See the federal election through photos from the day
Australians took to the ballots on Saturday, voting in budgy smugglers in Bondi, hazmat suits protesting nuclear power in Brisbane, and donning party colours all over the nation.
Many were in the company of their furry friends and were welcomed to the polls by community bake sales, democracy sausages and volunteers attempting last ditch efforts to sway votes.
Labor celebrated their win with a kiss from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his partner Jodie Haydon, while Opposition Leader Peter Dutton conceded defeat for the LNP, as well as his seat of Dickson.
Votes are still being counted as seats continue to be won and forfeited across the country.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
44 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
Europe, Indonesia or Japan? Can Australia find other allies to rely on if the US disappears?
Donald Trump's comments, in particular, that Canada should become America's 51st state and threatening to abandon European allies over defence spending have raised concerns about the US' reliability. Source: SBS, AAP For decades, the United States has been a reliable ally to Australia, whose protection has helped to ensure peace in the region. But US President Donald Trump's unpredictable and tough treatment of his nation's allies has raised questions about whether Australia can still afford to lean so heavily on America as a security partner. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters the government will make decisions in Australia's national interest and fund the defence capability it needs . The comments came after US defence secretary Pete Hegseth requested Australia increase its defence budget to 3.5 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in a conversation with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last weekend. Australia's defence budget makes up roughly 2 per cent of GDP, which the government plans to increase to 2.35 per cent by 2034. While most experts do not believe the US will withdraw from the Indo-Pacific, Trump's actions raise questions about whether Australia should be seeking to cooperate more with other nations. In May, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, raised the prospect of a formal defence agreement between the trading bloc and Australia. In response, Albanese said he would consider the proposal but noted a similar agreement was already in place with other European countries such as Germany. Without the US alliance, Peter Dean, director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Studies Centre at The University of Sydney, says Australia would need to massively increase its defence spending or accept it can't defend its own sovereignty. "If you look at the mismatch between the scale of our territory and the scale of our ability to defend it — it's one of the most glaring mismatches in the world," he says. "[You would] effectively be just hoping for the best." Dean says Australia needs to work hard to maintain its security and that a "community of nations" is necessary to support open and free trade, promote a rules-based international order, and counter the use of coercion, aggression, and military force to achieve political objectives. "If you don't have that community of nations, the example of what's happening in Ukraine is very poignant to everybody," he says. [Russia believes] in a 'might is right' world and they believe in a world where they get to shape those rules and that order, and that is not going to be favourable or in Australia's interests ... or for the majority of states in our region. Dean says Trump is more brutally transactional than previous presidents and an example of the adage in international relations that "you have no friends, you only have common interests". Although it's not always clear what Trump's interests are, Dean believes there's still a common alignment between Australia and the US, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, and in the overall aims and objectives of their security policies. "That simply boils down to — we don't want an Indo-Pacific that's dominated by one particular power — especially China," Dean says. "That is an Australian view clearly articulated in our strategy, and that is a US view, clearly articulated by the US — even under this president." One of the potential problems with a China-dominated region, Dean says, is its desire to "rule by law" and the way in which China would go about setting and enforcing laws. "China particularly wants a hierarchical order where it sits on top and everyone else sits underneath," he says. In contrast, Australia and other like-minded countries support a "rule of law" system in which a community of nations jointly sets the rules through treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. But Sam Roggeveen, the director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute, says the US has done very little to address China's dramatic military modernisation since the end of the Cold War. No matter who's in charge in the US, I don't think that will rescue Australia from having to think much more independently about its security. "The harsh truth for Australia and for other allies in the region is that the Americans aren't going to do the heavy lifting for us, and want us to do it ourselves." Dean says the alliance with the US is critical for national security, and forming an agreement with other countries would be very difficult. A strategic alliance involves countries committing to help each other out during a crisis, or to act in accord to address a common threat. This would preferably be set out in a treaty. Australia has an alliance with the US and New Zealand, but despite being part of the British Commonwealth, it does not have a formal agreement with the United Kingdom. Given the geographical distance, Dean believes military support from the UK would likely depend on what other conflicts are happening in its part of the world. When it comes to international alliances, arguably the most important is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which commits Europe and North America to protecting each other from any threat. Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at The Australian National University, says there are three crucial elements to establish in alliances. Firstly, there must be clear interests in common. Secondly, the parties must articulate some shared values or political will to provide a foundation for trust. "If their security is threatened, then you have interests engaged," he says. And there must also be mutual capability. "There's not much point being an ally of someone if you bring nothing to the table and they bring everything," he says. Dean says no other state can replace the size, power and influence of the US, which is the world's number one military power. Dean says the US — by partnering with South Korea, Australia, Japan and other states — can aggregate enough power to balance China's influence and there is no "ready-made state" that could easily replace it. Without the US, Medcalf says China would likely seek to dominate countries one by one and break any alliance-like relationships. Even if Australia did more for its own defence, there would still be a good argument for maintaining a close relationship with the US because its military technology is among, if not the best in the world. But Roggeveen says Australia has to accept the US alliance is going to become less important over time. "With that in mind, we have to look geographically much closer to home," he says. While forming a new alliance may prove difficult, Medcalf says it would be possible for Australia to build coalitions with other nations to discourage things like coercive behaviour if there was some degree of confidence the US would still back them up. "It's really about using strategic partnership to make ourselves stronger, rather than building a kind of alliance where we expect to be standing shoulder to shoulder in war," he says. Australia is already part of several small groupings of nations with common interests in the Indo-Pacific, such as The Quad (a diplomatic partnership among the US, India, Japan and Australia) and AJUS (a trilateral partnership among Australia, Japan and the US). Defence cooperation has deepened via AJUS, while the security partnership AUKUS, which exists between Australia, the UK and the US, has laid the groundwork for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines and other advanced capabilities. Australia has also entered into limited bilateral agreements with Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and others. Medcalf, who is undertaking nationwide consultations to understand Australian attitudes to security, says most of these countries have no prospect of being treaty allies of Australia. But partnerships with countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam may be possible. All of these countries, apart from Vietnam, are already American allies. "They have different levels of capability that they would bring to the table," he says. "But the ultimate question is how much risk are we all going to take for each other?" Due to the number of member states that would need to agree to it, Medcalf suspects an agreement with the EU would likely be quite vague in its language and commitment. It may focus on increased technology sharing, access to defence industry resources and possibly some intelligence sharing. There could also be some aspirational statements about the rules-based order, or the intent to discourage and oppose aggressive action. "But it would fall far short of anything resembling a treaty commitment," Medcalf says. Dean agrees it's more likely Australia and the EU would support each other diplomatically to uphold rules and standards both in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Medcalf points out Australia and many northern European countries share common values, including freedom of expression, the rule of law and secularism in politics. "[Australia's political values] are much closer to countries like Denmark, Sweden and Finland than to any of our neighbours except New Zealand," he says. Australia has previously manufactured a Norwegian-designed naval strike missile and German-designed armoured fighting vehicles. The EU could offer access to other sophisticated capabilities such as warships, drones and sensors. "The risk is obviously an expectation that Australia becomes more involved in Europe security problems ... obviously that's about confronting Russia," he says. While Medcalf believes Australia should be helping countries like Ukraine to defend themselves, there are limitations. What we shouldn't be doing is ever raising the expectation that we could be a frontline military actor on the other side of the world. Medcalf says Europe is in a different region to Australia, and it would be difficult to deploy troops or aircraft to each other's front lines. But Europe is highly trade-dependent and large countries like Germany and France, in particular, have an interest in maintaining the security of shipping in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, he says, adding that a significant number of shipping companies are also European. Roggeveen says countries in Europe and other parts of Asia are so far away they are never going to share the same vital interests as Australia. But Indonesia's interests are largely the same as Australia's, given they are neighbours. He says Indonesia is also predicted to be a great power by the middle of the century and likely the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world. "We've never had a great power on our doorstep before, and we want Indonesia to be on our side when that happens," he says. "We have no more important relationship than Indonesia just to our north," he told ABC's 7.30 show. Other experts are sceptical about the potential for a quasi-alliance with Indonesia. While Medcalf agrees Australia should do more with Indonesia — including to help strengthen its navy and air force, and its ability to monitor what's happening in its waters — he notes its policy is to be "friends to all, enemies to none". "Which sounds great but in practice means that Indonesia is working very hard to be as neutral as it can be in future crisis situations." He says Indonesia has not been willing to speak out about China's behaviour in the South China Sea and doesn't have the capability to help Australia build its own defence technology base. Australia also has to accept that China already has a strong influence in Indonesia, he says. "If you're looking for a country that can partly fill the gap that the US may leave — I'd be looking to Japan before Indonesia. But if Indonesia ends up getting closer to our point of view, that would be wonderful," he says. Medcalf says some experts already characterise Japan's relationship with Australia as a quasi-alliance, and it is the most likely country to form an actual alliance with Australia, although the chances of this happening in the short term remain unlikely. He says both Japan and Australia share a strong belief in a rules-based system, and have different strengths they could bring to the table. They need the resources that we have. We need their technology, we need their investment. Medcalf doesn't think Japan's peace constitution — put in place at the end of World War Two to maintain its military for defensive purposes only — would be an impediment because politicians have been reinterpreting it over the last 20 years or so. "Japan is already moving away from 1 per cent, to 2 per cent of GDP, as its military budget," he says, adding that Japanese forces are increasingly training in Australia. However, Dean believes legal and cultural barriers still make it unlikely Japan will form an alliance with Australia. "But I think if the region was to have some type of strategic shock, or it was to really start to deteriorate, that would drive that alignment even closer together," he says. Medcalf says Vietnam is very good at maintaining a balanced relationship with China because it knows how to stand up to China, while also keeping the peace. "They've been doing both for about 1,000 years," he says. "[Vietnam] can defend itself, but it can also do diplomacy well." However, Medcalf says the Southeast Asian country would be very reluctant to enter into a treaty-like commitment with Australia, although there is potential for more cooperation in areas such as military training. Singapore has long been a valuable diplomatic partner for Australia and already cooperates on military training and exchanging information, Medcalf says. "But Singapore is ultimately a very self-interested and neutral country and I think we would work with them as much as we could without the expectation that either would actually take a risk on the other's behalf." He says he would put Malaysia in a similar camp. South Korea is a militarily significant country because it has a lot of capability, Medcalf says. "They now export defence equipment to Europe," he says. "South Korea is one of the few countries in the world that is genuinely able to do rapid military manufacturing at scale." But the problem is it's overwhelmingly focused on defending itself against North Korea. "Yes, they're slightly concerned about ensuring that China doesn't dominate the region. Yes, they're a US ally but they would probably be reluctant to project much further beyond the peninsula," he says. Medcalf says South Korea also has quite deep-seated political problems domestically, and its politics can be unpredictable. Medcalf says Australia's relationship with India has advanced significantly over the past decade — with each country's navy training together frequently and sharing information. Both countries' air forces jointly monitor the Indian Ocean. "[India] will probably be — within the next few decades — one of the three biggest powers in the world militarily, alongside the US and China." However, Medcalf says India is diplomatically very neutral and greatly values its autonomy. They're not going to be forming permanent alliance-like relationships with anyone. While India does not want to witness China dominate the Indian Ocean and would likely align with other countries in the region to balance against China, Medcalf says if it came to war, there would be only very limited circumstances under which it would get involved. "I guess they would certainly contribute to patrolling the Indian Ocean and potentially limiting China's ability to operate there, but I don't think India is going to be taking a lot of risk on behalf of others," he says. India may also expect other countries to come to its aid if there were a conflict with China on its border. "And that would be something that I think would be difficult for other countries to think about." The Philippines is one of the countries that claim parts of the South China Sea, which has led to clashes with China over issues such as fishing rights, islands and territories, Medcalf says. "The Philippines has traditionally been quite a weak military power but they're beginning to modernise their forces and their location is strategically very important — they're right at the heart of the sea lanes of Asia." While the Philippines is an American treaty ally, under former president Rodrigo Duterte, it became closer to China. Medcalf says it would make sense for Australia to have the Philippines as a partner, but caution is needed when considering the limits of its power and whether another change in government could alter dynamics. It's yet another example of how it's a nice idea to try and stitch all of these relationships together into something larger but without the Americans involved somewhere along the line, it still becomes quite flimsy. Like Australia, Canada is a middle-sized power but in some ways, it is militarily weaker. It's also a long way away. But Medcalf points out Canada is technically part of the broader Pacific region as its western coastline borders the Pacific Ocean. It's also surprisingly active in the region — supporting the UN efforts in East Asia to prevent illegal trade with North Korea and the smuggling of parts or precursors for weapons of mass destruction. "There's something to work with there but all of this stuff is only going to work if it's more than simply putting all your reliance on one country — they would be a small part of a much bigger puzzle."
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Get over there PM': Anthony Albanese urged to visit Trump
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan highlights Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's lack of engagement with US President Donald Trump amid China's increased presence in the region. 'Why hasn't he gone over to Washington, DC, to meet the leader of our most important ally,' Mr Canavan told Sky News host Rowan Dean. 'Only a few months ago, we had the Chinese navy circumnavigate our continent, we had the Chinese navy conduct live fire exercises under a civilian flight path. 'And the Prime Minister's had zero engagement with our most important ally. 'Get over there PM.'
News.com.au
an hour 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.'
