Aussie voters face big question after Canadian election
A centre-left party comes from behind in the polls to win an election fought over living costs and Donald Trump.
Sound familiar?
With just days until Saturday's poll, political insiders are dissecting the results of an election on the other side of the world.
Canada's ruling Liberal Party - which shares a name with Australia's conservative party but occupies the other side of the political spectrum - has won enough seats to retain government.
It's a remarkable outcome for the Liberals, who were 20 percentage points behind in the polls earlier this year.
The progressive party looked headed for a crushing defeat until the US president started attacking Canada's economy and threatening its sovereignty, suggesting it should become the 51st state.
Donald Trump's actions enraged Canadians and stoked a surge in nationalism that helped the Liberals flip the script and win a fourth-straight term.
The opposition wanted to make the election a referendum on former prime minister Justin Trudeau, who was waning in popularity as food, power and housing prices surged.
But Mr Trudeau soon quit and was replaced as leader ahead of the election, with disaffected voters flocking back to his party as Mr Trump threatened annexation and a trade war.
There are obvious differences between the Canadian experience and Australian election but also some parallels, including the upending influence of Mr Trump.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reflected on this trend during an interview with one of the world's most popular podcasts, The Rest is Politics.
He described the US president's impact on the Australian campaign as far less than people believed, unlike in Canada, where it was "brutal".
"It is more distant but certainly the uncertainty that is in the global economy and the world has an impact as well," Mr Albanese said.
During the podcast interview, Mr Albanese referenced the US president in relation to Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
Mr Dutton was "channelling some other world leaders we're seeing" and "bringing a machismo" to politics, he said.
Mr Dutton's campaign has suffered by association with the US president, with Labor accusing the coalition of adopting a Trumpian agenda through measures including public service job cuts.
After lagging in opinion polls, Labor is considered in the box seat to form minority government, if not obtain power in its own right.
Political strategist Jack Milroy, who has worked on progressive campaigns in Canada and Australia, said the US relationship would be less of a factor on Saturday but voters were still conscious of the global instability.
"The Canadian example has kind of shown that a strong approach to the US seems to pay dividends politically," he told AAP.
"The Labor Party is in a good position for our election, but it will be interesting to see how they relate to the US going forward."
Mr Milroy will be looking to see whether support for Australia's two major parties increases in response to global headwinds, as happened in Canada.
Published polling suggests Australian voters have drifted from Labor and the coalition in favour of independents and minor parties.
"What will be very interesting is if we see a reversal of that trend to follow the Canadian example," he said.
"And in that search for security, voters come back to the major parties."
Mr Albanese will address the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, while Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will begin the day in Melbourne.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
26 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Like winning lotto': $300,000-a-year public servant pensions under fire in super tax battle
Would a 90-year-old need a half-a-million-dollar per year pension to live on? As debate swirls around Labor's controversial superannuation tax changes, critics have set their sights on lucrative taxpayer-funded lifetime pensions paid to former high-ranking public servants and politicians which can stretch into hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Politicians who entered parliament before the October 2004 election, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Sussan Ley, are still accruing benefits under the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS), a defined benefit scheme which pays out an annual pension — indexed to inflation and calculated by a formula including the member's average salary and years of service — when the member leaves office or retires at 55. 'It's like winning lotto,' said veteran fund manager John Abernethy, founder and chairman of Clime Investment Management. 'These guys are giving themselves lotto wins and then complain about paying tax on the income.' Treasurer Jim Chalmers' proposed tax changes, known as Division 296, would double the rate from 15 per cent to 30 per cent for superannuation balances over $3 million and, most controversially, include unrealised gains on earnings on assets held by funds such as shares, farms and property. Labor first announced the crackdown on tax concessions for very large super balances in 2023, but the legislation was blocked by the previous Senate. The changes look likely to become law as a deal with the Greens looms. Only around 80,000 Australians, or 0.5 per cent of the population, currently have super balances above $3 million, but industry groups have warned that if the threshold is not indexed to inflation it could eventually capture the majority of Gen Zs entering the workforce today. The measure is expected to initially claw back $2.7 billion a year and nearly $40 billion over a decade. 'What we need to do is make sure that our superannuation system is fair,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said this week. 'That is what we are setting out to do.' Division 296 will also be applied to defined benefit pensions to ensure 'commensurate treatment' as high-balance super funds — although unlike super account holders, those eligible will be able to defer the payments until they retire. Interest will be charged annually on the deferred tax liability at the 10-year bond rate, currently at around 4.5 per cent. Treasury estimates that 10,000 members with defined benefit interests will be impacted by the new tax in 2025-26, 'representing approximately 1 per cent of the total population with DB interests'. The Australian Council for Public Sector Retiree Organisations (ACPSRO), which represents more than 700,000 retired public servants, has flagged a possible challenge to the new law, arguing it's unfair. ASCPRO notes that unfunded pensions, which do not receive the 'generous and open-ended taxation concessions' available under regular superannuation, are already subject to normal income tax. Recipients who will be captured by the $3 million threshold are already paying a marginal tax rate of 45 per cent on that income, and Division 296 will likely take their marginal tax rate to 60 per cent, according to ASCPRO. 'I'm not stepping away from the fact that these are very wealthy people at the top of the public service — either retired High Court judges, Commonwealth department secretaries, deputy secretaries — it's a very small percentage but it's the principle of the thing,' said ASCPRO president John Pauley. 'Nowhere has the government explained to defined benefit pensioners how they're benefiting from tax concessions at present and therefore why it's fair, just and equitable for this additional tax impost to be paid on top of the tax they're already paying.' A person in an accumulation scheme who would be affected by the tax has the option of moving their assets out of super into another tax-effective vehicle such as a family trust, Mr Pauley argues, whereas those receiving defined benefit pensions have no such option. 'You're at the mercy of the government of the day,' he said. ASCPRO also takes issue with deferred interest being slugged on future pension payments. 'There is zero asset sitting behind these schemes — if you're unfortunate enough to get run over by a car two years into your pension there is nothing there [to leave to beneficiaries],' Mr Pauley said. 'This is the ultimate self-licking ice cream for the government. They are wanting to make people pay tax, not on unrealised capital gains, they're wanting people to pay tax on a hypothetical gain on an asset which doesn't exist, either during the accumulation phase or during the pension.' Mr Pauley estimated that for the roughly one million households receiving defined benefit pensions, the average was only in the range of $50,000. 'Teachers, nurses, police officers, members of the Defence Force, the bureaucrats who do the day-to-day work of government,' he said. 'Yes there's a few who are on very high incomes who have access to a defined benefit pension, [but] this wasn't something that is optional for them. When you signed up to work with the public sector it was a part of your workplace contract.' Mr Abernethy, however, argues any overhaul of super concessions should also include going back to the drawing board on the $166 billion unfunded liability 'black hole', which has continued to blow out beyond forecasts as existing members continue to accrue benefits prior to retirement. 'Just pay out the bloody benefits today and cap it at $3 million, if the government is saying $3 million is more than you should have in super,' he said. 'How about we have a come-to-God moment and say, 'If your net present value of your future pension is $10 million, I'm sorry, $3 million is more than enough. It's a windfall, guys, now you've got to look after yourself.' It would save the taxpayer a fortune.' He added that '[if someone says] that requires a complete renegotiation of what people thought they were entitled to — yes it does, come in spinner!' 'That's exactly what you're doing in super,' he said. 'Current taxpayers weren't even alive when these pensions were set. We've got $240 billion in the Future Fund, if that's not enough to clean out this liability and get rid of it then we better know now.' He suggested complaints about paying additional tax on defined benefit pensions were an apples-to-oranges comparison. 'Imagine I come up to you on the street, I don't know who you are, and promise to pay you $100 a year indexed for the rest of your life,' he said. 'Then in five years I say, 'Look, mate, I'm only going to give you $90.' Am I going to get angry? I didn't contribute to it, you're just taking $10 off my cashflow.' Mr Abernethy, in an op-ed last month, outlined what he saw as the 'diabolical issues' with defined benefits. He cited the example of a high-profile former politician, senior ADF officer or High Court judge in their early 70s who receives a $300,000 defined benefit pension this year. Assuming 3 per cent indexation, Mr Abernethy pointed out that at 75 years old the pension rises to $327,000, at 80 it rises to $380,000, at 85 it rises to $440,000, at 90 it rises to $510,000 and at 95 it reaches $590,000. 'Think about the numbers and you see that over the 10 years to 85, the pension receipts aggregate to about $4 million, and over the 10 years to 95 it aggregates to over $5 million,' he wrote. 'Would a 90-year-old need $510,000 a year to live on? Therefore, is it likely that these funds would flow from the beneficiary to others in a type of living estate? Is that what defined benefit pensions designed to do and are they consistent with Australia's superannuation policy?' Defined benefit schemes were phased out after former Treasurer Peter Costello realised the payments would explode the budget bottom line in future years if not closed off. The PSS has been closed to new members since 2005, while the earlier Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) was closed in 1990. The CSS is a hybrid accumulation-defined benefit scheme, with some benefits linked to final salary and others based on an accumulation of contributions with investment earnings. For military personnel, the defined benefit schemes are the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme and the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS). Following the closure of the MSBS in 2016, all defined benefit military schemes are now closed to new members. The schemes are unfunded or partially funded, meaning the payments come directly from tax revenue, to the tune of about $20 billion a year. In 2006, the government established the Future Fund with an initial contribution of $60.5 billion that included the proceeds from the sale of Telstra. The Future Fund was originally supposed to start paying out pensions in 2020 to take the burden off the taxpayer, but successive governments have delayed drawing from the fund. In November, Labor ruled out taking a dividend from the fund until at least 2032-33, when the savings pool is expected to have reached $380 billion. The announcement came as the Treasurer directed the Future Fund to prioritise investments in renewable energy, housing and infrastructure, sparking warnings that he was politicising the independently managed sovereign wealth fund. Former Labor Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who was appointed chair of Future Fund by Dr Chalmers in January 2024, said the decision to defer withdrawals 'provides the Future Fund with the confidence to provide more focus and resources to the areas of national priority identified in the new investment mandate that align with our risk and return hurdle'. In an op-ed for The Australian Financial Review, Mr Combet said 'as of today, the value of the Future Fund covers about 79 per cent of the estimated APS superannuation liabilities' — suggesting the liability had grown to about $290 billion. The Future Fund was valued at $237.9 billion as at December 31. The most recent federal budget estimates liabilities for civilian superannuation schemes, including the CSS and PSS as well as pensions for judges, at $166 billion in 2024-25, rising to $179 billion by 2028-29. Including military superannuation schemes, the total figure was $303 billion in 2024-25 and $341 billion by 2028-29. Treasury's PSS and CSS Long Term Cost Report, published last year, forecast that the unfunded liability for the schemes would peak at $190.5 billion in 2033-34 before declining to $62.4 billion by 2060. As of June 30, 2023, there were a total of 100,574 CSS members, including 1333 still currently employed, and 214,793 PSS members, 54,870 still employed. 'People who are in public service are entitled to a payout, but that payout should have been calculated and created with a logical and fair mechanism,' Mr Abernethy said. 'Saying to someone you get paid your pension based on your average wage when you leave, you tell us when you want to get it … that's not fair. You create these different tiers of benefits. Society's got to sit back and say, what's fair and what's affordable? Everyone's trying to get at fairness in the super system, but there's only so much money in the pot.'
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump shuns call with Elon Musk and considers selling Tesla
Donald Trump has no plans to speak to tech billionaire Elon Musk, amid the pair's ongoing feud, and may even ditch his red Tesla car, according to the White House. The US president's camp insisted he wanted to move on from the row with his former adviser, with officials saying Mr Musk had requested a call but Mr Trump was not interested. It said the Republican instead intended to focus on getting the US Congress to pass his "big, beautiful" spending bill, Mr Musk's harsh criticisms of which triggered their public split. Fallout from the blow-up between the world's richest person and its most powerful could be significant, with Mr Trump risking political damage and Mr Musk facing the loss of huge US government contracts. Mr Trump phoned reporters at several US broadcast networks to insist he was looking past the row. He called Mr Musk "the man who has lost his mind" in a call to America's ABC and told CBS he was "totally" focused on the presidency. The White House, meanwhile, squashed earlier reports that they would talk. "The president does not intend to speak to Musk today," a senior White House official told the AFP news agency, on condition of anonymity. A second official said it was "true" that Mr Musk had requested a call. Tesla stocks tanked more than 14 per cent on Thursday, losing some $100 billion of the company's market value, but recovering partly Friday. A senior White House official said Mr Trump was considering either selling or giving away the cherry-red Tesla S he bought from Mr Musk's firm at the height of their relationship. The electric vehicle was still parked on the White House grounds on Friday, local time. "He's thinking about it, yes," the official said when asked if Mr Trump would sell or give away the vehicle. Mr Trump and Mr Musk had posed inside the car at a event in March, when the president turned the White House into a pop-up Tesla showroom after viral protests against Mr Musk's role as head of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Mr Musk appears to be trying take the heat out of the pair's conflict. On Thursday, the SpaceX boss briefly threatened to scrap his company's Dragon spacecraft — vital for ferrying NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station — after Mr Trump suggested he could end Mr Musk's giant government contracts. But later in the day, Mr Musk sought to de-escalate, writing on his X social media platform: "OK, we won't decommission Dragon." The tech magnate also kept a low profile early on Friday. But there is no clarity about how the two men will repair the relationship, which had already been fraying badly, causing tensions in the White House. US trade adviser Peter Navarro, who Mr Musk once called "dumber than a sack of bricks" in an argument over Mr Trump's tariffs, refused to gloat but said the tycoon had an "expiration date". "No, I'm not glad or whatever," he told reporters. "People come and go from the White House." US Vice-President JD Vance also stuck by Mr Trump amid the blazing row, blasting what he called "lies" that his boss was "impulsive or short-tempered", but notably avoiding criticising Mr Musk. The tensions burst into the open this week when Mr Musk called Mr Trump's flagship spending bill an "abomination" because it would raise the US deficit. Then in a televised Oval Office diatribe on Thursday, Mr Trump said he was "very disappointed" with Mr Musk. The pair traded insults for hours on social media, with Mr Musk at one point suggesting Mr Trump be impeached and signalling his interest in forming a new political party. AFP
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Time to pay the Deeming debt and focus on the job of opposition
If we accept that the fundamental aim of political parties is to win elections and then govern on behalf of their constituents, then there is a strong case that the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party no longer meets the definition. Having steadily improved in the polls under John Pesutto as the problems of the state's Labor government mounted, some predicted that Victoria's Liberals would turn the tide at federal level, winning a raft of seats and delivering Peter Dutton the prime ministership. Those lost in this pipe dream did not worry that the state branch was already reverting to the form of a circular firing squad, in which an ousted Pesutto and his nemesis, Moira Deeming, were expected to work together even as she pressed him for personally ruinous millions in court costs. Another member of the humiliated Team Pesutto, shadow health spokeswoman Georgie Crozier, then decided to angrily call out party colleague Sam Groth over alleged misuse of a taxpayer-funded car (which he insists was within the rules). The Victorian Liberal Party has lost six of the past seven state elections, stretching back to the defeat of Jeff Kennett in 1999. That first reversal came out of the blue, but ever since the state party has stumbled in the dark over its identity and leadership. For years, it seemed religious conservatives were determined to turn the party of the social establishment and capital into a Trojan horse for their agendas on abortion and homosexuality. At times – think Bernie Finn or Geoff Shaw – this looked like a simple case of the tail trying to wag the dog. Loading Deeming – who inherited Finn's Western Metropolitan seat – is the latest manifestation of this trend, with her eyes set firmly on an ideological destination to which her fellow MPs can either accede or be swept aside, and if that means remaining in opposition, so be it. At the height of his confidence, Dutton suggested intervention by the federal party in this mess. Such an undertaking seems laughable now, given that Sussan Ley is already up to her eyeballs in the battle to steer the Coalition's shrinking ship in Canberra and leading lights of the Victorian federal landscape, Josh Frydenberg and Michael Sukkar, have been discarded by voters.
