to intensify this crisis, continuing to expand fossil fuel projects and spending over $10 billion on fossil fuel subsidies every year.
Another issue raising much scaremongering is that the tax will apply to "unrealised capital gains".
Capital gains are when the value of an asset (such a property) rises. 'Unrealised' means that the asset hasn't been sold yet. Critics seem to think this is inherently unfair, but unrealised capital gains are a real form of income. For instance, if the value of your assets rises, you can borrow against this value regardless of whether you've sold them yet.
Others speculate that this will somehow undermine or crash the economy. Much analysis fails to recognise that Australia already has an effective tax on unrealised capital gains: the asset test on the Age Pension.
If the value of your assets rises, the amount of Age Pension you can receive drops; in economic terms, this works the same way as a tax, yet the Australian economy has somehow survived.
READ MORE:
Lastly, there are concerns that this will harm people with small businesses or farms. This is only true if people are currently holding their business or farm in their super account.
Why would people do this? Because the huge tax concessions on superannuation encourages people to pile all their assets into their super account to avoid paying tax. This is not the purpose of superannuation, and definitely not the purpose of the tax concessions.
These changes will not fully fix the superannuation system, but nor will they crash the economy, bankrupt Gen Z, or destroy farmers and small business owners. They are, however, an important first step in reducing inequality in Australia.
The election might be over, but the next big scare campaign is just getting started. The subject this time is the Albanese government's planned changes to taxes on superannuation.
There seems to be an endless supply of news articles on this topic, ranging from concerned tutting to full-blown doomsaying and accusations of class war. Almost all this coverage misses the mark; these changes, while modest, are an important first step in reforming Australia's broken and unequal superannuation system.
So, what's changing?
Currently, most people get a tax concession on their superannuation earnings (the money made by your super investments). Rather than being taxed at your marginal tax rate, the money made from your super investments is only taxed at 15 per cent. That is a lot less than the top income tax rate of 45 per cent (plus the Medicare levy).
But the government is proposing to raise the tax on superannuation balances of over $3 million. These people will pay an additional 15 per cent on earnings.
Importantly though, it is only on the amount above $3 million. For instance, if you have $4 million in super, you will only pay additional tax on a quarter of your earnings.
The tax is projected to raise $2.3 billion in its first full year, and $40 billion over a decade.
If $3 million in super sounds like a lot of money; that's because it is. Very few of us have anywhere near that amount of super. According to Treasury, the tax will initially affect 80,000 people or one in 200 (0.5 per cent) super account holders. For comparison, according to the most recent Tax Office data, less than half of people in their 60s have more than $250,000 in super.
To be clear, this is a modest change to a broken system.
Superannuation tax concessions were originally justified to help people save for a comfortable retirement. But they have become a tax avoidance machine that funnels money to the top and subsidises inheritances for rich families.
Tax concessions on superannuation cost the government about $60 billion every year, nearly as much as the Age Pension. They disproportionately benefit high-income earners, with more flowing to the top 10 per cent ($22 billion) than the bottom 70 per cent combined.
Crucially, the $2.3 billion raised by this reform is a lot smaller than the $22 billion the top 10% currently receive in tax concessions. Even after the changes, superannuation tax concessions will still disproportionately benefit high-income earners.
So, what's all the fuss about?
The most common criticism is that the $3 million threshold is not 'indexed' to inflation, and so although only the very, very rich have $3 million in super at the moment, with time it might be a lot more of us. This is greatly overblown; according to Treasury modelling even in 30 years, only the top 10 per cent of taxpayers may have to pay any additional tax at all.
Also, a future government can always just raise the bracket if they want to. Income tax brackets are not indexed either, and governments change them regularly. Yet commentators are acting like taxes on super can't ever again be adjusted, with some making claims that the tax will affect many Gen Z people when they retire ... in 40 years!
History shows how silly this is. Australia's income tax brackets have changed drastically and frequently in the last 40 years. If Australia had the same tax brackets now as it did 40 years ago, anyone earning over $36,000 a year would be in the top tax bracket of 60 per cent - including anyone in a minimum wage job working full-time, and even some working part-time.
If people are truly concerned about this "indexation issue", they could simply support the Greens' amendment to lower the threshold to $2 million and index this amount to inflation. This would still only affect the very rich.
According to the most recent Tax Office data, less than one in 100 (0.6 per cent) of super account holders have more than $2 million in superannuation.
For those that are truly concerned with the welfare and future of Gen Z, there are better priorities than speculating that in 40 years they maybe ... might ... if you include some questionable assumptions ... pay a bit more tax.
For instance, climate change will certainly drastically impact their lives, yet Australia continues to intensify this crisis, continuing to expand fossil fuel projects and spending over $10 billion on fossil fuel subsidies every year.
Another issue raising much scaremongering is that the tax will apply to "unrealised capital gains".
Capital gains are when the value of an asset (such a property) rises. 'Unrealised' means that the asset hasn't been sold yet. Critics seem to think this is inherently unfair, but unrealised capital gains are a real form of income. For instance, if the value of your assets rises, you can borrow against this value regardless of whether you've sold them yet.
Others speculate that this will somehow undermine or crash the economy. Much analysis fails to recognise that Australia already has an effective tax on unrealised capital gains: the asset test on the Age Pension.
If the value of your assets rises, the amount of Age Pension you can receive drops; in economic terms, this works the same way as a tax, yet the Australian economy has somehow survived.
READ MORE:
Lastly, there are concerns that this will harm people with small businesses or farms. This is only true if people are currently holding their business or farm in their super account.
Why would people do this? Because the huge tax concessions on superannuation encourages people to pile all their assets into their super account to avoid paying tax. This is not the purpose of superannuation, and definitely not the purpose of the tax concessions.
These changes will not fully fix the superannuation system, but nor will they crash the economy, bankrupt Gen Z, or destroy farmers and small business owners. They are, however, an important first step in reducing inequality in Australia.
The election might be over, but the next big scare campaign is just getting started. The subject this time is the Albanese government's planned changes to taxes on superannuation.
There seems to be an endless supply of news articles on this topic, ranging from concerned tutting to full-blown doomsaying and accusations of class war. Almost all this coverage misses the mark; these changes, while modest, are an important first step in reforming Australia's broken and unequal superannuation system.
So, what's changing?
Currently, most people get a tax concession on their superannuation earnings (the money made by your super investments). Rather than being taxed at your marginal tax rate, the money made from your super investments is only taxed at 15 per cent. That is a lot less than the top income tax rate of 45 per cent (plus the Medicare levy).
But the government is proposing to raise the tax on superannuation balances of over $3 million. These people will pay an additional 15 per cent on earnings.
Importantly though, it is only on the amount above $3 million. For instance, if you have $4 million in super, you will only pay additional tax on a quarter of your earnings.
The tax is projected to raise $2.3 billion in its first full year, and $40 billion over a decade.
If $3 million in super sounds like a lot of money; that's because it is. Very few of us have anywhere near that amount of super. According to Treasury, the tax will initially affect 80,000 people or one in 200 (0.5 per cent) super account holders. For comparison, according to the most recent Tax Office data, less than half of people in their 60s have more than $250,000 in super.
To be clear, this is a modest change to a broken system.
Superannuation tax concessions were originally justified to help people save for a comfortable retirement. But they have become a tax avoidance machine that funnels money to the top and subsidises inheritances for rich families.
Tax concessions on superannuation cost the government about $60 billion every year, nearly as much as the Age Pension. They disproportionately benefit high-income earners, with more flowing to the top 10 per cent ($22 billion) than the bottom 70 per cent combined.
Crucially, the $2.3 billion raised by this reform is a lot smaller than the $22 billion the top 10% currently receive in tax concessions. Even after the changes, superannuation tax concessions will still disproportionately benefit high-income earners.
So, what's all the fuss about?
The most common criticism is that the $3 million threshold is not 'indexed' to inflation, and so although only the very, very rich have $3 million in super at the moment, with time it might be a lot more of us. This is greatly overblown; according to Treasury modelling even in 30 years, only the top 10 per cent of taxpayers may have to pay any additional tax at all.
Also, a future government can always just raise the bracket if they want to. Income tax brackets are not indexed either, and governments change them regularly. Yet commentators are acting like taxes on super can't ever again be adjusted, with some making claims that the tax will affect many Gen Z people when they retire ... in 40 years!
History shows how silly this is. Australia's income tax brackets have changed drastically and frequently in the last 40 years. If Australia had the same tax brackets now as it did 40 years ago, anyone earning over $36,000 a year would be in the top tax bracket of 60 per cent - including anyone in a minimum wage job working full-time, and even some working part-time.
If people are truly concerned about this "indexation issue", they could simply support the Greens' amendment to lower the threshold to $2 million and index this amount to inflation. This would still only affect the very rich.
According to the most recent Tax Office data, less than one in 100 (0.6 per cent) of super account holders have more than $2 million in superannuation.
For those that are truly concerned with the welfare and future of Gen Z, there are better priorities than speculating that in 40 years they maybe ... might ... if you include some questionable assumptions ... pay a bit more tax.
For instance, climate change will certainly drastically impact their lives, yet Australia continues to intensify this crisis, continuing to expand fossil fuel projects and spending over $10 billion on fossil fuel subsidies every year.
Another issue raising much scaremongering is that the tax will apply to "unrealised capital gains".
Capital gains are when the value of an asset (such a property) rises. 'Unrealised' means that the asset hasn't been sold yet. Critics seem to think this is inherently unfair, but unrealised capital gains are a real form of income. For instance, if the value of your assets rises, you can borrow against this value regardless of whether you've sold them yet.
Others speculate that this will somehow undermine or crash the economy. Much analysis fails to recognise that Australia already has an effective tax on unrealised capital gains: the asset test on the Age Pension.
If the value of your assets rises, the amount of Age Pension you can receive drops; in economic terms, this works the same way as a tax, yet the Australian economy has somehow survived.
READ MORE:
Lastly, there are concerns that this will harm people with small businesses or farms. This is only true if people are currently holding their business or farm in their super account.
Why would people do this? Because the huge tax concessions on superannuation encourages people to pile all their assets into their super account to avoid paying tax. This is not the purpose of superannuation, and definitely not the purpose of the tax concessions.
These changes will not fully fix the superannuation system, but nor will they crash the economy, bankrupt Gen Z, or destroy farmers and small business owners. They are, however, an important first step in reducing inequality in Australia.
The election might be over, but the next big scare campaign is just getting started. The subject this time is the Albanese government's planned changes to taxes on superannuation.
There seems to be an endless supply of news articles on this topic, ranging from concerned tutting to full-blown doomsaying and accusations of class war. Almost all this coverage misses the mark; these changes, while modest, are an important first step in reforming Australia's broken and unequal superannuation system.
So, what's changing?
Currently, most people get a tax concession on their superannuation earnings (the money made by your super investments). Rather than being taxed at your marginal tax rate, the money made from your super investments is only taxed at 15 per cent. That is a lot less than the top income tax rate of 45 per cent (plus the Medicare levy).
But the government is proposing to raise the tax on superannuation balances of over $3 million. These people will pay an additional 15 per cent on earnings.
Importantly though, it is only on the amount above $3 million. For instance, if you have $4 million in super, you will only pay additional tax on a quarter of your earnings.
The tax is projected to raise $2.3 billion in its first full year, and $40 billion over a decade.
If $3 million in super sounds like a lot of money; that's because it is. Very few of us have anywhere near that amount of super. According to Treasury, the tax will initially affect 80,000 people or one in 200 (0.5 per cent) super account holders. For comparison, according to the most recent Tax Office data, less than half of people in their 60s have more than $250,000 in super.
To be clear, this is a modest change to a broken system.
Superannuation tax concessions were originally justified to help people save for a comfortable retirement. But they have become a tax avoidance machine that funnels money to the top and subsidises inheritances for rich families.
Tax concessions on superannuation cost the government about $60 billion every year, nearly as much as the Age Pension. They disproportionately benefit high-income earners, with more flowing to the top 10 per cent ($22 billion) than the bottom 70 per cent combined.
Crucially, the $2.3 billion raised by this reform is a lot smaller than the $22 billion the top 10% currently receive in tax concessions. Even after the changes, superannuation tax concessions will still disproportionately benefit high-income earners.
So, what's all the fuss about?
The most common criticism is that the $3 million threshold is not 'indexed' to inflation, and so although only the very, very rich have $3 million in super at the moment, with time it might be a lot more of us. This is greatly overblown; according to Treasury modelling even in 30 years, only the top 10 per cent of taxpayers may have to pay any additional tax at all.
Also, a future government can always just raise the bracket if they want to. Income tax brackets are not indexed either, and governments change them regularly. Yet commentators are acting like taxes on super can't ever again be adjusted, with some making claims that the tax will affect many Gen Z people when they retire ... in 40 years!
History shows how silly this is. Australia's income tax brackets have changed drastically and frequently in the last 40 years. If Australia had the same tax brackets now as it did 40 years ago, anyone earning over $36,000 a year would be in the top tax bracket of 60 per cent - including anyone in a minimum wage job working full-time, and even some working part-time.
If people are truly concerned about this "indexation issue", they could simply support the Greens' amendment to lower the threshold to $2 million and index this amount to inflation. This would still only affect the very rich.
According to the most recent Tax Office data, less than one in 100 (0.6 per cent) of super account holders have more than $2 million in superannuation.
For those that are truly concerned with the welfare and future of Gen Z, there are better priorities than speculating that in 40 years they maybe ... might ... if you include some questionable assumptions ... pay a bit more tax.
For instance, climate change will certainly drastically impact their lives, yet Australia continues to intensify this crisis, continuing to expand fossil fuel projects and spending over $10 billion on fossil fuel subsidies every year.
Another issue raising much scaremongering is that the tax will apply to "unrealised capital gains".
Capital gains are when the value of an asset (such a property) rises. 'Unrealised' means that the asset hasn't been sold yet. Critics seem to think this is inherently unfair, but unrealised capital gains are a real form of income. For instance, if the value of your assets rises, you can borrow against this value regardless of whether you've sold them yet.
Others speculate that this will somehow undermine or crash the economy. Much analysis fails to recognise that Australia already has an effective tax on unrealised capital gains: the asset test on the Age Pension.
If the value of your assets rises, the amount of Age Pension you can receive drops; in economic terms, this works the same way as a tax, yet the Australian economy has somehow survived.
READ MORE:
Lastly, there are concerns that this will harm people with small businesses or farms. This is only true if people are currently holding their business or farm in their super account.
Why would people do this? Because the huge tax concessions on superannuation encourages people to pile all their assets into their super account to avoid paying tax. This is not the purpose of superannuation, and definitely not the purpose of the tax concessions.
These changes will not fully fix the superannuation system, but nor will they crash the economy, bankrupt Gen Z, or destroy farmers and small business owners. They are, however, an important first step in reducing inequality in Australia.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Liberals flip-flopping on super tax talks, Jim Chalmers says
Jim Chalmers is claiming the opposition is flip-flopping on super tax talks as the mudslinging over the controversial proposal intensifies. The Treasurer has accused the Coalition of shutting the door on negotiations to pass a version of the reforms through the Senate when parliament resumes in August. His opposition counterpart Ted O'Brien has accused him of doing the same and choosing to deal with the Greens instead. Mr Chalmers said on Thursday there was 'a lot of disunity in the Coalition' on the tax. 'First of all, on my opposite number, one day he said he wanted to have a discussion about it, the next day he said that he didn't,' he told the ABC. 'There's a lot of disunity in the Coalition over this. 'They seem to have different views amongst them and different views from day to day.' Mr Chalmers also said the Albanese government had 'been very clear from the beginning we don't have the numbers in the Senate to pass our legislation on our own'. 'We need to engage with the crossbench in particular in this instance, and I intend to do that,' he said. 'And I'll have discussions with the spokesperson from the Greens, Nick McKim, whose appointment was announced yesterday. 'I'll have discussions with him between now and the parliament returning. 'But our intention, our preference, is to legislate the plan that we announced almost 2½ years ago now.' Critics have blasted the proposal to roll back concessions on ultra-high super balances as a tax on unrealised gains that would penalise younger generations down the track. Only half a per cent of Australians – some 80,000 – have super balances north of $3m. But Labor has admitted that 1.2m superannuants would be captured within 30 years. The Albanese government has also argued that super holders in the top half per cent would still be eligible for 'generous' concessions and it was fair that they contribute more. Also speaking to the ABC, the shadow treasurer accused Mr Chalmers of framing himself as a 'modern-day Robin Hood'. 'The Treasurer is not being upfront,' Mr O'Brien said. 'And the reason is he's wanting to pretend he's sort of some modern-day Robin Hood, taking from the fat cats with multimillion-dollar portfolios to fund the good deeds of government. 'That's not right because they're not indexing it, which means a young person today who earns average salary, pays the super contributions over time, they will get paid into the super account – they're going to hit that threshold which is why you have got organisations like Wilson Asset Management saying that over eight million Australians will end up paying this over the next few decades.' Anthony Albanese again defended the policy, telling reporters in Melbourne there was 'not anything new here'. 'This has been before the parliament for about two years,' the Prime Minister said. 'What we need to do is make sure that our superannuation system is fair. That is what we are setting out to do.'
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Flip-flop claim amid super tax mudslinging
Jim Chalmers is claiming the opposition is flip-flopping on super tax talks as the mudslinging over the controversial proposal intensifies. The Treasurer has accused the Coalition of shutting the door on negotiations to pass a version of the reforms through the Senate when parliament resumes in August. His opposition counterpart Ted O'Brien has accused him of doing the same and choosing to deal with the Greens instead. Mr Chalmers said on Thursday there was 'a lot of disunity in the Coalition' on the tax. Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the Coalition is flip-flopping on super tax talks. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'First of all, on my opposite number, one day he said he wanted to have a discussion about it, the next day he said that he didn't,' he told the ABC. 'There's a lot of disunity in the Coalition over this. 'They seem to have different views amongst them and different views from day to day.' Mr Chalmers also said the Albanese government had 'been very clear from the beginning we don't have the numbers in the Senate to pass our legislation on our own'. 'We need to engage with the crossbench in particular in this instance, and I intend to do that,' he said. 'And I'll have discussions with the spokesperson from the Greens, Nick McKim, whose appointment was announced yesterday. 'I'll have discussions with him between now and the parliament returning. 'But our intention, our preference, is to legislate the plan that we announced almost 2½ years ago now.' Critics have blasted the proposal to roll back concessions on ultra-high super balances as a tax on unrealised gains that would penalise younger generations down the track. Only half a per cent of Australians – some 80,000 – have super balances north of $3m. But Labor has admitted that 1.2m superannuants would be captured within 30 years. The Albanese government has also argued that super holders in the top half per cent would still be eligible for 'generous' concessions and it was fair that they contribute more. Also speaking to the ABC, the shadow treasurer accused Mr Chalmers of framing himself as a 'modern-day Robin Hood'. Deputy Opposition Leader Ted O'Brien says Labor 'is not being upfront' about the super tax. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia 'The Treasurer is not being upfront,' Mr O'Brien said. 'And the reason is he's wanting to pretend he's sort of some modern-day Robin Hood, taking from the fat cats with multimillion-dollar portfolios to fund the good deeds of government. 'That's not right because they're not indexing it, which means a young person today who earns average salary, pays the super contributions over time, they will get paid into the super account – they're going to hit that threshold which is why you have got organisations like Wilson Asset Management saying that over eight million Australians will end up paying this over the next few decades.' Anthony Albanese again defended the policy, telling reporters in Melbourne there was 'not anything new here'. 'This has been before the parliament for about two years,' the Prime Minister said. 'What we need to do is make sure that our superannuation system is fair. That is what we are setting out to do.'
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Australian news and politics live: Albanese open to Coalition talks on super tax, Rockliff threatens election
Scroll down for the latest news and updates. Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the government is prepared to work with the crossbench to secure passage of Labor's superannuation tax changes. Asked whether the government was offering a 'take-it-or-leave-it' deal and if concessions had been ruled out with the Greens, Chalmers said: 'We don't have the numbers in the Senate to pass our legislation on our own. We need to engage with the crossbench, in particular, in this instance. And I intend to do that,' while speaking to ABC RN Breakfast. He added, 'Our intention, our preference, is to legislate the plan that we announced almost two-and-a-half years ago now.' Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff says he will seek to dissolve parliament and call an early election, as Labor prepares to test his majority in a no-confidence vote. The Liberal leader announced the move ahead of a showdown in parliament this morning, where Opposition Leader Dean Winter is expected to bring the motion to a vote. Mr Rockliff said he would advise the Governor to trigger an election unless Mr Winter can form Government with the Greens. 'This will be an election that Tasmanians don't want and Tasmania cannot afford,' he said. The world delivered a message to old male politicians this week: give up the sexist jokes. After one of the men appointed to run the NSW Liberal Party, Alan Stockdale, quipped that male candidates might require protection, he was verbally pummelled by women and men from the left and right. 'Women are sufficiently assertive now,' the former Victorian treasurer told an online meeting of Liberal women, 'that we should be giving some thought to whether we need to protect men's involvement.' Stockdale apologised after the comment was leaked, and it became obvious his opponents' plan to use them to argue he and two other federally appointed administrators should stand down at the end of this month. 'I encourage assertive women to join the Liberal Party,' federal leader Sussan Ley said. Read more. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reiterated that bullying allegations against former Greens Senator Dorinda Cox, who recently defected to Labor, have already been addressed through an independent process. Albanese was responding to questions about claims made by senator Lidia Thorpe, who has criticised the handling of the complaints as 'far from satisfactory.' 'I have answered those questions, but they were dealt with. There is an independent process for those things to be dealt with,' Albanese said. 'It is not surprising that the Greens political party will put forward some opposition to what has occurred, but Senator Cox has made a decision, and she has decided that the way that she will advance her values is through a party of government.' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has signaled he is open to input from both the Greens and the Coalition on Labor's proposed superannuation tax for balances above $3 million, despite ongoing political tensions over the policy. While Treasurer Jim Chalmers has prioritised negotiations with the Greens, Albanese indicated the government would consider suggestions from all parties as the legislation returns to the Senate. 'The Greens usually do not have good points and I will allow them to put forward whatever they want to do, as the Liberal Party will, as will other senators, no doubt,' Mr Albanese said. 'We have put forward our position. That was before the Senate for some time. It did not receive support prior to the election, but then again, the Greens and the Liberals joined to form the 'No-alition', and to vote against public housing, to vote against a whole range of projects. We will wait and see.' As he faces a vote of no-confidence, Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff has defended his record, highlighting investments in health, education, and community safety, and Tasmania's record-low unemployment. 'I have a lot more fight in me. We have built a better Tasmania, we have invested in health, we have invested to keep children safe, we have invested in our schools, in community safety, and we have created an economy that is leading the nation with record-low unemployment,' he said. 'I cannot let Mr Winter's selfish grab for power destroy what we have built over the course of the last decade. 'The only job Mr Winter is interested in is mine. And I'm not going anywhere.' Tasmania's Premier Jeremy Rockliff faces a likely defeat today as parliament resumes debate on a no-confidence motion backed by Labor, the Greens, and crossbenchers. Rockliff has warned that if the motion passes, he will ask the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve parliament and trigger Tasmania's fourth state election in seven years. 'Today is a big day. Today, if Mr Winter's divisive and destructive motion is passed, I will be going to the Lieutenant Governor and seeking an election,' Rockliff said. 'This will be an election that Tasmanians don't want and Tasmania cannot afford. Be that on Mr Winter's head. This has been a selfish grab for power of which Tasmanians will look upon very poorly indeed.' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has sharply criticised former Liberal Party President Alan Stockdale's comments about 'assertive' women in the party, calling on the Liberals to examine their internal culture and structures. 'The statements by Mr Stockdale to the Liberal Women's Group, of all people to make those statements to, that somehow you might need to actually have discrimination in favour of men because women were too assertive in the Liberal Party, has been met with derision by members of the Liberal Party,' he said. Albanese argued the incident highlights deeper issues within the opposition's approach to gender representation. 'I think that the Liberal Party need to have a good look at themselves and their structures and it will be interesting to watch what goes on with this restructuring of the New South Wales branch,' he added. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has made it clear that Australia will not sign a free trade agreement with the European Union unless it delivers tangible benefits for the nation. Trade Minister Don Farrell is currently in Europe to restart negotiations after talks broke down in 2023, largely over agricultural market access, a key sticking point that remains unresolved. Albanese said the government supports free and fair trade but will only agree to a deal that serves Australia's interests. 'We will seek a deal that is good enough for Australia. If it benefits us, we will be in it. If it doesn't, we will continue to not sign up to something that is not in our national interest,' he said. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is addressing the media at a press conference in Melbourne, reaffirming Labor's commitment to making Australia's superannuation system fairer, defending the government's plan to double the tax rate on super balances over $3 million from 15 to 30 per cent. Asked whether the proposal is unfair to farmers, Albanese sidestepped and instead stressed the policy's long-standing presence. 'There is not anything new here. This has been before the parliament for about two years,' he said. The government's proposal, which could impact around 80,000 people initially, is designed to target those with very large super balances, though some experts warn more Australians may be affected over time as the $3 million threshold is not indexed to inflation. Albanese said the priority is to ensure the system is fair for all Australians: 'What we need to do is make sure that our superannuation system is fair. That is what we are setting about to do.' Nationals Deputy Leader Kevin Hogan has criticised Treasurer Jim Chalmers for entering negotiations with the Greens to pass Labor's proposed tax on superannuation balances above $3 million. Mr Hogan has accused the government of forming an 'alliance' with the minor party, warning it signals the beginning of a 'very high spending Labor-Greens alliance over the next three years.' 'We weren't ever going to negotiate on tax and unrealised gains. We think that's almost immoral,' Mr Hogan told Sky News, adding that the lack of indexation would affect a huge number of people. 'Not indexing, that is not okay either, because obviously the amount of people that would get affected by that would be enormous.' 'What they're talking about with principles, is they want more of your money. This is going to be a really high spending Labor-Greens alliance… and I think this is their stage one… they want more of your money,' he said.
