Victorian government backs down on emergency services levy for farmers
The Victorian government has backed down on a plan to slug the state's farmers with a more expensive emergency services levy after heated protests.
It has also pledged $37.7 million in additional funding for farmers experiencing extended dry conditions.
The drought funding announced today increases infrastructure grants to $10,000 in 11 council areas and parts of West Wimmera.
The $5,000 grants are now available for all farmers across the state.
The government said the support program would also be expanded to cover water carting and pasture re-establishment across Victoria.
It will also cap its Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF) levy at the 2024/25 rate for all primary production properties across the state for the coming financial year.
This is the third drought announcement by the Victorian government since September last year.
Earlier this month, the government announced $15.9m to expand its drought infrastructure grants to include farmers in 11 council areas in the state's west, centre and parts of Gippsland.
The original $13.5m program provided the grants to farmers in 13 council areas in the south-west.
More to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
14 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
17 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.'
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Melbourne: Home ownership dreams fading as prices outpace incomes by $100,000
Aussies chasing the dream of home ownership now need to earn tens, if not hundreds of thousands more than they did five years ago. Exclusive Canstar data reveals some Melbourne buyers would need nearly $100,000 extra a year to afford the same home they could have bought in 2020. In the city's most exclusive postcodes, such as Toorak and Balwyn, that figure more than doubles. Covid-era interest-rate cuts gave buyers a brief advantage, but a harsh mix of climbing interest rates, escalating home prices and tighter borrowing conditions is now shutting the door on many would-be homebuyers. The figures show a typical household in greater Melbourne must now earn almost $160,000 to afford a median-priced house – a $61,000 increase since 2020. In blue-chip areas like Toorak, Brighton and Malvern, the income jump is even more dramatic. Even assuming a 20 per cent deposit, buyers now need to earn hundreds of thousands more. In Toorak, where the median house price is $3.85m, households must earn over $900,000 a year, $290,000 more than in 2020. In Brighton East, that figure is $490,000, up by more than $200,000. Malvern buyers now need over $700,000, compared to just over $500,000 in 2020. Even once-accessible areas like Ferntree Gully have seen a $66,000 jump in required income, pushing the new threshold above $162,000. In Melbourne's middle ring, affordability is also slipping. Households now need nearly $280,000 in Bentleigh East, close to $260,000 in Box Hill South, and more than $312,000 in Glen Waverley. Canstar research director Sally Tindall said the data laid bare a growing wealth divide. 'It's astonishing to see just what kind of income is now needed to get a foot on the property ladder,' Ms Tindall said. 'For most, the only way they've kept up is by already owning property.' Ms Tindall said intergenerational wealth was increasingly critical. 'Families with equity are passing that on – the Bank of Mum and Dad is more essential than ever,' she said. 'Without it, many first-home buyers are stuck.' Melbourne buyers' advocate Cate Bakos agreed. 'We're seeing more guarantee-backed loans, gifted deposits, and early inheritances,' Ms Bakos said. 'It's not just financial – it's emotional. 'Without that lifeline, many would be locked out.' Ms Bakos said clients were now being forced to compromise on suburb, size or property type. 'The hardest pill to swallow is usually the location,' she said. 'People realise the dream suburb they grew up in is now out of reach.' 'Units, offer a way in, even if it's not the dream home.' Independent economist Cameron Kusher said rising prices – not wages – were driving the surge in income requirements. 'Prices in Melbourne are up nearly 13 per cent since 2020,' Mr Kusher said. 'Borrowing power has dropped while prices have gone up. It's a painful combination.' Mr Kusher said prestige areas like Malvern and Armadale had always been tough for average wage earners, but they're now even more exclusive. 'These buyers aren't typical salaried workers – they've got portfolios, businesses, family support, this isn't a market most households can break into.' Even in outer areas, affordability is slipping. Required incomes in growth corridors have surged, up to $162,000 in parts of the east, and rising steadily across the north and west. More attainable options include Melton at just under $110,000, Wyndham Vale at $120,000, Craigieburn at $125,000, and Pakenham at $130,000. Zippy Financial principal broker Louisa Sanghera said more buyers were accepting 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.' While prices have softened slightly in some pockets, Mr Kusher warned the crisis isn't easing. 'Rate cuts might help – but they can also drive prices higher,' he said. 'Until we significantly boost housing supply, this problem won't go away.' Top 10 Melbourne suburbs – Highest 2025 incomes needed Suburb 2025 Required Income Increase from 2020 Malvern $1,737,294 $706,059 Portsea $705,192 $397,560 Deepdene $720,862 $335,653 Brighton East $780,848 $316,724 Toorak $906,008 $290,745 Canterbury $639,810 $275,601 Balwyn $538,001 $223,681 Mont Albert $448,334 $217,610 Brighton $579,098 $215,290 Black Rock $448,334 $212,260 Source: Canstar Top 10 Melbourne suburbs – Lowest 2025 incomes needed Suburb 2025 Required Income Decrease from 2020 Melton West $100,876 $42,158 Beveridge $122,638 $41,717 Donnybrook $121,424 $41,172 Brookfield $102,744 $40,883 Laverton $110,216 $38,658 Werribee South $121,891 $37,827 Broadmeadows $109,282 $37,055 Melton $88,733 $36,569 Thornhill Park $108,441 $36,214 Cranbourne South $153,461 $13,020
