Labor ‘waited' till after election to announce North West Shelf gas extension
Shadow Environment and Youth Minister Angie Bell questions the timing behind the Albanese government approving an extension of Woodside's North West Shelf gas project.
'We [Coalition] welcomed this pragmatic approach to the North West Shelf extension – I do note, however, that the Labor government waited till after the election to make this decision,' Ms Bell told Sky News Australia.
'You do have to wonder about the timing of it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Australia and US in tug of war on defence spending as Hegseth calls on Marles to boost funding to 3.5 per cent of GDP
The United States has called on Australia to boost its military budget to 3.5 per cent of GDP 'as soon as possible', but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has refused to change his policy position. Defence Minister Richard Marles met with US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth on the sidelines of the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore last week to discuss the key priorities of the US-Australia alliance. In a US Department of Defence readout released on Sunday, the figure requested of Australia was revealed, with the key focus areas being advancing defence industrial base cooperation, creating supply chain resilience and accelerating US force posture initiatives in Australia. 'The Secretary looks forward to continuing to work with Deputy Prime Minister Marles to maintain peace through strength in the Indo-Pacific,' the statement read. The US has been telling allies around the world, in Europe and across the Indo-Pacific, to increase defence spending instead of relying on the American military. In his address at the summit, Hegseth echoed the Trump administration's motto of maintaining 'peace through strength' and stressed the importance of restoring the 'warrior ethos'. "There's no reason to sugar coat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent," Hegseth said, in some of his strongest comments on the Communist nation since he took office in January. In his address at the Shangri La Dialogue, Mr Marles said the assurance from the US that it saw the Indo-Pacific as a strategic priority was 'deeply welcome'. 'But we cannot leave it to the United States alone,' he said. 'Other countries must contribute to this balance as well, and Australia is investing in a generational transformation of the ADF to ensure we are not only in a position to deter for projection against us, but also to contribute to an effective regional balance.' However, Sky News Sunday Agenda reported Mr Albanese would not bend to US pressure and stand by Labor's existing policy of increasing defence funding to 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033. 'What we'll do is we'll determine our defence policy, and we've invested just across the forwards, an additional $10 billion in defence,' Mr Albanese said on Sunday. 'What we'll do is continue to do is continue to provide for investing in our capability but also investing in our relationships in the region.' Mr Albanese's highly-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump appears likely to occur at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis from June 15 to 17, 2025. Before Mr Marles' meeting with Mr Hegseth, the Prime Minister lashed out at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) after it published a report criticising the government's funding trajectory. 'Seriously, they need to, I think, have a look at themselves as well and the way that they conduct themselves in debates,' Mr Albanese told ABC Radio. 'We've had a Defence Strategic Review. We've got considerable additional investment going into defence - $10 billion." ASPI Executive Director Justin Bassi defended the report, saying the government was failing to meet the urgency of the global threat landscape. 'ASPI was set up to deliver the hard truths to the government of the day,' Mr Bassi told Sky News. 'Unfortunately the world has these threats that do impact Australia and to counter these threats we need to, unfortunately, spend more money in the area." Mr Marles revealed the US Secretary of Defence had already nudged Australia to increase defence spending, but stopped short at disclosing by how much. 'On Friday, in our bilateral meeting, Secretary Hegseth did raise the question of increased defence expenditure on the Australian side,' Mr Marles said on Sunday. 'Of course, we have already engaged in the last couple of years in the single biggest peace time increase in defence expenditure in Australia's history. So we are beginning this journey.'
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Unrealised capital gains tax could wreak financial havoc
Labor's proposed tax on unrealised capital gains in super is finally getting the attention it deserves, as more Australians grasp just how draconian the policy really is. It's a textbook example of unintended consequences - a slick-sounding policy with the potential to wreak financial havoc. It must have been an irresistible proposition: let's put a special tax on the rich; there's not many of them, and they don't vote for us anyway. Welcome to Australia's Animal Farm, where all super funds are equal, but some are more equal than others. Judges and public servants retiring on massive defined benefit pensions, often worth well over $3 million, have been handed a special exemption. Why? Because taxing them was deemed "too hard" - while everyone else above the cap is expected to pay up. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The proposed tax is also a form of double taxation. Under this plan you'll pay an extra 15 per cent tax each year on the nominal increase in value of your super assets - even if you haven't sold anything. When you do sell those assets and realise a profit, you'll pay capital gains tax. And no, there's no credit for tax already paid on the unrealised gains. Labor have never made any secret about their hatred of self-managed super funds. Every dollar in an SMSF is one less dollar paying fees to the Labor-dominated industry super funds. But SMSFs let people hold assets not open to the big funds - business premises, farms, and commercial property - none of which can be sold at the click of a button. If taxes on paper profits force enough people to liquidate at once, prices will collapse; it's simple supply and demand. And make no mistake - Australians will respond. Many I've spoken to are already planning to restructure by gifting to children: helping them buy property, pay down loans, or invest. That shift - combined with likely interest rate cuts later this year - could fuel another property boom. It's the opposite of what the government claims it's trying to achieve. If this tax becomes law, it will also impede innovation. Many tech founders launch start-ups through their super funds, and these businesses are often illiquid for years. Their perceived value can fluctuate wildly. Imagine a $1 million start-up growing to $6 million on paper - triggering a tax on a $5 million gain that may never be realised. If the valuation crashes to $3 million the next year, the fund is still taxed on money that never existed. Madness. And let's not forget the Laffer Curve: the well-established principle that raising tax rates beyond a certain point actually reduces total tax revenue. Push people hard enough, and they'll restructure, withdraw, or move their wealth offshore. So a tax designed to raise more money might end up collecting less. But the biggest danger is this: it's a foot in the door for taxing wealth that doesn't exist. Once you accept that principle, no asset is safe. If it's OK to tax unrealised gains for someone with $3 million in super - or $2 million if the Greens get their way - what stops a future government from applying the same logic to investment properties? Or a share portfolio? Or a business? And then there's the family home. Right now, your principal residence is tax-free, even if it's worth $100 million. But it stands out like a beacon for any government desperate for cash and bold enough to grab it. Once that line is crossed, there's no telling where it ends. You may think this policy doesn't affect you, but to quote John Donne: "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Question: In your response to a recent question published you stated that aged pension recipients must notify Centrelink of any material change in their assets or income. Does this reporting requirement also apply to superannuation drawdowns when the funds are used for gifting within the allowable limits (i.e. up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum of $30,000 over a five-year period) to assist adult children with a home purchase? I understand "material" in the Australian Accounting Standards sense, but Centrelink may define it differently. Could you clarify? Answer: Regan Wellburn from My Pension Manager advises that a superannuation drawdown is considered a notifiable event for Centrelink. If in doubt, it's always safer to report any financial changes. This ensures you won't be underpaid or, worse, end up owing Centrelink money. Any change of $2,000 or more in financial assets - such as bank accounts, super, or shares - must be reported within 14 days. For non-financial assets like cars or home contents, the threshold is $1,000. Gifting is also a notifiable event, even if it falls within the $10,000 annual limit. The simplest way to update Centrelink is through your MyGov account. This provides a record of your update and allows you to review and adjust your income and asset details as needed Question: I'm saving for a home loan and currently have no credit history. I know lenders often consider credit scores when assessing loan applications. Would it be beneficial to take out a small loan, such as a credit card, to build my credit history and improve my chances of approval in the future? Answer: Having a strong credit history can help when applying for a home loan, as lenders assess your ability to manage debt responsibly. If used wisely, a credit card or small loan can demonstrate reliability. The key is to make small purchases and repay them on time to build a positive record. However, avoid unnecessary debt-lenders also consider your debt-to-income ratio. If you prefer a safer option, some banks offer credit products like secured credit cards or small overdrafts that help establish credit without encouraging overspending. That said, credit history is just one factor. A solid savings record, stable employment, and a sufficient deposit also play a big role. If in doubt, speaking to a mortgage broker can help tailor a strategy to your goals. Question: A relative is about to enter aged care and will use some of her super to pay the entire accommodation bond, leaving her with around $350,000. A financial adviser suggested she withdraw the remaining super and place it in a safer option, like a term deposit, given her likely short investment time frame. He believes she should avoid any risk. Do you agree with this approach, or would you recommend a different strategy for managing her remaining funds? She is receiving a substantial part age pension now. Answer: The biggest risk here is the death tax that may apply to her super if it's left to a non-dependent such as adult children. Since she's entering aged care, her time frame may be limited. Cashing it out and putting it in the bank could provide peace of mind while also avoiding the tax. Options to slightly increase her pension include pre-paying for her funeral and considering gifting money to her intended beneficiaries so she can enjoy seeing the impact it has on them. Making gifts of $10,000 before 30 June and another $10,000 on 1 July could reduce her assessable assets by $20,000. Labor's proposed tax on unrealised capital gains in super is finally getting the attention it deserves, as more Australians grasp just how draconian the policy really is. It's a textbook example of unintended consequences - a slick-sounding policy with the potential to wreak financial havoc. It must have been an irresistible proposition: let's put a special tax on the rich; there's not many of them, and they don't vote for us anyway. Welcome to Australia's Animal Farm, where all super funds are equal, but some are more equal than others. Judges and public servants retiring on massive defined benefit pensions, often worth well over $3 million, have been handed a special exemption. Why? Because taxing them was deemed "too hard" - while everyone else above the cap is expected to pay up. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The proposed tax is also a form of double taxation. Under this plan you'll pay an extra 15 per cent tax each year on the nominal increase in value of your super assets - even if you haven't sold anything. When you do sell those assets and realise a profit, you'll pay capital gains tax. And no, there's no credit for tax already paid on the unrealised gains. Labor have never made any secret about their hatred of self-managed super funds. Every dollar in an SMSF is one less dollar paying fees to the Labor-dominated industry super funds. But SMSFs let people hold assets not open to the big funds - business premises, farms, and commercial property - none of which can be sold at the click of a button. If taxes on paper profits force enough people to liquidate at once, prices will collapse; it's simple supply and demand. And make no mistake - Australians will respond. Many I've spoken to are already planning to restructure by gifting to children: helping them buy property, pay down loans, or invest. That shift - combined with likely interest rate cuts later this year - could fuel another property boom. It's the opposite of what the government claims it's trying to achieve. If this tax becomes law, it will also impede innovation. Many tech founders launch start-ups through their super funds, and these businesses are often illiquid for years. Their perceived value can fluctuate wildly. Imagine a $1 million start-up growing to $6 million on paper - triggering a tax on a $5 million gain that may never be realised. If the valuation crashes to $3 million the next year, the fund is still taxed on money that never existed. Madness. And let's not forget the Laffer Curve: the well-established principle that raising tax rates beyond a certain point actually reduces total tax revenue. Push people hard enough, and they'll restructure, withdraw, or move their wealth offshore. So a tax designed to raise more money might end up collecting less. But the biggest danger is this: it's a foot in the door for taxing wealth that doesn't exist. Once you accept that principle, no asset is safe. If it's OK to tax unrealised gains for someone with $3 million in super - or $2 million if the Greens get their way - what stops a future government from applying the same logic to investment properties? Or a share portfolio? Or a business? And then there's the family home. Right now, your principal residence is tax-free, even if it's worth $100 million. But it stands out like a beacon for any government desperate for cash and bold enough to grab it. Once that line is crossed, there's no telling where it ends. You may think this policy doesn't affect you, but to quote John Donne: "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Question: In your response to a recent question published you stated that aged pension recipients must notify Centrelink of any material change in their assets or income. Does this reporting requirement also apply to superannuation drawdowns when the funds are used for gifting within the allowable limits (i.e. up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum of $30,000 over a five-year period) to assist adult children with a home purchase? I understand "material" in the Australian Accounting Standards sense, but Centrelink may define it differently. Could you clarify? Answer: Regan Wellburn from My Pension Manager advises that a superannuation drawdown is considered a notifiable event for Centrelink. If in doubt, it's always safer to report any financial changes. This ensures you won't be underpaid or, worse, end up owing Centrelink money. Any change of $2,000 or more in financial assets - such as bank accounts, super, or shares - must be reported within 14 days. For non-financial assets like cars or home contents, the threshold is $1,000. Gifting is also a notifiable event, even if it falls within the $10,000 annual limit. The simplest way to update Centrelink is through your MyGov account. This provides a record of your update and allows you to review and adjust your income and asset details as needed Question: I'm saving for a home loan and currently have no credit history. I know lenders often consider credit scores when assessing loan applications. Would it be beneficial to take out a small loan, such as a credit card, to build my credit history and improve my chances of approval in the future? Answer: Having a strong credit history can help when applying for a home loan, as lenders assess your ability to manage debt responsibly. If used wisely, a credit card or small loan can demonstrate reliability. The key is to make small purchases and repay them on time to build a positive record. However, avoid unnecessary debt-lenders also consider your debt-to-income ratio. If you prefer a safer option, some banks offer credit products like secured credit cards or small overdrafts that help establish credit without encouraging overspending. That said, credit history is just one factor. A solid savings record, stable employment, and a sufficient deposit also play a big role. If in doubt, speaking to a mortgage broker can help tailor a strategy to your goals. Question: A relative is about to enter aged care and will use some of her super to pay the entire accommodation bond, leaving her with around $350,000. A financial adviser suggested she withdraw the remaining super and place it in a safer option, like a term deposit, given her likely short investment time frame. He believes she should avoid any risk. Do you agree with this approach, or would you recommend a different strategy for managing her remaining funds? She is receiving a substantial part age pension now. Answer: The biggest risk here is the death tax that may apply to her super if it's left to a non-dependent such as adult children. Since she's entering aged care, her time frame may be limited. Cashing it out and putting it in the bank could provide peace of mind while also avoiding the tax. Options to slightly increase her pension include pre-paying for her funeral and considering gifting money to her intended beneficiaries so she can enjoy seeing the impact it has on them. Making gifts of $10,000 before 30 June and another $10,000 on 1 July could reduce her assessable assets by $20,000. Labor's proposed tax on unrealised capital gains in super is finally getting the attention it deserves, as more Australians grasp just how draconian the policy really is. It's a textbook example of unintended consequences - a slick-sounding policy with the potential to wreak financial havoc. It must have been an irresistible proposition: let's put a special tax on the rich; there's not many of them, and they don't vote for us anyway. Welcome to Australia's Animal Farm, where all super funds are equal, but some are more equal than others. Judges and public servants retiring on massive defined benefit pensions, often worth well over $3 million, have been handed a special exemption. Why? Because taxing them was deemed "too hard" - while everyone else above the cap is expected to pay up. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The proposed tax is also a form of double taxation. Under this plan you'll pay an extra 15 per cent tax each year on the nominal increase in value of your super assets - even if you haven't sold anything. When you do sell those assets and realise a profit, you'll pay capital gains tax. And no, there's no credit for tax already paid on the unrealised gains. Labor have never made any secret about their hatred of self-managed super funds. Every dollar in an SMSF is one less dollar paying fees to the Labor-dominated industry super funds. But SMSFs let people hold assets not open to the big funds - business premises, farms, and commercial property - none of which can be sold at the click of a button. If taxes on paper profits force enough people to liquidate at once, prices will collapse; it's simple supply and demand. And make no mistake - Australians will respond. Many I've spoken to are already planning to restructure by gifting to children: helping them buy property, pay down loans, or invest. That shift - combined with likely interest rate cuts later this year - could fuel another property boom. It's the opposite of what the government claims it's trying to achieve. If this tax becomes law, it will also impede innovation. Many tech founders launch start-ups through their super funds, and these businesses are often illiquid for years. Their perceived value can fluctuate wildly. Imagine a $1 million start-up growing to $6 million on paper - triggering a tax on a $5 million gain that may never be realised. If the valuation crashes to $3 million the next year, the fund is still taxed on money that never existed. Madness. And let's not forget the Laffer Curve: the well-established principle that raising tax rates beyond a certain point actually reduces total tax revenue. Push people hard enough, and they'll restructure, withdraw, or move their wealth offshore. So a tax designed to raise more money might end up collecting less. But the biggest danger is this: it's a foot in the door for taxing wealth that doesn't exist. Once you accept that principle, no asset is safe. If it's OK to tax unrealised gains for someone with $3 million in super - or $2 million if the Greens get their way - what stops a future government from applying the same logic to investment properties? Or a share portfolio? Or a business? And then there's the family home. Right now, your principal residence is tax-free, even if it's worth $100 million. But it stands out like a beacon for any government desperate for cash and bold enough to grab it. Once that line is crossed, there's no telling where it ends. You may think this policy doesn't affect you, but to quote John Donne: "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Question: In your response to a recent question published you stated that aged pension recipients must notify Centrelink of any material change in their assets or income. Does this reporting requirement also apply to superannuation drawdowns when the funds are used for gifting within the allowable limits (i.e. up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum of $30,000 over a five-year period) to assist adult children with a home purchase? I understand "material" in the Australian Accounting Standards sense, but Centrelink may define it differently. Could you clarify? Answer: Regan Wellburn from My Pension Manager advises that a superannuation drawdown is considered a notifiable event for Centrelink. If in doubt, it's always safer to report any financial changes. This ensures you won't be underpaid or, worse, end up owing Centrelink money. Any change of $2,000 or more in financial assets - such as bank accounts, super, or shares - must be reported within 14 days. For non-financial assets like cars or home contents, the threshold is $1,000. Gifting is also a notifiable event, even if it falls within the $10,000 annual limit. The simplest way to update Centrelink is through your MyGov account. This provides a record of your update and allows you to review and adjust your income and asset details as needed Question: I'm saving for a home loan and currently have no credit history. I know lenders often consider credit scores when assessing loan applications. Would it be beneficial to take out a small loan, such as a credit card, to build my credit history and improve my chances of approval in the future? Answer: Having a strong credit history can help when applying for a home loan, as lenders assess your ability to manage debt responsibly. If used wisely, a credit card or small loan can demonstrate reliability. The key is to make small purchases and repay them on time to build a positive record. However, avoid unnecessary debt-lenders also consider your debt-to-income ratio. If you prefer a safer option, some banks offer credit products like secured credit cards or small overdrafts that help establish credit without encouraging overspending. That said, credit history is just one factor. A solid savings record, stable employment, and a sufficient deposit also play a big role. If in doubt, speaking to a mortgage broker can help tailor a strategy to your goals. Question: A relative is about to enter aged care and will use some of her super to pay the entire accommodation bond, leaving her with around $350,000. A financial adviser suggested she withdraw the remaining super and place it in a safer option, like a term deposit, given her likely short investment time frame. He believes she should avoid any risk. Do you agree with this approach, or would you recommend a different strategy for managing her remaining funds? She is receiving a substantial part age pension now. Answer: The biggest risk here is the death tax that may apply to her super if it's left to a non-dependent such as adult children. Since she's entering aged care, her time frame may be limited. Cashing it out and putting it in the bank could provide peace of mind while also avoiding the tax. Options to slightly increase her pension include pre-paying for her funeral and considering gifting money to her intended beneficiaries so she can enjoy seeing the impact it has on them. Making gifts of $10,000 before 30 June and another $10,000 on 1 July could reduce her assessable assets by $20,000. Labor's proposed tax on unrealised capital gains in super is finally getting the attention it deserves, as more Australians grasp just how draconian the policy really is. It's a textbook example of unintended consequences - a slick-sounding policy with the potential to wreak financial havoc. It must have been an irresistible proposition: let's put a special tax on the rich; there's not many of them, and they don't vote for us anyway. Welcome to Australia's Animal Farm, where all super funds are equal, but some are more equal than others. Judges and public servants retiring on massive defined benefit pensions, often worth well over $3 million, have been handed a special exemption. Why? Because taxing them was deemed "too hard" - while everyone else above the cap is expected to pay up. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The proposed tax is also a form of double taxation. Under this plan you'll pay an extra 15 per cent tax each year on the nominal increase in value of your super assets - even if you haven't sold anything. When you do sell those assets and realise a profit, you'll pay capital gains tax. And no, there's no credit for tax already paid on the unrealised gains. Labor have never made any secret about their hatred of self-managed super funds. Every dollar in an SMSF is one less dollar paying fees to the Labor-dominated industry super funds. But SMSFs let people hold assets not open to the big funds - business premises, farms, and commercial property - none of which can be sold at the click of a button. If taxes on paper profits force enough people to liquidate at once, prices will collapse; it's simple supply and demand. And make no mistake - Australians will respond. Many I've spoken to are already planning to restructure by gifting to children: helping them buy property, pay down loans, or invest. That shift - combined with likely interest rate cuts later this year - could fuel another property boom. It's the opposite of what the government claims it's trying to achieve. If this tax becomes law, it will also impede innovation. Many tech founders launch start-ups through their super funds, and these businesses are often illiquid for years. Their perceived value can fluctuate wildly. Imagine a $1 million start-up growing to $6 million on paper - triggering a tax on a $5 million gain that may never be realised. If the valuation crashes to $3 million the next year, the fund is still taxed on money that never existed. Madness. And let's not forget the Laffer Curve: the well-established principle that raising tax rates beyond a certain point actually reduces total tax revenue. Push people hard enough, and they'll restructure, withdraw, or move their wealth offshore. So a tax designed to raise more money might end up collecting less. But the biggest danger is this: it's a foot in the door for taxing wealth that doesn't exist. Once you accept that principle, no asset is safe. If it's OK to tax unrealised gains for someone with $3 million in super - or $2 million if the Greens get their way - what stops a future government from applying the same logic to investment properties? Or a share portfolio? Or a business? And then there's the family home. Right now, your principal residence is tax-free, even if it's worth $100 million. But it stands out like a beacon for any government desperate for cash and bold enough to grab it. Once that line is crossed, there's no telling where it ends. You may think this policy doesn't affect you, but to quote John Donne: "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Question: In your response to a recent question published you stated that aged pension recipients must notify Centrelink of any material change in their assets or income. Does this reporting requirement also apply to superannuation drawdowns when the funds are used for gifting within the allowable limits (i.e. up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum of $30,000 over a five-year period) to assist adult children with a home purchase? I understand "material" in the Australian Accounting Standards sense, but Centrelink may define it differently. Could you clarify? Answer: Regan Wellburn from My Pension Manager advises that a superannuation drawdown is considered a notifiable event for Centrelink. If in doubt, it's always safer to report any financial changes. This ensures you won't be underpaid or, worse, end up owing Centrelink money. Any change of $2,000 or more in financial assets - such as bank accounts, super, or shares - must be reported within 14 days. For non-financial assets like cars or home contents, the threshold is $1,000. Gifting is also a notifiable event, even if it falls within the $10,000 annual limit. The simplest way to update Centrelink is through your MyGov account. This provides a record of your update and allows you to review and adjust your income and asset details as needed Question: I'm saving for a home loan and currently have no credit history. I know lenders often consider credit scores when assessing loan applications. Would it be beneficial to take out a small loan, such as a credit card, to build my credit history and improve my chances of approval in the future? Answer: Having a strong credit history can help when applying for a home loan, as lenders assess your ability to manage debt responsibly. If used wisely, a credit card or small loan can demonstrate reliability. The key is to make small purchases and repay them on time to build a positive record. However, avoid unnecessary debt-lenders also consider your debt-to-income ratio. If you prefer a safer option, some banks offer credit products like secured credit cards or small overdrafts that help establish credit without encouraging overspending. That said, credit history is just one factor. A solid savings record, stable employment, and a sufficient deposit also play a big role. If in doubt, speaking to a mortgage broker can help tailor a strategy to your goals. Question: A relative is about to enter aged care and will use some of her super to pay the entire accommodation bond, leaving her with around $350,000. A financial adviser suggested she withdraw the remaining super and place it in a safer option, like a term deposit, given her likely short investment time frame. He believes she should avoid any risk. Do you agree with this approach, or would you recommend a different strategy for managing her remaining funds? She is receiving a substantial part age pension now. Answer: The biggest risk here is the death tax that may apply to her super if it's left to a non-dependent such as adult children. Since she's entering aged care, her time frame may be limited. Cashing it out and putting it in the bank could provide peace of mind while also avoiding the tax. Options to slightly increase her pension include pre-paying for her funeral and considering gifting money to her intended beneficiaries so she can enjoy seeing the impact it has on them. Making gifts of $10,000 before 30 June and another $10,000 on 1 July could reduce her assessable assets by $20,000.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Whip it good: ‘Devo' Bandt exits, but who will be the new Lord or Lady of the Crossbench?
As the final votes are recounted in Bradfield, and the Coalition parties promise to listen better and go to therapy after their brief separation, CBD's eyes are now turned to the latest position up for grabs in the upcoming 48th Parliament. We're talking about the semi-official role of crossbench whip, or the MP responsible for ensuring their crossbench colleagues all get their voices heard during the chaos of question time. In the past, this task fell to former Greens leader Adam Bandt, or rather, his office. And when the crossbench swelled to a record 16 MPs after the 2022 election, it took on an outsized role, particularly after Labor's leader of the house, Tony Burke, increased the amount of airtime crossbenchers got in question time. It made sense for Bandt to take on the role since, as leader of a designated political party, he had more staff. Unlike the teal independents, who were livid after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese slashed their staffing allocations after the 2022 election in a manner that made Scott Morrison seem like Santa. But then Bandt suffered a shock, losing his seat of Melbourne to Labor's Sarah Witty on what was a forgettable night for the Greens. So who will take on Bandt's old role as king (or queen) of the crossbench? Nationals leader David Littleproud's decision to come crawling back to the Coalition makes things a lot easier. And while Bob Katter, famed for his Homeric approach to question time, would be the most entertaining choice, we're not sure anyone else would ever get a word in edgeways. There's been some suggestion out of the teal universe that one of the posse who now occupy the Liberal Party's old leafy turf could step up, with Warringah MP Zali Steggall touted as a possibility. She's been around a bit longer, and has a sharp grasp of parliamentary procedure. But CBD understands that Steggall is yet to decide whether she wants to take on the role. Separately, there's been persistent chatter that some members of the teal movement would like to form a separate political party – perhaps headed up by Steggall – which would solve the staffing question, if anything. 'The notion of party has been thrown around but hasn't got beyond first base,' a teal source said.
