Pledge to end ‘weaponised' act against women
Labor will push to end financial abuse perpetrated by domestic and family violence abusers by reforming loopholes in the tax, social security and superannuation systems.
If re-elected, Labor promised to introduce new laws which would stop perpetrators from accessing a victim's superannuation, plus reforms to the tax and corporate systems to ensure victim survivors are not held responsible for debts which were created in their name.
Abusers would also be held liable for any social security debts which were incurred through coercion or financial abuse.
Minister for Women Katy Gallagher announced the policy commitments at a Melbourne event held at the QV Women's Centre highlighting 'Labor's commitment to women'.
'We will take action to legislate practical changes in the superannuation, tax and social security systems so they cannot be weaponised by perpetrators,' she told the event which was hosted by progressive think tank Per Capita and the Chifley Research Centre on Tuesday.
'We will look at how we can stop abusers receiving their victim's superannuation – because there is no world where we believe that perpetrators of violence should benefit from the death of someone they themselves have abused.' Minister for Women Katy Gallagher pledged a re-elected Labor government would implement new laws to stop perpetrators from carrying out financial abuse through tax, superannuation and social security systems. NewsWire/ Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia
Labor will also commit an extra $8.6m funding for the Innovative Perpetrator Responses Fund to boost electronic monitoring and intensive behaviour change programs which are delivered by state and territory governments.
'This announcement stems directly from the national cabinet discussion to establish new, world first policing approaches to stop deaths from domestic violence,' she said.
'It also complements the work we have already started such as pilots using focused deterrence, as well as domestic violence threat assessment centres as two new ways of identifying and dealing with perpetrators that pose the highest risk,' she said.
'We recognise that there is still much to do, and Labor remains fiercely determined to meet the commitment and promise of the National Plan to end violence against women and children in a generation.'
The announcement comes as Peter Dutton on Monday committed to announcing further domestic violence initiatives.
'The whole area of protecting women and children is incredibly important to me,' the Opposition Leader said.
'What we know out of the research is that an estimated 37 per cent of women, aged 16 and over experience, sexual assault when they were a child.'
'That is a horrific statistic.' Peter Dutton has also flagged further policy announcements to combat domestic and family violence. iStock Credit: Supplied
The pledge follows latest Newspoll results which showed the Coalition failing to appeal to female voters.
The polling, conducted exclusively for The Australian, found the Opposition trailing Labor 33 to 35 per cent on the female vote, with support for the Coalition dropping five points since March 26 – just two days before Anthony Albanese called the May 3 election.
Senator Gallagher's speech also highlighted what she said was the 'contrast' between Labor and the Coalition on issues related to 'women and gender equality,' saying it 'really couldn't be more stark'.
In her attack, she highlighted the Coalition's opposition to Labor's cost-of-living and pledge to give most households access to three days of subsidised childcare, and said the Opposition Leader had yet to announce policies to reduce domestic violence.
'He talks a big game about protecting women and children, but has never explained how he'd actually do this, or demonstrated any understanding of the complex factors that drive violence against women,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Whitlam-esque': Zoe McKenzie blasts Labor's divisive tax hike on super accounts, slams Tasmanian opposition for triggering early election
Victorian Liberal MP Zoe McKenzie has lambasted Labor for continuing to advance its plan to hike taxes on superannuation accounts and impose levies on unrealised gains whilst hammering the Tasmanian opposition for sending punters to a winter election. Labor's plan to raise taxes on superannuation accounts over $3 million to 30 per cent and to target unrealised capital gains has sent shockwaves throughout the political and business arena, with financial doyens accusing the government of discarding decades of precedent. The Coalition was previously in talks with the Albanese government to revise certain elements of the legislation, chiefly the concept of taxing unrealised gains, however shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien officially confirmed on Thursday the LNP would oppose the bill. Yet, former Reserve Bank board members Donald McGauchie and Roger Corbett, in addition to a litany of major Liberal Party donors, have pressed the Coalition to remain at the negotiating table and to secure what it deems crucial exemptions for illiquid assets including farms and small businesses. Ms McKenzie, an outspoken moderate who holds one of the Liberal's last outer-suburban seats, railed against the policy, but did not address if the Coalition would resume talks with Labor to modify the legislation. 'I think this is a terrible piece of policy and a terrible precedent for the future, Labor is effectively saying that they will tax money in your pocket, and you do not yet have this money,' she told Sky News on Saturday. The Member for Flinders echoed criticism from industry magnates in relation to the controversial concept of taxing unrealised gains, stating, 'you may have it in the future, you may not have it in the future, but you will be taxed on it'. 'You may incur a loss in the figure, and you won't get that tax back and that's the principle that we must fight here, because once it's started, it could go anywhere,' indicating that the tax could be extended to a range of other assets including real estate and stocks. 'This is a devilish tax and should be fought by the Coalition parties most stridently, this government is very good at speaking liberal-light in terms of their economic narrative, but it is utterly Whitlam-esque in terms of its impact on the Australian economy'. While the Coalition has vowed to fight the legislation, the bill is expected to pass both houses of parliament unopposed, with the Greens joining with Labor in the Senate despite lobbying for the policy to be levied on those with super accounts over $2 million. 'The point is they're going after money no one yet has, these are paper profits, these are family businesses, these are farms held in super funds that people may well have to liquidate just to pass a putative profit that may not exist when finally realised in years to come," Ms McKenzie said. 'They will need the Greens support in the Senate and as you know, the Greens are pushing to lower that threshold from three million to two million. So, it gives the Australian people a very clear indication of what might happen when Labor and the Greens run the show for the next three years'. The shadow assistant minister then turned her attention to the ongoing political chaos in Tasmania. Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff lost a no-confidence motion in parliament on Thursday, with the speaker casting the deciding vote, resulting in the state heading to it's second election in as little as 14 months. Ms McKenzie savaged Tasmanian Labor leader Dean Winter for sending the state to a snap winter poll and argued the opposition parties had collectively torpedoed a popularly elected government. 'I think the Tasmanian people would be very disappointed with what's happened this week, basically holding an elected government hostage, so it looks like they will be going back to a mid-winter election. We've all done them and they're horrendous," she said. 'I'm sure the people of Tasmania will not be grateful for being dragged back to the polls so soon after a federal election and indeed just 14 months after a state election." Tasmanians will have to wait until next Tuesday to find out when they will return to the polls, with the parliament scrambling to draft emergency legislation to fund government services of which are due to be tabled on the same day. Independent MPs including Craig Garland have called on the beleaguered Premier to resign, with Mr Rockliff guaranteeing he would not sell off state-owned assets to pay down debt if he won the election, of which served as a key factor in sparking the political row.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Legal challenge against Woodside extension expected
The federal government is expected to face a legal challenge on the approval of Woodside Energy's North West Shelf gas plant extension. Environmental and Indigenous activists say the gas plant threatens the erosion of rock art in the area. Labor has agreed to give "Save Our Songlines" founder Raelene Cooper at least three days' notice before formal approval of the project. The commitment will give the traditional custodians an opportunity to file an injunction against the decision.
News.com.au
8 hours 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.'
