Sky News' Peter Stefanovic accuses Labor's super tax reform of falling under 'socialism umbrella' as MP cornered over the bill's long-term effects
The proposed legislation will apply a 30 per cent tax rate to super balances more than $3 million, including unrealised capital gains.
The $3 million threshold has not been indexed, meaning it will gradually drag more taxpayers into the tax net over time.
The measure has been projected to raise $2.3 billion in the first year and $40 billion over a decade.
Sky News First Edition host Peter Stefanovic pressed the Labor MP on the policy and said it seemed 'unreasonable' and 'totally bizarre' to tax an unrealised gain.
Mr Thistlethwaite said the proposed legislation would only affect a 'very, very small proportion' of people, but was then held to the fact more would be affected by the framework over time as wages increase.
'Essentially, it's an equality argument. We're saying that people shouldn't be able to shift income into superannuation to avoid paying their fair share. Now, if you don't tax it in that manner, then it means that people will simply shift all of their assets into property,' Mr Thistlethwaite said.
Asked why the tax was being put on unrealised gains instead of other kinds of revenue, such as businesses investments, Mr Thistlethwaite repeated it was based on an 'equality argument'.
'The average Australian worker, a nurse, a teacher, a childcare worker, they can't shift much of their income into superannuation to avoid paying their fair share of tax,' he said.
'But that less than one per cent of the population can because they're high-income earners. We don't believe that that's fair. We think that everyone should pay their fair share.'
Mr Thistlethwaite's response attracted scepticism from Stefanovic, who pounced on the 'one per cent' argument.
'I think a lot of economists agree that there's opportunity in super - there is opportunity in super - it's just the idea of taxing something that hasn't happened yet, that's under the socialism umbrella,' Stefanovic said.
Mr Thistlethwaite said if the legislation was not set up in such a way, there was a risk of 'undermining the actual purpose' of why the framework was being put in place.
He said people could simply shift their money into other assets and avoid paying the tax.
Asked who would be affected by the taxable threshold of $3 million in 20 years, Mr Thistlethwaite said 'at the moment, it's less than one per cent of the population'.
Stefanovic repeated the question, to which the Labor Assistant Minister said the government could 'always adjust policies into the future'.
' We did take it to the election, so it's not like we're springing it on people. And it's essentially an equality argument,' he said.
Outgoing Liberal Senator for NSW Hollie Hughes, who joined the panel, said it was 'just unbelievable' the Labor government was coming down on unrealised gains.
'We've now got such a high proportion of our tax system based in income tax. There are ways that it could be reformed,' she said.
' As someone departing the parliament, I hope that the Labor Party, in a similar way that Bob Hawke worked with John Howard, that there was able to be significant tax reform with serious parties of government actually able to work through this constructively. And again not this pie in the sky,' she said.
'I mean, unrealised gains is just unbelievable theft.
'But they're not relying on the Greens to pass this stuff, because if you want socialism, you'll get out and out communism if you let the Greens near it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
7 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Qantas braced for mammoth penalty
Qantas is braced to find out how much it is expected to pay in penalties after it unlawfully sacked more than 1800 ground staff. The airline was found to have acted unlawfully three times when it fired 1820 staff in favour of outsourced contractors during the height of the Covid pandemic. While an earlier compensation hearing before Justice Michael Lee found Qantas should pay $120m to impacted workers, a further three-day hearing May sought to decide the additional penalty Qantas must pay for the 2020 decision. The maximum penalty Qantas can be ordered to pay is $121m, on top of the compensation fund that is now in the process of being administered to workers. Since Justice Lee reserved his decision in May, many sacked Qantas workers have anxiously awaited the final figure. The court will decide what Qantas must pay on top of the $120m compensation fund which is now in the process of being administered to workers. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia On Monday, he is expected to reveal the full amount, which should be well into the millions. The Federal Court earlier found that Qantas had acted against protections in the Fair Work Act in its outsourcing and was partly motivated by a desire to prevent industrial action. The airline appealed the decision to the full bench of the Federal Court and later the High Court, both of which were unsuccessful. After losing the appeal, the union and Qantas went to mediation to determine how much Qantas would have to pay the outsourced workers for economic losses linked to lost wages. TWU secretary Michael Kaine told media ahead of the hearing the airline's decision to get rid of a 'loyal workforce' was 'appalling' and the 'biggest case of illegal sackings in Australian corporate history'. 'The penalty to Qantas must reflect this and send a message to every other company in Australia that you cannot sack your workers to prevent them from using their industrial rights,' he said. Meanwhile, Noel Hutley SC told the court in May that Qantas should pay the maximum penalty given its decision was the 'largest ever instance of the contravention of the Fair Work Act'. He said Qantas was faced with an 'once-in-a-lifetime opportunity' during the pandemic to save more than $100m per year by outsourcing workers and were driven by the 'temptation of the potential to produce a massive profit'. Qantas recorded a $1.5bn in earnings for the first half of the 2025 financial year – $916m of that from its domestic operations, including its budget carrier Jetstar. Qantas/NewsWire Credit: Supplied However, Qantas barrister Justin Gleeson SC said any penalty close to the maximum would be 'manifestly unfair'. 'Qantas has accepted the seriousness of its conduct,' he said. 'The court can and should impose a significant deterrent penalty. However, it is in effect a first contravention (of the Fair Work Act).' On the first day of the hearing, Qantas people manager Catherine Walsh took the stand and issued an apology on the airline's behalf. 'I want to reinforce that we are deeply sorry, and we apologise for the impact on the workers, the TWU (Transport Workers Union), to the court for their time and to the family and friends that felt the impacts, we are deeply sorry,' she said. However, the airline was later criticised for failing to call Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson during the hearing, and instead calling Ms Walsh, who was not employed by Qantas at the time of the sackings. 'One would have thought if you were truly contrite, you would put someone in the witness box who was there at the relevant time,' Justice Lee said. The TWU is seeking a large majority of the penalty and also argued affected workers should receive further compensation. The funds may otherwise will go directly to the Commonwealth.
The Advertiser
25 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
When foreign 'contractors' are considered to be employees
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac. The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable. But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply. The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal. The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore. As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained: "The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia." She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms. "Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor." In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit. That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee. Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said. That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now? Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers: "It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured." She also stressed that regular reviews are important: "We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes." Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise. Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit. Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year? Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments. Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us? Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
The Advertiser
26 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Home Affairs looks at external threats, but the biggest one's within
International affairs is having a big impact on national politics in Australia. The ongoing war in Ukraine, questions about the relationship between Australia and China, and the Albanese government's decision to recognise Palestine at the United Nations in September have arguably elevated international events well above domestic policy issues at this moment in the political debate. It was within this context that the Defence Force recently announced that it has enjoyed a boost in recruitment. According to data released earlier this month, more than 1800 more people joined Defence compared to last year. The organisation touted that the last financial year saw the highest number of people join the permanent and reserve forces in 15 years. Despite this outcome, there remain some important questions that must be addressed as Defence aims to grow the force to its target of 69,000 by the 2030s. At the national level, maintaining the health of Australia's democratic system has become a high-profile issue. As an organisation, Defence's mission is to focus on defending the country and its interests, while enhancing the nation's "security and prosperity". There have also been efforts to strengthen democracy by agencies focused within Australia. Recognising that democracy was valuable and required nurturing were key themes of a report published in 2024 by the Department of Home Affairs. In it, the department highlighted how factors such as foreign interference, artificial intelligence, and misinformation and disinformation could erode democratic ideals. While Defence and the Department of Home Affairs emphasise the importance of maintaining Australia's democratic principles, there are major deficiencies that threaten to undermine the operation of democracy in this country. Chief among these challenges is building the political knowledge and skills of young Australians to become confident agents of positive change. National and state authorities have sought to build young Australians' understanding about their system of politics and government through civics and citizenship education over recent decades. As a subject delivered from Years 3-10, civics and citizenship seeks to build students' knowledge on topics such as democracy, as well as their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Building political knowledge is critical as it equips citizens with important skills that can strengthen democracy, including the confidence to engage in democratic processes as individuals and members of a community, and understand how decisions are made. National testing of Year 6 and Year 10 students has occurred regularly since 2004 through the National Assessment Program-Civics and Citizenship (NAP-CC). Key data in this report focuses on the percentage of students achieving the "proficient standard" which is defined as a "'challenging but reasonable' expectation of student achievement". The most recent NAP-CC report was published earlier this year. The percentage of Year 6 students achieving the proficient standard fell to under 50 per cent for the first time in testing history, with just 43 per cent of Year 6 students hitting the mark. The results at the Year 10 level are worse. Just 28 per cent of students achieved the proficient level. This is well below the 38 per cent results achieved in 2019 and 2016, and well below the highest result of 49 per cent in 2010. The results in Year 10 are more problematic as students may never have the opportunity to learn more about civics, citizenship, or democracy if they do not enrol in an elective subject such as legal studies or politics in Year 11 or 12. These results indicate that there are many young people who may be leaving school without a sound understanding about their nation's system of government, politics, or democracy. This raises questions about how democracy may be nurtured effectively within this context. This is not to say that young people are apathetic or indifferent when it comes to politics. Far from it. Young people continue to be at the forefront of political action in Australia. Leading campaigns on climate change and the conflict in the Middle East, for example, serve as reminders of how young people are politically engaged and active. They are passionate and plugged-in members of the community who are seeking to lead change. Despite this, there must be greater support for the development of young people's political knowledge. When we previously researched the experiences of school leavers, many young people we spoke with argued that civics and citizenship classes could be delivered as targeted refresher classes before graduation. Supporting teachers to help deliver effective civics classes was also something that young people highlighted as being important. Defence can have ambitions of increasing recruits to defend the national interest, and the Department of Home Affairs can aspire to protect democracy. Unless we focus on improving civics and citizenship education outcomes, the gaps in young people's understanding in this space has the potential to impact the quality and operation of Australia's democratic system for years to come. International affairs is having a big impact on national politics in Australia. The ongoing war in Ukraine, questions about the relationship between Australia and China, and the Albanese government's decision to recognise Palestine at the United Nations in September have arguably elevated international events well above domestic policy issues at this moment in the political debate. It was within this context that the Defence Force recently announced that it has enjoyed a boost in recruitment. According to data released earlier this month, more than 1800 more people joined Defence compared to last year. The organisation touted that the last financial year saw the highest number of people join the permanent and reserve forces in 15 years. Despite this outcome, there remain some important questions that must be addressed as Defence aims to grow the force to its target of 69,000 by the 2030s. At the national level, maintaining the health of Australia's democratic system has become a high-profile issue. As an organisation, Defence's mission is to focus on defending the country and its interests, while enhancing the nation's "security and prosperity". There have also been efforts to strengthen democracy by agencies focused within Australia. Recognising that democracy was valuable and required nurturing were key themes of a report published in 2024 by the Department of Home Affairs. In it, the department highlighted how factors such as foreign interference, artificial intelligence, and misinformation and disinformation could erode democratic ideals. While Defence and the Department of Home Affairs emphasise the importance of maintaining Australia's democratic principles, there are major deficiencies that threaten to undermine the operation of democracy in this country. Chief among these challenges is building the political knowledge and skills of young Australians to become confident agents of positive change. National and state authorities have sought to build young Australians' understanding about their system of politics and government through civics and citizenship education over recent decades. As a subject delivered from Years 3-10, civics and citizenship seeks to build students' knowledge on topics such as democracy, as well as their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Building political knowledge is critical as it equips citizens with important skills that can strengthen democracy, including the confidence to engage in democratic processes as individuals and members of a community, and understand how decisions are made. National testing of Year 6 and Year 10 students has occurred regularly since 2004 through the National Assessment Program-Civics and Citizenship (NAP-CC). Key data in this report focuses on the percentage of students achieving the "proficient standard" which is defined as a "'challenging but reasonable' expectation of student achievement". The most recent NAP-CC report was published earlier this year. The percentage of Year 6 students achieving the proficient standard fell to under 50 per cent for the first time in testing history, with just 43 per cent of Year 6 students hitting the mark. The results at the Year 10 level are worse. Just 28 per cent of students achieved the proficient level. This is well below the 38 per cent results achieved in 2019 and 2016, and well below the highest result of 49 per cent in 2010. The results in Year 10 are more problematic as students may never have the opportunity to learn more about civics, citizenship, or democracy if they do not enrol in an elective subject such as legal studies or politics in Year 11 or 12. These results indicate that there are many young people who may be leaving school without a sound understanding about their nation's system of government, politics, or democracy. This raises questions about how democracy may be nurtured effectively within this context. This is not to say that young people are apathetic or indifferent when it comes to politics. Far from it. Young people continue to be at the forefront of political action in Australia. Leading campaigns on climate change and the conflict in the Middle East, for example, serve as reminders of how young people are politically engaged and active. They are passionate and plugged-in members of the community who are seeking to lead change. Despite this, there must be greater support for the development of young people's political knowledge. When we previously researched the experiences of school leavers, many young people we spoke with argued that civics and citizenship classes could be delivered as targeted refresher classes before graduation. Supporting teachers to help deliver effective civics classes was also something that young people highlighted as being important. Defence can have ambitions of increasing recruits to defend the national interest, and the Department of Home Affairs can aspire to protect democracy. Unless we focus on improving civics and citizenship education outcomes, the gaps in young people's understanding in this space has the potential to impact the quality and operation of Australia's democratic system for years to come. International affairs is having a big impact on national politics in Australia. The ongoing war in Ukraine, questions about the relationship between Australia and China, and the Albanese government's decision to recognise Palestine at the United Nations in September have arguably elevated international events well above domestic policy issues at this moment in the political debate. It was within this context that the Defence Force recently announced that it has enjoyed a boost in recruitment. According to data released earlier this month, more than 1800 more people joined Defence compared to last year. The organisation touted that the last financial year saw the highest number of people join the permanent and reserve forces in 15 years. Despite this outcome, there remain some important questions that must be addressed as Defence aims to grow the force to its target of 69,000 by the 2030s. At the national level, maintaining the health of Australia's democratic system has become a high-profile issue. As an organisation, Defence's mission is to focus on defending the country and its interests, while enhancing the nation's "security and prosperity". There have also been efforts to strengthen democracy by agencies focused within Australia. Recognising that democracy was valuable and required nurturing were key themes of a report published in 2024 by the Department of Home Affairs. In it, the department highlighted how factors such as foreign interference, artificial intelligence, and misinformation and disinformation could erode democratic ideals. While Defence and the Department of Home Affairs emphasise the importance of maintaining Australia's democratic principles, there are major deficiencies that threaten to undermine the operation of democracy in this country. Chief among these challenges is building the political knowledge and skills of young Australians to become confident agents of positive change. National and state authorities have sought to build young Australians' understanding about their system of politics and government through civics and citizenship education over recent decades. As a subject delivered from Years 3-10, civics and citizenship seeks to build students' knowledge on topics such as democracy, as well as their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Building political knowledge is critical as it equips citizens with important skills that can strengthen democracy, including the confidence to engage in democratic processes as individuals and members of a community, and understand how decisions are made. National testing of Year 6 and Year 10 students has occurred regularly since 2004 through the National Assessment Program-Civics and Citizenship (NAP-CC). Key data in this report focuses on the percentage of students achieving the "proficient standard" which is defined as a "'challenging but reasonable' expectation of student achievement". The most recent NAP-CC report was published earlier this year. The percentage of Year 6 students achieving the proficient standard fell to under 50 per cent for the first time in testing history, with just 43 per cent of Year 6 students hitting the mark. The results at the Year 10 level are worse. Just 28 per cent of students achieved the proficient level. This is well below the 38 per cent results achieved in 2019 and 2016, and well below the highest result of 49 per cent in 2010. The results in Year 10 are more problematic as students may never have the opportunity to learn more about civics, citizenship, or democracy if they do not enrol in an elective subject such as legal studies or politics in Year 11 or 12. These results indicate that there are many young people who may be leaving school without a sound understanding about their nation's system of government, politics, or democracy. This raises questions about how democracy may be nurtured effectively within this context. This is not to say that young people are apathetic or indifferent when it comes to politics. Far from it. Young people continue to be at the forefront of political action in Australia. Leading campaigns on climate change and the conflict in the Middle East, for example, serve as reminders of how young people are politically engaged and active. They are passionate and plugged-in members of the community who are seeking to lead change. Despite this, there must be greater support for the development of young people's political knowledge. When we previously researched the experiences of school leavers, many young people we spoke with argued that civics and citizenship classes could be delivered as targeted refresher classes before graduation. Supporting teachers to help deliver effective civics classes was also something that young people highlighted as being important. Defence can have ambitions of increasing recruits to defend the national interest, and the Department of Home Affairs can aspire to protect democracy. Unless we focus on improving civics and citizenship education outcomes, the gaps in young people's understanding in this space has the potential to impact the quality and operation of Australia's democratic system for years to come. International affairs is having a big impact on national politics in Australia. The ongoing war in Ukraine, questions about the relationship between Australia and China, and the Albanese government's decision to recognise Palestine at the United Nations in September have arguably elevated international events well above domestic policy issues at this moment in the political debate. It was within this context that the Defence Force recently announced that it has enjoyed a boost in recruitment. According to data released earlier this month, more than 1800 more people joined Defence compared to last year. The organisation touted that the last financial year saw the highest number of people join the permanent and reserve forces in 15 years. Despite this outcome, there remain some important questions that must be addressed as Defence aims to grow the force to its target of 69,000 by the 2030s. At the national level, maintaining the health of Australia's democratic system has become a high-profile issue. As an organisation, Defence's mission is to focus on defending the country and its interests, while enhancing the nation's "security and prosperity". There have also been efforts to strengthen democracy by agencies focused within Australia. Recognising that democracy was valuable and required nurturing were key themes of a report published in 2024 by the Department of Home Affairs. In it, the department highlighted how factors such as foreign interference, artificial intelligence, and misinformation and disinformation could erode democratic ideals. While Defence and the Department of Home Affairs emphasise the importance of maintaining Australia's democratic principles, there are major deficiencies that threaten to undermine the operation of democracy in this country. Chief among these challenges is building the political knowledge and skills of young Australians to become confident agents of positive change. National and state authorities have sought to build young Australians' understanding about their system of politics and government through civics and citizenship education over recent decades. As a subject delivered from Years 3-10, civics and citizenship seeks to build students' knowledge on topics such as democracy, as well as their rights and responsibilities as citizens. Building political knowledge is critical as it equips citizens with important skills that can strengthen democracy, including the confidence to engage in democratic processes as individuals and members of a community, and understand how decisions are made. National testing of Year 6 and Year 10 students has occurred regularly since 2004 through the National Assessment Program-Civics and Citizenship (NAP-CC). Key data in this report focuses on the percentage of students achieving the "proficient standard" which is defined as a "'challenging but reasonable' expectation of student achievement". The most recent NAP-CC report was published earlier this year. The percentage of Year 6 students achieving the proficient standard fell to under 50 per cent for the first time in testing history, with just 43 per cent of Year 6 students hitting the mark. The results at the Year 10 level are worse. Just 28 per cent of students achieved the proficient level. This is well below the 38 per cent results achieved in 2019 and 2016, and well below the highest result of 49 per cent in 2010. The results in Year 10 are more problematic as students may never have the opportunity to learn more about civics, citizenship, or democracy if they do not enrol in an elective subject such as legal studies or politics in Year 11 or 12. These results indicate that there are many young people who may be leaving school without a sound understanding about their nation's system of government, politics, or democracy. This raises questions about how democracy may be nurtured effectively within this context. This is not to say that young people are apathetic or indifferent when it comes to politics. Far from it. Young people continue to be at the forefront of political action in Australia. Leading campaigns on climate change and the conflict in the Middle East, for example, serve as reminders of how young people are politically engaged and active. They are passionate and plugged-in members of the community who are seeking to lead change. Despite this, there must be greater support for the development of young people's political knowledge. When we previously researched the experiences of school leavers, many young people we spoke with argued that civics and citizenship classes could be delivered as targeted refresher classes before graduation. Supporting teachers to help deliver effective civics classes was also something that young people highlighted as being important. Defence can have ambitions of increasing recruits to defend the national interest, and the Department of Home Affairs can aspire to protect democracy. Unless we focus on improving civics and citizenship education outcomes, the gaps in young people's understanding in this space has the potential to impact the quality and operation of Australia's democratic system for years to come.
