Cairns mayor accused of 'chilling' debate amid proposed 800pc retirement village rate hike
Elderly residents of retirement villages in Cairns lobbying against a council proposal to hike their rates have hit out at the city's mayor, accusing her of "spying" on their movements using social media.
Cairns Regional Council is proposing to charge its minimum general rate of about $1,072 to each individual unit in retirement villages from next financial year.
Currently, it imposes a single charge across entire villages.
Retirement village operators say the change would lead to a rates increase of about 800 per cent which they claim they would be required to pass on to elderly residents under state legislation.
Cairns Mayor Amy Eden defended the council's position during a live radio interview with ABC Far North this week saying many retirement villages "put in requests [to the council] for footpaths" which ratepayers had to pay for.
But it was a follow-up remark about elderly residents using council-owned recreational spaces that one critic said has had a "chilling effect".
"Ratepayers pay for that. Everyone needs to contribute."
Retirement village resident Judy Holtzheimer, who has lobbied against the council's proposal, said she was shocked by the mayor's on-air comments.
"I was absolutely stunned that someone in her position would, I would say in my words, stoop to spying on elderly [people]," she said.
Another retirement village resident, Kay Nyland, said she believed she would be "one of the people" the mayor has looked up "because I have been very prominent on social media about this issue".
The ABC has contacted Ms Eden to seek her response to the concerns.
In a statement, a council spokesman said today the council "does not engage in tracking of residents".
"It is well known that the mayor is active on social media and uses it to engage with the community," he said.
"It is also common for social media users to post images of themselves using council facilities, which as a social media user the mayor made an offhand reference to on radio."
Cairns Regional Council argues changing its rating structure would bring retirement villages into line with other multi-dwelling complexes.
She said others should seek financial hardship assistance from their village operator or the council.
"There are always going to be a percentage of ratepayers that really struggle to pay their rates," Ms Eden said.
"That is just the way that it goes."
The retirement village sector has campaigned against the proposal, concerned other councils could follow suit.
Oak Tree Retirement Villages CEO Christine Gilroy said villages already paid for the installation of roads, lightning and garden maintenance, and that it would be a "double hit to those residents to pay that again".
Retirement Living Council executive director Daniel Gannon said the council should put off its plan for a year for "genuine and proper consultation".
He described Ms Eden's remark as "shocking and bizarre".
The council is due to vote on the proposal at the end of June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
19 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
The US dollar's demise has consequences for Australia
"I'll tell you, he's not the first," Donald Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. The US president was referring to Elon Musk's personal attacks towards himself on social media after being asked to leave his administration. "People leave my administration — and they love us — and then, at some point, they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some actually become hostile." This sort of language could be perceived as unpresidential. As is the phrasing of Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" — the name given to Trump's budget reconciliation bill that's expected to lead to both a lower tax take, and an increase in the US debt ceiling. It was perhaps, though, the so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs that did the most damage to the Trump administration's reputation within the finance community. Combined, it's led the financial community to question the stewardship of the US economy. And that has important implications for all Australians. It's impossible to dig into every confusing hole of US public policy that's produced anxiety in financial markets. Instead, let's focus on one word that's continuing to unsettle global investors which, in turn, could be hurting the reputation of the world's largest economy. It's "uncertainty". As one trader put it to me this week: "It's like investors are parked on the side of the road waiting patiently, in the cold, for the fog to lift from the highway." AMP's Shane Oliver helps manage billions of dollars for the superannuation giant. "President Trump's tariffs remain a source of ongoing uncertainty," he says. Just in the last two weeks, Trump announced a 25 per cent tariff on smart phones and threatened a 50 per cent tariff on European goods from June, then delayed it until July 9. And this is where concerns around the US dollar's longer-term trajectory come in. The US dollar is inextricably linked to the quality of the US government debt. Oliver is concerned the US government is careening toward a debt crisis. "Higher bond yields since the pandemic have pushed US federal interest payments to a record 18 per cent of tax revenue," he says. Higher US government bond yields, or debt, points to rising nerves about the US government's fiscal position. The US dollar index, which is a measure of the US dollar's value against a basket of currencies, hit a three-year low this week If, as Oliver suggests, the US dollar is losing its post-World War II safe haven status, it will continue to decline in value. "It's possible that the US dollar is losing its 'safe haven' status that could see it fall rather than go up in a crisis." Oliver is referring here to the potential for a US debt crisis. "This means the Australian dollar may behave a bit less as a shock absorber in a crisis by not falling as much as would normally be the case," he says. "Time will tell, but if this is the case then more of the burden could fall on the RBA to help protect the economy in rough times by cutting interest rates by more." This is potentially a double win for many Australians. It could make overseas travel less expensive as the Australian dollar appreciates against the greenback. There could also be further relief for mortgage borrowers as the Reserve Bank lowers interest rates to counterbalance rising global interest rates. But it would be a blow for export-exposed industries, who are hit with a potential double-whammy of falling global demand and a less competitive exchange rate. Others view the US economy, and its international reputation as largely untouchable. "I cannot see a world where the US dollar is not the reserve currency of global flows," Jamieson Coote Bond's James Wilson says. However, as InTouch Capital Markets senior analyst Sean Callow points out, other currencies like the yuan and the euro are keen to move towards the top of the currency podium. "The greenback seems likely to remain dominant in global trade in commodities and many financial contracts, where deep market liquidity is precious," Callow says. "But just as the US relationship with Europe will probably never be the same, the euro is becoming more attractive as a reserve currency, largely at the dollar's expense." It's a rocky road for global financial markets and most are treading very carefully. The uncertainty stems from US economic policy confusion and chaos, which may not go unpunished by investors. Though there is potential for significant upsides for many Australians.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Housing Minister Clare O'Neil takes aim at Australia's regulation red tape
It's rare to hear a Labor minister rail against red tape — traditionally the domain of the conservative side of politics — but Housing Minister Clare O'Neil feels the weight of the country's housing crisis on her shoulders. She knows that if Labor isn't able to deliver on its housing promises, a generation of Australians will not only feel let down, they will have a right to feel angry that the system is stacked against them. Anger about housing wasn't a manufactured crisis at the last election — it was real and visceral but ultimately the opposition was never able to turn that anger into votes, particularly among younger voters where feelings on this are so intense. Anthony Albanese's thumping majority doesn't make the issue go away — and hardheads in Labor know that delivery will be key now. In a frank interview with the ABC she has declared that Australia has made it "uneconomic" to build homes and vowed to use the Commonwealth's leverage to push for the overhaul of regulation to turbocharge housing. Regulation for planning and construction has increased and is largely managed by the states and territories and local government. "It's just too hard to build a house in this country," O'Neil says. "And it's become uneconomic to build the kind of housing that our country needs most: affordable housing, especially for first home buyers." O'Neil says the housing crisis is, in part, the result of "40 years of unceasing new regulation" across three levels of government. "On their own, each piece makes sense. But when you put it together, builders face a ridiculous thicket of red tape that is preventing them building the homes we need. And if we're going to tackle the fundamental problem — that Australia needs to build more homes, more quickly — we need to make a change." "Our focus is on delivering our election commitment — five per cent deposits and 100k homes for first buyers. And, tackling our drive towards building 1.2 million homes around the country by focusing on stagnant construction productivity." Left-leaning thinkers around the world have been rethinking the progressive side of politics' obsession with rules and regulations. Ezra Klein, a prominent progressive journalist and commentator in the United States, has expressed concerns about excessive regulation and its impact on progress, particularly affordable housing, infrastructure, and even climate change. In his book Abundance, Klein argues that over-regulation hinders genuine progress by prioritising process over outcome. It is a similar argument being mounted by O'Neil as she seeks to make her mark on an area where there is increasing scrutiny on the federal government to step in. In the US, some on the left are angry at the argument being mounted — but there is a growing consensus on a need to change the way we do business. A quiet revolution is going on in housing as O'Neil seeks to turn around Australia's crisis. The government has brought all of the housing work into Treasury — moving building out of the Industry Department. O'Neil said she was looking closely at the Productivity Commission's work to help inform what the government does to improve construction productivity. A Productivity Commission report into the productivity growth in Australia's housing construction sector found the total number of houses built per hour worked has more than halved over the past 30 years. On the issue of labour productivity, it found productivity had fallen by 12 per cent in that period. The issue of housing dogged Labor's first term with both the opposition and the Greens painting Labor as falling short on its target of providing 1.2m new well-located homes in the five years to mid-2029. An average of 240,000 dwellings would need to be completed each year to make that target and many believe it won't be reached. "It's a bold ambitious target and it is designed that way," O'Neil says. "To people saying 'wave the white flag' — I think that's highly defeatist. "We must innovate faster. We are building housing the same way as we were doing 40 years ago. It has to change." Labor's battle on housing will continue into this next term. Already Liberal housing spokesperson Andrew Bragg has pivoted, admitting that focusing exclusively on urban fringes is "very misguided" and his party should talk more about supply than first homebuyer support. Senator Bragg also suggested using a mix of "carrot and stick" to make sure state governments hit their housing targets and said Labor's proposal to fund housing construction itself was "crazy". Labor believes that without getting more involved it will not shift the dial on an issue that has already become a crisis of epic proportions. Patricia Karvelas is presenter of ABC TV's Q+A, host of ABC News Afternoon Briefing at 4pm weekdays on ABC News Channel, co-host of the weekly Party Room podcast with Fran Kelly and host of politics and news podcast Politics Now.
