SA Treasurer Stephen Mullighan's curious law and order budget
When journalists filter into a budget lock-up, the first thing they do (perhaps apart from making sure they have a caffeinated beverage) is pick up a stack of budget papers.
For a rookie reporter it can be an intimidating tower, but this year there was no mistaking the message the South Australian government was trying to send.
On the front cover of the pile of paper were the faces of two smiling police officers, leaning on a park bench, talking to a small child.
The same image was projected onto screens around the room.
The government made sure everyone knew — this was a law and order budget.
The curious part of that was in the same breath, the Premier and Treasurer acknowledged South Australia did not have a law and order problem.
"South Australia is a safe state to live in. Our youth crime rates are of the lowest in the country," Premier Peter Malinauskas said in his opening address.
Treasurer Stephen Mullighan had a similar message.
"Overall crime levels continue to decrease. The monthly statistics that South Australian Police publish show that total crime numbers continue to decline," he said.
The key to this budget, they say, is keeping it that way.
"What South Australian police are telling us is in order to combat crime or deter crime, the job is getting much harder or more time intensive, and they simply need more police out on the beat," Mr Mullighan told reporters.
"We don't have crime or law and order issues getting out of control as we've seen in some parts of the country in recent years. This package makes sure that won't eventuate here in South Australia any time in the future."
After winning the 2022 election, Labor's first budget was all about health — unsurprising given its election slogan was that it would "fix the ramping crisis."
There was money for more beds, more health workers and more ambulances.
But more than three years later and ramping is still high.
Ambulances spent 3,700 hours waiting outside emergency departments in April, a decrease on the month before but still much higher than the worst month under the previous government.
The government now points to other issues causing hospital blockages — a lack of aged care beds and a crisis in primary care — two areas that are Commonwealth responsibilities.
It begs the question, will this year's law and order budget be doing something similar — will putting more cops on the beat be like putting more ambulances on the road?
Yes, you might get a quicker, more efficient response to an emergency — but would that even be needed if there had, instead, been early intervention?
The government's promise is it will spend $172 million increasing the state's police force to 5,000 by the end of the decade.
But the Treasurer said there was also money for crime prevention, particularly via the Attorney-General's department.
"The continuation of the crime prevention programs, the justice rehabilitation fund and so on to try and stop crime," Mr Mullighan said.
There are also plans to expand a program that sees mental health professionals attend jobs with police, and funding to implement recommendations from the state's domestic violence royal commission.
But following the budget, Michael White from the SA Network of Drug and Alcohol Services said there was no funding for the increasing number of people accessing treatment for addiction, despite the fact that intoxication was a major factor in crimes like family violence and public order offences.
"We call on the state government to redress the imbalance between policing, justice and the court system and the needs of people for health services that address their alcohol and other drug addiction and dependence," he said.
"And to fund early intervention, prevention and treatment services."
While he said South Australia was a safe place to live, the Premier acknowledged not everyone in the state might feel that way.
"While it is true to say that in parts of our state law and order isn't top of mind, it does matter to people in communities where they feel the rough and tumble of crime more," Mr Malinauskas said.
"Many of us around the cabinet table and within the government represent lower socio-economic communities where we do see a greater disproportionate demand on police resources and we hear it from our constituents."
But people in those low socio-economic areas, and elsewhere, might want to know if, on top of law and order spending, there was something on the table that would relieve the ongoing pressure on household budgets.
The Treasurer pointed out interest rates and inflation were down, and he talked up South Australia's economy as having gone from "laggard to leader".
He said that meant, although there was still some pain, the pressures being felt by families were beginning to ease.
There were some measures for cost of living in this budget, but it was far from a focus.
Most are continuations of existing programs like the subsidy for school materials.
There was one new concession some families could take advantage of — school children can get a bus ticket that will give them a month's worth of rides for $10.
Another important piece of context on this "law and order budget" — is this will be the last budget Stephen Mullighan will hand down before South Australians go to the polls in March 2026.
In the last cabinet reshuffle, Mr Mullighan took on the police portfolio for the first time and said the funding boost was something the Police Commissioner had been calling for.
Crime has certainly been an issue the opposition has been attacking the government on for some time — claiming youth crime has "sky-rocketed", that bail breaches have hit record highs and tougher laws for things like knife crime were needed.
And on top of the additional funding for police, the government has passed laws to crack down on knife crime, drug offenders, child sex offenders, domestic violence offences like strangulation and on people who boast about their crimes on social media.
All moves that could cut off opposition tactics months before the campaign officially starts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
27 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Have your wages kept pace with post-Covid growth in Geelong
The level of household income needed to comfortably afford to break in to the property market in Geelong has risen over the past five years despite home prices remaining in the doldrums. Exclusive Canstar research reveals how much wages have failed to keep pace with the property market in the five years since the start of the pandemic. More tellingly, it reveals how much outside of actual home prices impacts people's ability to break in to the market. The figures show the level of household income to buy in a suburb of Geelong and pay less than 30 per cent on mortgage repayments has risen between about $40,000 to almost $140,000, depending on the suburb you buy in. Four suburbs require an income of less than $100,000 – Norlane, Corio, Thomson and Whittington. But the amount required has climbed between $37,000 and $44,000 in the past five years. A median priced house in Armstrong Creek requires a $121,000 household income, a $51,000 increase, while a similar rise pushes the annual wage to buy in Belmont to $130,000. A typical household income required to buy in Geelong West rose $66,000 to $158,000. But the biggest rise was in Manifold Heights, where the median house price has reached $1.26m off the back of a sharp rise this year. A household now needs a $235,000 income to comfortably afford to buy in this high-end suburb. Canstar director of research Sally Tindall said the study showed the widening generational wealth gap. 'It is astonishing to see just what kind of income is required to get a foot on the property ladder these days,' Ms Tindall said. 'My concern is that this is shutting people out. It creates this divide between those already in the property market and those that are struggling to land a foot on the property ladder. 'What we are seeing anecdotally is that those families who have property are passing down the wealth they have created through home ownership down generations, further deepening that divide,' Ms Tindall said. 'The Bank of Mum and Dad is becoming more of a thing.' At $720,000, Geelong's median house price is 23 per cent higher than it was in 2020, even though it's 9 per cent lower than three years ago. Part of what was fuelling the incredible rise in property prices was the burgeoning amount of equity upgraders had behind them to channel into their next purchases, Ms Tindall said. 'Very few people have had the kind of pay rises needed to keep pace with the market. For most people, the only way they've kept up is because they already own property. Success breeds success.' The problem for first-home buyers was that getting a foot on the first rung of the property ladder was becoming more challenging, robbing them of the chance to also benefit from future equity gains, she said. 'Fundamentally, the issue facing first-home buyers across the country is that prices are too high and their wages can't keep up. 'There are a range of complex reasons we have this problem, but one of the primary factors is that we don't have enough housing supply and we are not building enough to satisfy demand.' Zippy Financial principal broker Louisa Sanghera said more buyers were amassing smaller deposits and paying lenders mortgage insurance to get in sooner. 'Waiting for a 20 per cent deposit isn't realistic anymore,' she said. 'If they wait, the market moves on without them.' Ms Sanghera said even strong earners were hitting serviceability roadblocks. 'Banks are stress-testing at nine per cent,' she said. 'Add rising living costs, and many buyers can't borrow what they'd hoped.' Have your wages kept pace with post-Covid growth Suburb Property type Median value Gross income needed Difference in gross income over five years Anglesea H $1,350,000 $252,188 $121,110 Armstrong Creek H $650,000 $121,424 $51,203 Bannockburn H $785,000 $146,643 $69,066 Barwon Heads H $1,420,000 $265,264 $114,123 Bell Park H $611,000 $114,139 $49,034 Bell Post Hill H $660,000 $123,292 $58,421 Belmont H $700,000 $130,764 $55,996 Charlemont H $615,500 $114,979 $43,421 Clifton Springs H $652,600 $121,910 $55,969 Corio H $490,000 $91,535 $43,785 Curlewis H $638,250 $119,229 $45,932 Drysdale H $710,000 $132,632 $51,377 East Geelong H $765,000 $142,907 $55,967 Geelong H $880,000 $164,389 $70,561 Geelong West H $850,000 $158,785 $66,495 Grovedale H $663,000 $123,853 $54,301 Hamlyn Heights H $720,000 $134,501 $60,936 Herne Hill H $700,000 $130,764 $59,373 Highton H $861,000 $160,840 $67,413 Indented Head H $700,000 $130,764 $48,439 Jan Juc H $1,270,000 $237,244 $115,528 Lara H $680,000 $127,028 $54,667 Leopold H $650,000 $121,424 $51,872 Lorne H $1,557,500 $290,950 $98,011 Lovely Banks H $840,000 $156,917 $79,741 Manifold Heights H $1,260,000 $235,376 $138,739 Marshall H $630,000 $117,688 $52,416 Mount Duneed H $700,000 $130,764 $54,993 Newcomb H $550,000 $102,744 $42,488 Newtown H $1,150,000 $214,827 $95,118 Norlane H $451,000 $84,250 $37,436 North Geelong H $610,000 $113,952 $40,655 Ocean Grove H $955,000 $178,400 $84,505 Point Lonsdale H $1,207,500 $225,568 $112,546 Portarlington H $863,500 $161,307 $77,878 St Albans Park H $585,000 $109,282 $52,403 St Leonards H $720,000 $134,501 $60,268 Teesdale H $990,000 $184,938 $92,314 Thomson H $512,500 $95,738 $40,698 Torquay H $1,175,000 $219,497 $111,090 Wandana Heights H $925,000 $172,796 $66,027 Waurn Ponds H $765,500 $143,000 $57,063 Whittington H $529,000 $98,821 $44,082 Winchelsea H $650,000 $121,424 $61,235 Have your wages kept pace with post-Covid growth Suburb Property type Median value Gross income needed Difference in gross income over five years Bell Park U $507,000 $94,711 $42,547 Belmont U $538,000 $100,502 $44,593 Drysdale U $547,500 $102,277 $48,107 Geelong U $615,000 $114,886 $44,532 Geelong West U $387,500 $72,388 $17,549 Grovedale U $496,250 $92,703 $36,551 Hamlyn Heights U $530,750 $99,148 $38,892 Herne Hill U $368,000 $68,745 $29,956 Highton U $500,000 $93,403 $38,564 Lara U $447,500 $83,596 $33,104 Leopold U $483,000 $90,228 $37,395 Newcomb U $478,000 $89,294 $39,805 Newtown U $575,000 $107,414 $47,894 Norlane U $380,000 $70,987 $30,861 Ocean Grove U $741,000 $138,423 $54,158 Torquay U $880,000 $164,389 $75,844 Whittington U $365,000 $68,185 $27,390
News.com.au
30 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
Football Australia facing integrity probe amid match-fixing allegations
Football Australia is being investigated over its ability to protect the sport's integrity as it grapples with the A-League's second match-fixing scandal in 12 months. ABC Investigations can reveal the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission will launch a 'suitability review' of Football Australia that will examine the governing body's integrity measures, as well as the range of betting markets it allows on soccer games in Australia. The revelations of the probe come after Victoria Police this week charged 25-year-old Western United player Riku Danzaki with 10 match-fixing charges for allegedly intentionally receiving yellow cards during A-League matches in April and May. In May last year, NSW Police charged Macarthur FC players Ulises Davila, Kearyn Bacchus and Clayton Lewis with match-fixing offences also allegedly involving yellow cards. The VGCCC says the latest match-fixing allegations involving the Western United player were "concerning." "The VGCCC will conduct a suitability review of FA in the 2025–26 financial year to assess its ability to ensure the integrity of its events," the regulator said in statement. "This will include looking at the activities FA allows betting on, such as yellow cards. "The scope of the FA review is yet to be finalised but will focus on the legislated integrity requirements of sports controlling bodies." In a statement, Football Australia said the VGCCC informed it of the review in April. "Football Australia welcomes the opportunity to continue to refine our vigilance against integrity threats," it said. "Football Australia subscribes to continual vigilance in our standards to meet this challenge, but it's something that all Australian and international sports, regulators and government agencies must do together, as this stain isn't unique to footy players. "The job on integrity is never complete as offenders are becoming more and more sophisticated." Under Victoria's gambling laws, Football Australia is a designated "sports controlling body", which gives it the responsibility to oversee integrity of soccer and the power to negotiate with betting companies about the range of events on which they can offer bets. It also enables Football Australia to earn a portion of the revenue of gambling on soccer games – including bets on the number of yellow cards in a match. Football Australia has similar powers and responsibilities under New South Wales gambling laws. In 2023, Four Corners revealed Football Australia was allowing bookmakers to offer bets on all levels of the sport – from international games to amateur suburban matches. Most other major sporting bodies, such as the AFL and NRL, only allow betting on first and second-tier professional competitions. While the VGCCC has not disclosed the terms of reference for its inquiry, Melbourne University sports law expert Jack Anderson said it would likely focus on the range of gambling Football Australia allows on all levels of professional and amateur soccer in the country. "Probably what [the regulator] is doing is saying, yes, we have agreed that Football Australia can allow a range of bets on football. But are some of these bets presenting such a risk that they should be struck off and not offered?" he said. Professor Anderson said soccer governing bodies and authorities around the world are grappling with rising instances of alleged match fixing involving yellow cards, which is one of the few elements of play in the sport that can be influenced by a single player. "It's very discrete, in that a player can effect the foul that generates the yellow card. And they can do it almost to the minute, or to a particular time in the game." Brazilian midfielder Lucas Paqueta, who plays with English Premier League side West Ham United, is facing a possible lifetime ban after the UK Football Association charged him with allegedly intentionally receiving yellow cards as part of a spot-fixing operation. Paqueta has denied any wrongdoing.
