Big news: 20% of all Australian HECS debt is officially being wiped
Is all HECS debt being wiped in Australia?
Not quite, but the legislation will see a huge 20 per cent of HECS debt wiped across Australia. According to the Australian Federal Government, 3 million Australians will benefit from the initiative, with an estimated $16 billion in debt being wiped across the country.
When can I expect my student debt reduction?
Though the measure has been officially passed, it's expected to take a few weeks to come into effect. That being said, the debt-wiping move will be applied before the June 1 indexation, applying retrospectively to debts that have existed up until now.
What do I need to do to reduce my HECS debt?
You don't need to do anything – over the next few weeks, the Australian Tax Office will apply the debt reduction to your HECS debt as it was on June 1, 2025, before the latest round of indexation was applied. From then on, you'll start saving.
How will HECS payments change?
The changes to the HECS system will include moving the threshold at which you start paying back your HECS. Students will be required to start paying back their loans only once they're earning $67,000 (a figure that previously sat at $54,435). These changes are expected to save Aussie former students an average of $680 every year – that's a very solid budget for a weekender.
It might be worth noting that the adjustments do not apply to people earning $180,000 or more.
Are more reforms coming for higher education in Australia?
Education Minister Jason Clare has hinted at further reforms that could be put into place across Australia, including adjusting university course fees to be more reflective of industry salary averages, and filling skills shortages by reducing fees for courses such as teaching, nursing, and psychology. Stay in the loop: sign up for our free Time Out Australia newsletter
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
15 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The most obnoxious MPs I've met, by ANDREW PIERCE: One physically attacked me. One called me a 'total c***'. And one philandering minister made a VERY sinister invitation. After 40 years in Westminste
It was 1988 when I first started working in Parliament as an ambitious young reporter, meaning I've met more than my fair share of Westminster characters over the decades. Some MPs – despite what you might think – are diligent, decent, dedicated men and women, working gruelling hours and thankless roles to make life for their constituents better. Others, shall we say, are not. Indeed, several MPs and peers I've had the misfortune of meeting across the political spectrum have been among the rudest and most unpleasant in any field. Here are some of the worst offenders I've met during my 40 years in journalism... NICHOLAS RIDLEY The first minister I crossed swords with in my professional life was Sir Nicholas Ridley, one of the cabal of Tory MPs who had plotted the Iron Lady's victory as party leader in 1975. It was 1983 and I was writing a story for my first newspaper, the Gloucestershire Echo, about plans for a major housing development on prized Green Belt land in his Cirencester and Tewkesbury constituency. I had spoken to Sir Charles Irving, the Tory MP for neighbouring Cheltenham, who was suitably outraged. But Ridley, a Treasury minister, stubbornly refused to return my calls. From bottom left, clockwise: Peter Mandelson, Ted Heath, David Cameron, Michael Portillo and Alastair Cambell Not to be thrown off the scent, I went to his constituency office where he was holding a Friday surgery and patiently waited in the queue to see him. When I introduced myself, Ridley – holding his trademark cigarette – exploded with rage. 'I'm a Government minister, and you are a spotty youth! Show me some respect,' he spat as he marched me from his office. But I had my scoop. 'Government minister refuses to condemn major housing development on the Green Belt in the heart of his Cotswold constituency' ran the headline – and went on to be picked up by several national news outlets. He always returned my calls after that. FERGUS MONTGOMERY I've only ever had to run for it once in the Commons – and that was in the early 1990s when I revealed that the Tory MP Sir Fergus Montgomery was hosting a party for showbusiness legend Dame Shirley Bassey. I had been to a similar event on the Commons terrace the year before so thought nothing of pointing out Montgomery's impeccable showbusiness connections. In fact, I assumed he would be delighted. So I was somewhat surprised when I arrived in the Commons on the day my article was published to come face to face with the former private secretary, who was puce with rage. Grabbing the lapels of my jacket, he began to shout so loudly that flecks of spittle formed at the corners of his mouth. Andrew Pierce has met several MPs and peers across the political spectrum who have been among the rudest and most unpleasant in any field 'I told my constituency officers the party wasn't happening this year because I didn't want them there,' he raged. 'They now think I'm a snooty liar. You've put me in an impossible position.' A string of four-letter expletives followed. Attempts by fellow MPs to calm him down seemed to make matters worse. There was no reasoning with him and, as his rage deepened, I made a decision: I legged it. But the surprisingly agile Montgomery gave chase, waving his fist in the air and shouting to any confused onlooker who would listen: 'Stop that man!' GEORGE FOULKES That wasn't the only time one of my scoops almost led to a thrashing. Around the same time, the bulbous-nosed Labour MP George Foulkes took grave exception to my report that he had been found face-down in a gutter after a scotch whisky reception. Lunging at me at a reception in The Reform Club – the famous home-from-home of Jules Verne's protagonist in Around The World In Eighty Days – he barked: 'I want a word with you, sonny.' Unfortunately, he was a little unsteady on his feet. He lunged too far, went flying and sent a table full of drinks glasses crashing on to the tiled floor. It made for an interesting follow-up. DAVID CAMERON In 1990, David Cameron left Andrew with an expensive lunch bill, where the wine alone was £75 – the equivalent of about £200 today – and impossible to get through on his expenses, but Andrew got his revenge years later My first unfortunate encounter with a future prime minister didn't come until 1990 when I had lunch with David Cameron, who was then a special adviser to chancellor Norman Lamont. Even then, I thought that he looked and sounded like a future Tory leader, oozing Old Etonian entitlement. He arrived at the restaurant, the trendy central London bistro Joe Allen, before I did – a vital time-keeping lesson that I've never forgotten. 'Hope you don't mind, old chap,' he crowed as I arrived. 'I've ordered the wine.' I didn't mind at all – until I was left with the bill. The wine alone was £75 – the equivalent of about £200 today – and impossible to get through on my expenses. Fortunately, I was able to wreak my revenge some years later when he was Leader of the Opposition. From my bird's eye view in the press gallery high above the Commons chamber, I noticed during one of his appearances that his hair was thinning on top. What did I do with this interesting nugget of information? Of course, I wrote about it – and dubbed him Friar Tuck. When we bumped into each other outside Parliament a few days later, he erupted. Forefinger stabbing the air, effing and blinding with his puffy cheeks turning blood red, he shouted: 'I'm so bloody furious with you, Pierce. You are – and always have been – a total c***.' And I thought politicians were supposed to have thick skins... ALAN CLARK Thatcher groupie Alan Clark, an unrepentant philanderer, lived in Saltwood Castle in Kent with his long-suffering wife Jane, picture together. Andrew wrote about the former defence minister's affair with a judge's wife and her two daughters Then there was the former defence minister and Thatcher groupie Alan Clark, an unrepentant philanderer, who lived in Saltwood Castle in Kent with his long-suffering wife Jane. After I wrote about his affair with a judge's wife and her two daughters – whom he referred to as the 'coven' in his diaries – he approached me in the Commons in 1994, when he was between seats. 'I gather you're Andrew Pierce,' he said somewhat pleasantly. 'You're a poxy prig. Do come to my home – but be warned, four knights stayed there the night before they went to Canterbury Cathedral to kill Archbishop Thomas Becket.' Needless to say, I never took him up on his kind offer. JOHN GUMMER After the widely-disliked environment secretary John Gummer survived yet another John Major Cabinet reshuffle in 1995, I decided to introduce myself. 'What is it the prime minister sees in you that eludes the rest of us?' I asked. He replied tartly: ' 'Journalism is popular mainly as fiction. Life is one world and life seen in the newspapers another.' That's G. K. Chesterton, you oaf.' Looking me up and down, he added: 'As for you, you're in a different world altogether.' MICHAEL PORTILLO In 1996, Michael Portillo lost his seat by 1,443 votes. Could it have anything to do with a story Andrew wrote about the Conservative Association in his Enfield Southgate constituency and a McDonald's bid to take over the defence secretary's HQ, which outraged residents? Back in the summer of 1996, defence secretary Michael Portillo was the rising star of the Tory party and the frontrunner to replace flailing leader John Major after the election the following year. I picked up a story that the Conservative Association in his Enfield Southgate constituency had accepted an offer of £325,000 from McDonald's – £100,000 more than any other bidder – allowing the fast food giant to take over his HQ. Local residents were outraged. As was Portillo. I had never spoken to him before but he telephoned the Mail's news desk in a fury just before midnight. When we spoke, his tone was menacing: 'I know your editor, I know your proprietor. Think very carefully before you write any more about this.' Thanking him for his career advice, I went on to report that Portillo was chums with Geoffrey Tucker, who was one of the fast food chain's political consultants, and I also discovered that the main Conservative HQ in London would benefit to the tune of a £100,000 loan. The night of the 1997 election, his Labour rival Stephen Twigg called me to say he thought the McDonald's row would shave just 2,000 votes off Portillo's huge 15,000 majority. In fact, in one of the defining moments of Labour's election landslide victory, Portillo lost by 1,443 votes. ALASTAIR CAMPBELL Months before Labour's 1997 election win, a light-hearted exposé caused a stir – and led to Andrew's first encounter with Tony Blair's pugnacious all-powerful spin doctor, Alastair Campbell Enjoying better luck that election was, of course, Tony Blair, who won voters over with his suave speeches and mischievous smile. A little too mischievous as it turned out. Months before his win, he appeared on Des O'Connor's TV show and told the gripping story of how, as a schoolboy, he had managed to lose his father Leo at Newcastle train station while travelling back to Fettes College in Edinburgh – and stowed himself away on a plane to the Bahamas. The adventure could have come straight from the pages of a James Bond novel – the most famous fictional alumnus of Fettes. To put it mildly, I was sceptical. I managed to track down Blair's father, who was 73 at the time. He laughed out loud when I told him about the 'great escape' and replied that Blair had an over-active schoolboy imagination. My light-hearted exposé caused a stir – and led to my first encounter with Blair's pugnacious all-powerful spin doctor, Alastair Campbell. He marched into my office in Parliament and announced to the room: 'Pierce is finished as he has exploited Tony's father.' After many reassurances to confused onlookers that I had not taken advantage of an elderly man, I am, thankfully, still going strong almost three decades later. While Blair was far too canny to be rude to reporters, that encounter was typical of his henchman Campbell: brutal and coarse. PETER MANDELSON The other high priest of political spin, Peter Mandelson, never forgave me for a harmless story while he was campaigning to be the Labour MP in Hartlepool in the 1992 election. Standing in a fish and chip shop, with an incongruous Hartlepool FC football scarf tied tightly round his neck, he pointed behind the counter and asked: 'Can I have a tub of that delicious looking guacamole mousse?' Peter Mandelson never forgave Andrew Pierce for a harmless story he wrote while the high priest of political spin was campaigning to be the Labour MP in Hartlepool in the 1992 election To which the burly owner spluttered: 'It's bloody mushy peas.' It made an entertaining story – and the first of many calls from the Prince of Darkness demanding my dismissal. Now the ambassador to the US, he lives in Washington DC with his partner Reinaldo, whose relationship I revealed in the Sunday Express in 1998. Somewhat hypocritically, despite pushing for gay rights in public, Mandelson was mortified. He lobbied the proprietor, Labour peer Lord Hollick, not to run the story. When it was printed, he demanded my head (again) but failed. However, he did get the scalp of the editor, one Amanda Platell, now a star columnist on the Daily Mail and my very best friend. I was so outraged by her treatment I resigned my post the next morning. TED HEATH In Blackpool, at the Tory party conference in 1999, former prime minister Ted Heath said to Andrew: 'Who on earth invited you? I hope you're enjoying yourself because you won't be invited again' To dinner at the Tory party conference in Blackpool in 1999 with former prime minister Ted Heath, who hosted lavish soirées at the River House Hotel in Lancashire. The grand location meant Ted could avoid any contact with pesky Tory activists if he stayed in a mere conference hotel. But clearly it wasn't only the grassroots supporters he didn't want to see that season. Despite sitting feet from me, Heath pointedly ignored me throughout the dinner. Puzzled, I eventually said: 'Sir Edward, I'm Andrew Pierce from the...' 'I know exactly who you are,' he interrupted. 'Who on earth invited you? I hope you're enjoying yourself because you won't be invited again.' Thankfully, our curmudgeonly exchange didn't continue. About 30 minutes later, he fell into a deep sleep at the table and we were all asked to leave. BARONESS YOUNG I have been accused of many things by politicians but the abuse from Baroness (Janet) Young, the only woman to serve in Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, was the most astonishing. Young had led the parliamentary campaign against Labour's Bill to lower the age of gay consent from 18 to 16 – which eventually passed in 2000. I spotted her in the House of Lords shortly after the historic vote and went to introduce myself. She was not impressed. 'Oh, it's you,' she said with disgust. 'You're the homosexual who pushed for an equal age of consent. Congratulations. You have enabled old predatory men to prey on young boys. I hope you are proud of yourself.' BORIS JOHNSON In 2007, when Andrew leaked that David Cameron had ordered Boris Johnson to run for Lord Mayor, he denied the story and said: 'Andrew Pierce is a miserable, simpering scuzzbucket' In 2007, I wrote that the then relatively unknown Boris Johnson was being ordered by Tory leader David Cameron to run for London mayor. He hotly denied it – I think. Much of what he shouted down the phone was in Latin so went over my head. But when the London Evening Standard seized on the story, he told them in plain English: 'Andrew Pierce is a miserable, simpering scuzzbucket.' Two weeks later it was confirmed that Boris would be the Tory candidate after all, in a race he went on to win. Boris, of course, is now one of my esteemed colleagues at the Daily Mail in a sign that no ill will or personality clashes last forever in Westminster. Sadly I cannot say the same for the 'scuzzbucket' jibe, which remained on my Wikipedia page for years.
Daily Mail
15 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Little Boats Crackdown! Members of criminal gangs in Britain who advertise migrant Channel crossings online could face 'five years in jail'
Criminal gangs who advertise small boat crossings across the English Channel or fake passports online could spend up to five years behind bars under new legislation. Ministers are looking to create a new offence under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill already going through Parliament in an attempt to crackdown on criminal gangs promoting Channel crossings on the Internet, The Mirror reports. Under the proposed law, offenders could receive a prison sentence of up to five years and a hefty fine. Assisting illegal migration is already a crime, but officials hope the changes will give more powers to police to disrupt criminal gangs. Around 80 percent of migrants arriving to the UK by small boats say they used social media to find someone associated with a criminal gang who could smuggle them into the country. According to the Home Office, many of those who make the perilous crossings across the Channel are sold a 'false narrative' about their ability to live and work in the UK. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the UK and a life in this country – whether on or offline – simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral,' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said. 'These criminals have no issue with leading migrants to life-threatening situations using brazen tactics on social media. We are determined to do everything we can to stop them – wherever they operate.' Ministers are looking to create a new offence under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill already going through Parliament The potential new measure comes the Government announced last week that members of people-smuggling gangs who send migrants across the Channel in flimsy boars will face financial sanctions. The new powers target smugglers and those who supply them with money and equipment. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the measures are 'the world's first sanctions regime targeted at gangs involved in people smuggling and driving irregular migration, as well as their enablers.' Those in breach of the rules can have UK assets seized, be barred from using British banks and be banned from entering Britain. The government said the new rules are authorised by existing sanctions legislation. British lawmakers won't get a chance to debate them until they return from a summer break in September. Keir Starmer has pledged to stop criminal gangs sending thousands of migrants each year on dangerous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. A group of migrants run from the beach into the water to reach an inflatable dinghy to leave the coast of northern France in an attempt to cross the English Channel to reach Britain as tougher migration controls were announced, at the beach of Petit-Fort-Philippe in Gravelines, near Calais, France, July 17, A migrant tries to board a smuggler's inflatable dinghy in an attempt to cross the English Channel off the beach of Gravelines, northern France on July 29, 2025 The Prime Minister has said the crime gangs are a threat to global security and should be treated like terror networks. Some 37,000 people crossed the channel in 2024, and more than 22,000 so far in 2025 - an increase of about 50 percent from the same period last year. Dozens of people have died attempting the journey.
The Guardian
15 hours ago
- The Guardian
Bad men problem: Gareth Ward and Mark Latham leave NSW parliament in unchartered territory
The New South Wales parliament has a problem with men behaving badly. But more to the point, it seems to have an inability to deal with it. On Tuesday, the parliament will try to deal with two very different cases that share a common consequence: damage to its reputation as an institution. Despite being a convicted rapist in custody awaiting sentence, Gareth Ward, the MP for Kiama, remains a member of the Legislative Assembly, drawing a base salary of more than $170,000 courtesy of NSW taxpayers. Labor plans to move a motion to have him expelled when parliament resumes on Tuesday and the opposition has said it will support it. Expelling Ward will almost certainly lead to more litigation, especially as the government will probably try to call a byelection in his south coast seat soon after. Sign up: AU Breaking News email But first to backtrack a little. Most politicians being investigated or facing criminal charges choose to resign, or their parties put the pressure on the MP to draw a line under their faltering political career. But Ward has toughed it out and continues to claim his innocence, despite being convicted for serious sex offences against two young men. He was suspended and left the Liberal party in 2022 after being charged with sex offences. He then ran as an independent in the 2023 state election and was returned by the voters of Kiama. Now that he has been convicted, he faces a potential sentence of more than five years. Under section 13A of the NSW constitution, a person is ineligible to be an MP if they are convicted of an offence punishable by five years or more. But it's only counted as a conviction once the person has reached the end of the appeals process and has not had their conviction overturned, constitutional expert Prof Anne Twomey says – and Ward has confirmed he plans to appeal the verdict. The appeals process could take years. The other route is expulsion. The NSW constitution does not give a specific power to expel a member, but Twomey says there is an inherent power for the NSW parliament to expel an MP to protect itself and its proper functioning. This appears to be where the premier, Chris Minns, is headed – but it is relatively untested territory. The courts have ruled that expulsion must not be as punishment, but it can be done to protect public confidence in the integrity of the parliament. If Ward is expelled, a byelection would need to be held to replace him, which only adds to the complications. Would Ward seek an injunction to prevent the byelection while he appeals both the expulsion and the criminal conviction? Understandably, there are few cases to guide the way – the last time an MP was expelled from the NSW lower house was in 1917. But what is certain is that unless Ward resigns voluntarily, litigation appears inevitable. The first stop will be the supreme court, followed by a possible high court appeal. For those who want a deeper dive, Twomey's podcast, Constititional Clarion, explores all the twists and turns that could emerge over coming weeks. The controversial independent upper house member Mark Latham is also under the microscope but for entirely different reasons. The former One Nation MP is under scrutiny over his use of privilege within the chamber and his general standard of behaviour, which Labor has been calling out of late. Has the Minns government suddenly found a new moral rectitude? Or is the premier motivated by more base political considerations? Latham has been working with the opposition and crossbench to block changes to workers compensation legislation that the government dearly wants passed. In parliament, Minns has called him 'one of the most shameful bigots in NSW' who has an 'odious Twitter account', which he deployed for a 'disgusting homophobic attack' on independent MP Alex Greenwich. More recently prurient allegations about Latham's personal life have spilled into the public domain due to a relationship breakdown, which have added fuel to the fire of outrage. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion These are the subject of a case seeking a domestic violence order that he is vehemently contesting. As the relationship degenerated, allegations from court filings including leaked texts about female MPs and other unsavoury exchanges have found their way into the public domain. Latham's behaviour raises questions of respect for the parliament and female MPs, and whether the behaviour is appropriate in any workplace. Latham allegedly covertly photographed female workmates and shared the images with derogatory commentary. If true, in any other workplace, that would at the least prompt counselling, a warning or possibly dismissal. Then there is Latham's use of parliamentary privilege. Privilege exists to allow politicians to speak freely without fear of defamation, but Latham arguably pushes its limits. He is a blunt, borderline-rude interrogator of witnesses before committees. In the chamber he has used privilege to attack his enemies, such as Greenwich, who won a $140,000 defamation settlement against Latham in 2024, and domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty. Last month Latham outraged colleagues by talking about Greenwich's medical records, which had been produced as part of a separate case Greenwich has brought against Latham in the NSW civil and administrative tribunal. But can the upper house actually mete out a punishment or persuade Latham to alter his behaviour? The answer is probably no. Labor plans to move two motions in the next sitting period, which starts on Tuesday: one relating to a specific breach of privilege and another more general censure. Labor will allege that Latham breached privilege in relation to certain documents about the former police commissioner Karen Webb and investigations into gifts of gin that were produced on the basis that only parliamentarians could view them. Labor wants Latham referred to the privileges committee for breaching the order, something he disputes. The allegations of exposing medical records, taking covert photos and perhaps other actions are likely to be wrapped up into a censure motion condemning his behaviour. But as for meaningful outcomes, don't hold your breath. The privileges committee could recommend an apology or perhaps a suspension, but that is rare. Labor lost control of this powerful committee a month ago after a dispute with the crossbench and the opposition. They combined to cut a Labor member so control of the now seven-member committee is out of Labor's hands. And what of a censure? It is likely to be little more than a slap on the wrist for Latham, while he enjoys the notoriety and attention that this latest saga will bring. The problem for the NSW parliament is that its rules to set and enforce appropriate standards of behaviour are hopelessly outdated, its processes are archaic and it has failed to implement many of the recommendations from a report by Liz Broderick completed two years ago. The federal parliament has moved to establish a standards commission with real teeth to fine or even suspend parliamentarians for poor behaviour outside the chamber. It is still to be tested but it is a start. Instead, in NSW, we will spend weeks on the immediate crises that will further lower the parliament's standing in the public eye, without dealing with the real problem of cultural change that is sorely needed.
