Our approach to products is so destructive. In many respects we're devouring the future
It's certainly possible but first we need to change our mindset to encourage more Australians to adjust their spending and shopping habits - from "take, make, waste" to re-use and repair.
This isn't just about the environment - it's about fairness. It's about extending the life of our products, saving money, and reducing pressure on households during a cost-of-living crunch.
We need to guide, inspire and empower our communities to make more sustainable choices.
Our approach to materials and products in the western world is so destructive. It's a linear approach where materials are extracted from the Earth, made into products, and eventually thrown away.
In many respects we're devouring the future. In Australia, CSIRO reports that our circularity rate is sitting at 4 per cent, which is half the global average. That means that only 4 per cent of what we consume is not a virgin resource. We are also the world's biggest consumer of textiles per capita.
Repairability is a key solution to reducing waste, but one that Australia continues to fall behind on. It ensures products can remain in use for as long as possible - keeping them out of landfill.
Repair is an obvious "first responder" when it comes to waste prevention and having control over the products we buy and use, from computers, kettles and toasters to furniture, clothing and agricultural equipment.
France is leading the way on repairability reform. In 2021, they introduced the Repairability Index to foster sustainable consumption, by making it easier for consumers to repair electronic devices rather than replace them. Products are scored from 0 to 10 based on how easy they are to repair. That's an effective way to promote and encourage repairability, as well as drive brands to redesign their products for a longer life.
Wales is another superb example of a country which is excelling in circular economy achievement, thanks to simultaneous top-down and bottom-up action. Repair Cafes have taken off in Welsh communities, and the Welsh Benthyg Cymru - Library of Things - are prevalent around the country.
In the same year that France introduced the index, the Australian Productivity Commission released a report on the "Right to Repair", identifying significant barriers to repair and recommending comprehensive reforms to enhance consumer choice, reduce e-waste, and promote competition in repair markets. Four years on and not one of the recommendations from the report have come to fruition.
Clean Up Australia strongly advocates for the right to repair products and equipment, including access to parts, manuals, tools, software and extended warranties.
It's part of living an independent and sustainable life - being able to mend, fix and extend the life of products we have.
The Australian Repair Network has done a great job setting up an interactive map of community initiatives and repair cafes in Australia. But we still have a long way to go in this country.
If we are to successfully transition to a more circular and sustainable future, with regulated waste, moving markets for recycled materials, and a flourishing culture of repair and reuse, an entire consciousness shift is needed. I am mindful that even the terminology circular economy may still not be known to the general public.
On our 35th anniversary, I'd like to see increased community awareness to reduce wasteful consumerism and reliance on single-use, enhanced product design standards for longevity and repair, and continued investment in waste management infrastructure.
To achieve this, collaboration across all levels of government, industry, brands, business, and the everyday Australian is required.
It is encouraging that late last year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the Albanese government's commitment to developing a general right to repair.
With our Federal government sworn in and back to work, we're hoping to see that commitment enshrined in policy in the term to come.
Australia can lead the way to develop new patterns of consumption that meet consumer expectations and reduce environmental impacts, while being affordable to the public and creating new business opportunities for brands and retailers.
This year, more than 800,000 volunteers across the country pulled on their gloves and got to work removing litter from our precious environment.
Our volunteers already put in the hard yards, but clean-ups alone cannot solve the mess we're in. It's time to begin fixing what's broken, before it becomes waste.
Every Australian should feel inspired to have the cleanest country on earth.
My father Ian Kiernan used to say he'd like Australia to be the cleanest country on earth. That is my aspiration, too.
It's certainly possible but first we need to change our mindset to encourage more Australians to adjust their spending and shopping habits - from "take, make, waste" to re-use and repair.
This isn't just about the environment - it's about fairness. It's about extending the life of our products, saving money, and reducing pressure on households during a cost-of-living crunch.
We need to guide, inspire and empower our communities to make more sustainable choices.
Our approach to materials and products in the western world is so destructive. It's a linear approach where materials are extracted from the Earth, made into products, and eventually thrown away.
In many respects we're devouring the future. In Australia, CSIRO reports that our circularity rate is sitting at 4 per cent, which is half the global average. That means that only 4 per cent of what we consume is not a virgin resource. We are also the world's biggest consumer of textiles per capita.
Repairability is a key solution to reducing waste, but one that Australia continues to fall behind on. It ensures products can remain in use for as long as possible - keeping them out of landfill.
Repair is an obvious "first responder" when it comes to waste prevention and having control over the products we buy and use, from computers, kettles and toasters to furniture, clothing and agricultural equipment.
France is leading the way on repairability reform. In 2021, they introduced the Repairability Index to foster sustainable consumption, by making it easier for consumers to repair electronic devices rather than replace them. Products are scored from 0 to 10 based on how easy they are to repair. That's an effective way to promote and encourage repairability, as well as drive brands to redesign their products for a longer life.
Wales is another superb example of a country which is excelling in circular economy achievement, thanks to simultaneous top-down and bottom-up action. Repair Cafes have taken off in Welsh communities, and the Welsh Benthyg Cymru - Library of Things - are prevalent around the country.
In the same year that France introduced the index, the Australian Productivity Commission released a report on the "Right to Repair", identifying significant barriers to repair and recommending comprehensive reforms to enhance consumer choice, reduce e-waste, and promote competition in repair markets. Four years on and not one of the recommendations from the report have come to fruition.
Clean Up Australia strongly advocates for the right to repair products and equipment, including access to parts, manuals, tools, software and extended warranties.
It's part of living an independent and sustainable life - being able to mend, fix and extend the life of products we have.
The Australian Repair Network has done a great job setting up an interactive map of community initiatives and repair cafes in Australia. But we still have a long way to go in this country.
If we are to successfully transition to a more circular and sustainable future, with regulated waste, moving markets for recycled materials, and a flourishing culture of repair and reuse, an entire consciousness shift is needed. I am mindful that even the terminology circular economy may still not be known to the general public.
On our 35th anniversary, I'd like to see increased community awareness to reduce wasteful consumerism and reliance on single-use, enhanced product design standards for longevity and repair, and continued investment in waste management infrastructure.
To achieve this, collaboration across all levels of government, industry, brands, business, and the everyday Australian is required.
It is encouraging that late last year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the Albanese government's commitment to developing a general right to repair.
With our Federal government sworn in and back to work, we're hoping to see that commitment enshrined in policy in the term to come.
Australia can lead the way to develop new patterns of consumption that meet consumer expectations and reduce environmental impacts, while being affordable to the public and creating new business opportunities for brands and retailers.
This year, more than 800,000 volunteers across the country pulled on their gloves and got to work removing litter from our precious environment.
Our volunteers already put in the hard yards, but clean-ups alone cannot solve the mess we're in. It's time to begin fixing what's broken, before it becomes waste.
Every Australian should feel inspired to have the cleanest country on earth.
My father Ian Kiernan used to say he'd like Australia to be the cleanest country on earth. That is my aspiration, too.
It's certainly possible but first we need to change our mindset to encourage more Australians to adjust their spending and shopping habits - from "take, make, waste" to re-use and repair.
This isn't just about the environment - it's about fairness. It's about extending the life of our products, saving money, and reducing pressure on households during a cost-of-living crunch.
We need to guide, inspire and empower our communities to make more sustainable choices.
Our approach to materials and products in the western world is so destructive. It's a linear approach where materials are extracted from the Earth, made into products, and eventually thrown away.
In many respects we're devouring the future. In Australia, CSIRO reports that our circularity rate is sitting at 4 per cent, which is half the global average. That means that only 4 per cent of what we consume is not a virgin resource. We are also the world's biggest consumer of textiles per capita.
Repairability is a key solution to reducing waste, but one that Australia continues to fall behind on. It ensures products can remain in use for as long as possible - keeping them out of landfill.
Repair is an obvious "first responder" when it comes to waste prevention and having control over the products we buy and use, from computers, kettles and toasters to furniture, clothing and agricultural equipment.
France is leading the way on repairability reform. In 2021, they introduced the Repairability Index to foster sustainable consumption, by making it easier for consumers to repair electronic devices rather than replace them. Products are scored from 0 to 10 based on how easy they are to repair. That's an effective way to promote and encourage repairability, as well as drive brands to redesign their products for a longer life.
Wales is another superb example of a country which is excelling in circular economy achievement, thanks to simultaneous top-down and bottom-up action. Repair Cafes have taken off in Welsh communities, and the Welsh Benthyg Cymru - Library of Things - are prevalent around the country.
In the same year that France introduced the index, the Australian Productivity Commission released a report on the "Right to Repair", identifying significant barriers to repair and recommending comprehensive reforms to enhance consumer choice, reduce e-waste, and promote competition in repair markets. Four years on and not one of the recommendations from the report have come to fruition.
Clean Up Australia strongly advocates for the right to repair products and equipment, including access to parts, manuals, tools, software and extended warranties.
It's part of living an independent and sustainable life - being able to mend, fix and extend the life of products we have.
The Australian Repair Network has done a great job setting up an interactive map of community initiatives and repair cafes in Australia. But we still have a long way to go in this country.
If we are to successfully transition to a more circular and sustainable future, with regulated waste, moving markets for recycled materials, and a flourishing culture of repair and reuse, an entire consciousness shift is needed. I am mindful that even the terminology circular economy may still not be known to the general public.
On our 35th anniversary, I'd like to see increased community awareness to reduce wasteful consumerism and reliance on single-use, enhanced product design standards for longevity and repair, and continued investment in waste management infrastructure.
To achieve this, collaboration across all levels of government, industry, brands, business, and the everyday Australian is required.
It is encouraging that late last year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the Albanese government's commitment to developing a general right to repair.
With our Federal government sworn in and back to work, we're hoping to see that commitment enshrined in policy in the term to come.
Australia can lead the way to develop new patterns of consumption that meet consumer expectations and reduce environmental impacts, while being affordable to the public and creating new business opportunities for brands and retailers.
This year, more than 800,000 volunteers across the country pulled on their gloves and got to work removing litter from our precious environment.
Our volunteers already put in the hard yards, but clean-ups alone cannot solve the mess we're in. It's time to begin fixing what's broken, before it becomes waste.
Every Australian should feel inspired to have the cleanest country on earth.
My father Ian Kiernan used to say he'd like Australia to be the cleanest country on earth. That is my aspiration, too.
It's certainly possible but first we need to change our mindset to encourage more Australians to adjust their spending and shopping habits - from "take, make, waste" to re-use and repair.
This isn't just about the environment - it's about fairness. It's about extending the life of our products, saving money, and reducing pressure on households during a cost-of-living crunch.
We need to guide, inspire and empower our communities to make more sustainable choices.
Our approach to materials and products in the western world is so destructive. It's a linear approach where materials are extracted from the Earth, made into products, and eventually thrown away.
In many respects we're devouring the future. In Australia, CSIRO reports that our circularity rate is sitting at 4 per cent, which is half the global average. That means that only 4 per cent of what we consume is not a virgin resource. We are also the world's biggest consumer of textiles per capita.
Repairability is a key solution to reducing waste, but one that Australia continues to fall behind on. It ensures products can remain in use for as long as possible - keeping them out of landfill.
Repair is an obvious "first responder" when it comes to waste prevention and having control over the products we buy and use, from computers, kettles and toasters to furniture, clothing and agricultural equipment.
France is leading the way on repairability reform. In 2021, they introduced the Repairability Index to foster sustainable consumption, by making it easier for consumers to repair electronic devices rather than replace them. Products are scored from 0 to 10 based on how easy they are to repair. That's an effective way to promote and encourage repairability, as well as drive brands to redesign their products for a longer life.
Wales is another superb example of a country which is excelling in circular economy achievement, thanks to simultaneous top-down and bottom-up action. Repair Cafes have taken off in Welsh communities, and the Welsh Benthyg Cymru - Library of Things - are prevalent around the country.
In the same year that France introduced the index, the Australian Productivity Commission released a report on the "Right to Repair", identifying significant barriers to repair and recommending comprehensive reforms to enhance consumer choice, reduce e-waste, and promote competition in repair markets. Four years on and not one of the recommendations from the report have come to fruition.
Clean Up Australia strongly advocates for the right to repair products and equipment, including access to parts, manuals, tools, software and extended warranties.
It's part of living an independent and sustainable life - being able to mend, fix and extend the life of products we have.
The Australian Repair Network has done a great job setting up an interactive map of community initiatives and repair cafes in Australia. But we still have a long way to go in this country.
If we are to successfully transition to a more circular and sustainable future, with regulated waste, moving markets for recycled materials, and a flourishing culture of repair and reuse, an entire consciousness shift is needed. I am mindful that even the terminology circular economy may still not be known to the general public.
On our 35th anniversary, I'd like to see increased community awareness to reduce wasteful consumerism and reliance on single-use, enhanced product design standards for longevity and repair, and continued investment in waste management infrastructure.
To achieve this, collaboration across all levels of government, industry, brands, business, and the everyday Australian is required.
It is encouraging that late last year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the Albanese government's commitment to developing a general right to repair.
With our Federal government sworn in and back to work, we're hoping to see that commitment enshrined in policy in the term to come.
Australia can lead the way to develop new patterns of consumption that meet consumer expectations and reduce environmental impacts, while being affordable to the public and creating new business opportunities for brands and retailers.
This year, more than 800,000 volunteers across the country pulled on their gloves and got to work removing litter from our precious environment.
Our volunteers already put in the hard yards, but clean-ups alone cannot solve the mess we're in. It's time to begin fixing what's broken, before it becomes waste.
Every Australian should feel inspired to have the cleanest country on earth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Entitled generation: what adult kids are doing to ensure an inheritance
With the cost of living soaring and home ownership out of reach for many of the younger generations, some are hell-bent on protecting an inheritance they believe should be theirs. Over a quarter of Australians are not sure if they will have enough money for their retirement, according to Finder and with the average cost of a house now $1.002 million across the nation, many are hoping an inheritance will save them. But there are concerns an entitled attitude can lead to elder abuse and The Senior has already reported on "Inheritance Impatience", when family members pressure a person for early access to their money. And as the cost of health care for pensioners is set to rise on November 1 and an entry deposit into aged care soared up to $750,000 on July 1, some beneficiaries are trying to cut down their parents' costs. Council on the Ageing (COTA) NSW CEO Gohar Yazdabadi told The Senior the Government's changes to aged care mean that retirees will need to tap into more of their "savings, super and assets" so they can age "safely". "We're seeing more instances of 'inheritance protection', where family members stop older people from spending money on care, so there's more left to inherit, which is clearly a form of elder abuse," she said. "The idea that inheritance is a right, rather than a possibility, is shifting the dynamics of ageing." Ms Yazdabadi said the rise in inheritance impatience is making families forget or not care that retirees need their money to live and age well. "Older people are finding themselves in the difficult situation of having to navigate these expectations along with managing their own financial needs." she said. Eastern Community Legal Centre Managing Lawyer in Elder Abuse Paul Were said the chances of elder abuse can increase when choosing someone to make your medical decisions if you are incapacitated - and they are also in the will. "There's a chance that they might go and make bad decisions, potentially cheaper decisions, so they can try and retain their inheritance," he said. "Some of those medical decisions might be things like how to prolong someone's life. "If that person is also a beneficiary in the will ... they actually may benefit from the death of the person they're supposed to be caring for." The Victorian lawyer said it is hard to know if someone you love and trust might make a decision in their favour to speed up their inheritance, and if retirees are unsure who to appoint, they always have the option to not name anyone. The lawyer said the clients he usually sees are retirees who have discovered their adult children have been mishandling their funds. "Taking money from their bank accounts," he said. "Perhaps they're forcing them to sign documents against their wishes, or transferring their property into their own name." The lawyer also said adding to the problem is when older Australians are being blamed for the housing crisis and the younger generation "develop a sense of entitlement" because they think they also deserve a house. "There's really strong links between elder abuse and ageism," he said. Mr Were did say that despite the risks, many parents feel a sense of "pride" knowing they will be able to gift an inheritance to their family members, which he thinks is "lovely". "It's just the crossover when there's this expectation of that happening ... which is what often leads adult children to take advantage of their parents when they are deteriorating." With the cost of living soaring and home ownership out of reach for many of the younger generations, some are hell-bent on protecting an inheritance they believe should be theirs. Over a quarter of Australians are not sure if they will have enough money for their retirement, according to Finder and with the average cost of a house now $1.002 million across the nation, many are hoping an inheritance will save them. But there are concerns an entitled attitude can lead to elder abuse and The Senior has already reported on "Inheritance Impatience", when family members pressure a person for early access to their money. And as the cost of health care for pensioners is set to rise on November 1 and an entry deposit into aged care soared up to $750,000 on July 1, some beneficiaries are trying to cut down their parents' costs. Council on the Ageing (COTA) NSW CEO Gohar Yazdabadi told The Senior the Government's changes to aged care mean that retirees will need to tap into more of their "savings, super and assets" so they can age "safely". "We're seeing more instances of 'inheritance protection', where family members stop older people from spending money on care, so there's more left to inherit, which is clearly a form of elder abuse," she said. "The idea that inheritance is a right, rather than a possibility, is shifting the dynamics of ageing." Ms Yazdabadi said the rise in inheritance impatience is making families forget or not care that retirees need their money to live and age well. "Older people are finding themselves in the difficult situation of having to navigate these expectations along with managing their own financial needs." she said. Eastern Community Legal Centre Managing Lawyer in Elder Abuse Paul Were said the chances of elder abuse can increase when choosing someone to make your medical decisions if you are incapacitated - and they are also in the will. "There's a chance that they might go and make bad decisions, potentially cheaper decisions, so they can try and retain their inheritance," he said. "Some of those medical decisions might be things like how to prolong someone's life. "If that person is also a beneficiary in the will ... they actually may benefit from the death of the person they're supposed to be caring for." The Victorian lawyer said it is hard to know if someone you love and trust might make a decision in their favour to speed up their inheritance, and if retirees are unsure who to appoint, they always have the option to not name anyone. The lawyer said the clients he usually sees are retirees who have discovered their adult children have been mishandling their funds. "Taking money from their bank accounts," he said. "Perhaps they're forcing them to sign documents against their wishes, or transferring their property into their own name." The lawyer also said adding to the problem is when older Australians are being blamed for the housing crisis and the younger generation "develop a sense of entitlement" because they think they also deserve a house. "There's really strong links between elder abuse and ageism," he said. Mr Were did say that despite the risks, many parents feel a sense of "pride" knowing they will be able to gift an inheritance to their family members, which he thinks is "lovely". "It's just the crossover when there's this expectation of that happening ... which is what often leads adult children to take advantage of their parents when they are deteriorating." With the cost of living soaring and home ownership out of reach for many of the younger generations, some are hell-bent on protecting an inheritance they believe should be theirs. Over a quarter of Australians are not sure if they will have enough money for their retirement, according to Finder and with the average cost of a house now $1.002 million across the nation, many are hoping an inheritance will save them. But there are concerns an entitled attitude can lead to elder abuse and The Senior has already reported on "Inheritance Impatience", when family members pressure a person for early access to their money. And as the cost of health care for pensioners is set to rise on November 1 and an entry deposit into aged care soared up to $750,000 on July 1, some beneficiaries are trying to cut down their parents' costs. Council on the Ageing (COTA) NSW CEO Gohar Yazdabadi told The Senior the Government's changes to aged care mean that retirees will need to tap into more of their "savings, super and assets" so they can age "safely". "We're seeing more instances of 'inheritance protection', where family members stop older people from spending money on care, so there's more left to inherit, which is clearly a form of elder abuse," she said. "The idea that inheritance is a right, rather than a possibility, is shifting the dynamics of ageing." Ms Yazdabadi said the rise in inheritance impatience is making families forget or not care that retirees need their money to live and age well. "Older people are finding themselves in the difficult situation of having to navigate these expectations along with managing their own financial needs." she said. Eastern Community Legal Centre Managing Lawyer in Elder Abuse Paul Were said the chances of elder abuse can increase when choosing someone to make your medical decisions if you are incapacitated - and they are also in the will. "There's a chance that they might go and make bad decisions, potentially cheaper decisions, so they can try and retain their inheritance," he said. "Some of those medical decisions might be things like how to prolong someone's life. "If that person is also a beneficiary in the will ... they actually may benefit from the death of the person they're supposed to be caring for." The Victorian lawyer said it is hard to know if someone you love and trust might make a decision in their favour to speed up their inheritance, and if retirees are unsure who to appoint, they always have the option to not name anyone. The lawyer said the clients he usually sees are retirees who have discovered their adult children have been mishandling their funds. "Taking money from their bank accounts," he said. "Perhaps they're forcing them to sign documents against their wishes, or transferring their property into their own name." The lawyer also said adding to the problem is when older Australians are being blamed for the housing crisis and the younger generation "develop a sense of entitlement" because they think they also deserve a house. "There's really strong links between elder abuse and ageism," he said. Mr Were did say that despite the risks, many parents feel a sense of "pride" knowing they will be able to gift an inheritance to their family members, which he thinks is "lovely". "It's just the crossover when there's this expectation of that happening ... which is what often leads adult children to take advantage of their parents when they are deteriorating." With the cost of living soaring and home ownership out of reach for many of the younger generations, some are hell-bent on protecting an inheritance they believe should be theirs. Over a quarter of Australians are not sure if they will have enough money for their retirement, according to Finder and with the average cost of a house now $1.002 million across the nation, many are hoping an inheritance will save them. But there are concerns an entitled attitude can lead to elder abuse and The Senior has already reported on "Inheritance Impatience", when family members pressure a person for early access to their money. And as the cost of health care for pensioners is set to rise on November 1 and an entry deposit into aged care soared up to $750,000 on July 1, some beneficiaries are trying to cut down their parents' costs. Council on the Ageing (COTA) NSW CEO Gohar Yazdabadi told The Senior the Government's changes to aged care mean that retirees will need to tap into more of their "savings, super and assets" so they can age "safely". "We're seeing more instances of 'inheritance protection', where family members stop older people from spending money on care, so there's more left to inherit, which is clearly a form of elder abuse," she said. "The idea that inheritance is a right, rather than a possibility, is shifting the dynamics of ageing." Ms Yazdabadi said the rise in inheritance impatience is making families forget or not care that retirees need their money to live and age well. "Older people are finding themselves in the difficult situation of having to navigate these expectations along with managing their own financial needs." she said. Eastern Community Legal Centre Managing Lawyer in Elder Abuse Paul Were said the chances of elder abuse can increase when choosing someone to make your medical decisions if you are incapacitated - and they are also in the will. "There's a chance that they might go and make bad decisions, potentially cheaper decisions, so they can try and retain their inheritance," he said. "Some of those medical decisions might be things like how to prolong someone's life. "If that person is also a beneficiary in the will ... they actually may benefit from the death of the person they're supposed to be caring for." The Victorian lawyer said it is hard to know if someone you love and trust might make a decision in their favour to speed up their inheritance, and if retirees are unsure who to appoint, they always have the option to not name anyone. The lawyer said the clients he usually sees are retirees who have discovered their adult children have been mishandling their funds. "Taking money from their bank accounts," he said. "Perhaps they're forcing them to sign documents against their wishes, or transferring their property into their own name." The lawyer also said adding to the problem is when older Australians are being blamed for the housing crisis and the younger generation "develop a sense of entitlement" because they think they also deserve a house. "There's really strong links between elder abuse and ageism," he said. Mr Were did say that despite the risks, many parents feel a sense of "pride" knowing they will be able to gift an inheritance to their family members, which he thinks is "lovely". "It's just the crossover when there's this expectation of that happening ... which is what often leads adult children to take advantage of their parents when they are deteriorating."
9 News
an hour ago
- 9 News
Embarrassing reason Aussies are wasting hundreds of dollars every year
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here As Australians continue to battle the cost-of-living pressures caused by years of high inflation and interest rates, plenty are wasting hundreds of dollars a year on subscription services they never use, with many even having forgotten about signing up in the first place. Research released by Westpac this week revealed three in every 10 Aussies lose $600 a year on duplicate apps and services they don't use. It also found the average consumer spends an extra 20 per cent on subscriptions than what they realise – the equivalent of about $14 a month or $168 a year. Three in every 10 Australians waste $600 a year on apps they don't use. (Nine / Janie Barrett) "Convenience is clearly appealing to Australians and they're willing to pay for it. But our research has found these services might be running away from them a little bit," Westpac acting chief executive, consumer, Carolyn McCann said. "When we compared total estimated spend against customer transaction data, we could see customers are spending about $14 more each month than they think they are on subscriptions. "While subscription costs might not seem like much in isolation, they can quickly add up – especially if these are apps or services you no longer use. "This is hundreds or even thousands in potential savings that could be redirected elsewhere." Westpac also found its customers are spending more than $2200 a year on takeaway food. (Dominic Lorrimer) The research found that failing to cancel a service during a trial was the main reason people were spending more than they thought, while just under a third of consumers said they'd paid for a subscription they'd forgotten about. A similar proportion (31 per cent) said they found it too difficult to cancel certain services. Westpac also found Australians are spending $141 extra a year on subscriptions, an increase of 11.3 per cent from 2024. That comes as a number of popular streaming providers, including Spotify and Netflix , have increased their prices in consecutive years. Gaming services are the biggest money sinks for Australians, costing the average consumer $55.50 a month ($666 a year), followed by video streamers ($21.63 per month/$260 a year) and music ($16.98 a month/$204 a year). At the same time, Westpac also found its customers are spending a whopping $2200 a year on takeaway food. "Our data suggests customers are willing to spend on what makes life easier, with a significant uplift in spend on food services," McCann said. "But there's also growing awareness around value. "While spend on home and utility subscriptions recorded the second-highest spend growth, customers also said these services delivered the least value." Consumer national Australia finance money Cost of Living Westpac CONTACT US Property News: Rubbish-strewn house overtaken by mould asks $1.2 million.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Charge ahead: road taxes may be closer than they appear
Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation." Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation." Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation." Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation."
