The Liberals are down and opportunity is knocking
FEDERAL POLITICS
The headline reads ' Voters desert Coalition as Labor builds on win ' (The Age, 21/7). While I see this as good news, I would implore the government to develop some courage and take advantage of this situation where it can get something done. Cases in point: banning TV gambling ads, providing a more socially equitable tax system, and taking global warming seriously. There are many other issues. Now is the time for the Labor government to grasp their collective courage and act on some of those issues.
Louis Roller, Carlton
Who are the Liberals?
On the international stage our prime minister appears a bit daggy. But at least he's our dag. And somehow he's been able to pull together a team who can effectively communicate that they have the best interests of ordinary Australians at heart. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party is no longer the liberal party. Who are they? The Conservatives? Reform? One Nation? As Shane Wright points out, opposing everything all the time is not going to work. Can they demonstrate some constructiveness during the upcoming parliamentary session and productivity summit? A big test awaits.
Allan Dowsett, Preston
Voters look to female leadership
We always knew Susan Ley would have a difficult time as federal opposition leader due to the vast loss of Liberal seats. We need to ask why support for the PM has not increased much and the Coalition's has dropped.
Voters were looking for decisive action and a leader with a vision for the country. Ley has gone some way in this, speaking of consensus, remaining calm in difficult times thereby increasing her likeability. Most female independent MPs kept their seats at the last election or lost narrowly. Clearly we need more women in parliament and in leadership with their tendency to moderate, to bring together differing opinions and usually not to play power games. Yet the Liberals are still in the dark ages by opposing quotas.
Jan Marshall, Brighton
The problem with the Nationals
With the 48th parliament about to commence, it would be a welcome event if the Nationals do finally break away from their Coalition partner after decades of holding the whole country back on environmental progress. Based on very narrow and generally undeclared interests, their drive to do away with a net zero policy of any kind is anathema for the 21st century and an insult to the youth of this country and the world generally. Having the Nationals fully exposed and undiluted by partnership with the Liberal Party will allow the broader voting public to see the self-interest and lack of public interest that their policy entails.
Thinking outside of the square is fundamental to solving a problem but of course it is first necessary to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Robert Brown, Camberwell
A new path
Does Barnaby Joyce (' Joyce urges Coalition to ditch net zero ', 21/7) not understand what happened at the federal election just those few months ago? He wants the Coalition to dump net zero when the majority of Australians who voted for Labor, teals, Greens (and for almost anyone other than the Coalition) obviously want net zero pursued as a policy objective. Further he wants the Coalition to find points of division ignoring another clear learning from the election. The majority of Australians want politicians of all persuasions to work collegiately seeking outcomes that improve the lot of ordinary Australians. Partisan politics of the ilk we're witnessing in the US isn't what Australians want and won't improve the Coalition's chances of recovering the political capital they have squandered over the past decade.
David Brophy, Beaumaris
THE FORUM
No more regrets
Your correspondent's regret about their solar panel installation and declining feed-in tariffs ('Solar panel regret', Letters, 20/7) is a valid concern. As someone who has studied electricity, its industry and associated engineering and economics for 57 years, I can assure them that even though it feels like theft, it is true that solar energy during daytime in much of Australia is at best worthless and sometimes costly to export due to the shortage of energy storage in the power system.
The feed-in tariff will only be restored when sufficient battery capacity has been installed in homes and the grid to fully absorb the surplus daytime energy. That's why governments are subsidising battery storage.
Your insulting 1.5¢ feed-in tariff is better than most offers. You could get more value from your solar by installing a battery, moving what consumption you can to daylight hours and by changing retailer to access wholesale electricity pricing.
Ross Gawler, Malvern
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce's bizarre act on live TV
Barnaby Joyce has bizarrely pretended to be a bull in a live television interview as he lectured Coalition Minister Dan Tehan on the difference between a steer and the animal. Mr Tehan had compared Mr Joyce to a steer after he and fellow Nationals MP Michael McCormack dropped a bomb when they joined forces to support a private member's bill to repeal net-zero. Mr Tehan, who represents a rural electorate, labelled the pair as 'two steers fighting in a neighbour's paddock'. Responding to Mr Tehan in an interview on Sky News, Mr Joyce said 'Steers don't fight, we castrate them so they don't'. 'Steers have their testicles removed and they sit happily in the paddock and they eat grass' 'Bulls, moo, bulls fight.' The moo was delivered as a sound effect by Mr Joyce, as he raised his index fingers to his forehead, and emulated a bull. Host Kieran Gilbert later said 'I've got to admit, I almost lost it' when Mr Joyce performed his impression. His bovine impression came as Nationals leader David Littleproud defended his leadership of the party under pressure from Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack. Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack are both now backbenchers, after being dumped from the shadow ministry following Peter Dutton's emphatic election loss. But leadership ambitions abound in the 19-member group in Canberra, as Mr McCormack refused to rule out a leadership tilt in an interview with The Australian. 'When a journo says 'will you ever rule yourself out of ever (becoming leader)', of course you are not going to agree to that,' he said. 'You're not going to rule yourself out in the future.' For his part, Mr Joyce said he would 'happily back Michael for leader', despite saying he was not agitating for any change. Thursday's antics only added to another bizarre moment on Wednesday in which Mr McCormack described himself and Mr Joyce as 'virile' in an interview with Sky. Under this increasing backbench pressure Mr Littleproud insisted he is not looking 'over my shoulder' in an interview on the ABC. 'I look to making sure I'm focused on my job because if I'm focused on myself, I'm not focused on the people who put me here, and I'll stand by my record as a Leader of The Nationals.' He listed what he saw as his achievements such as introducing nuclear and supermarket divestiture into the Coalition platform and opposition to the Voice to Parliament. He said instead of focusing on dissent from his backbench, he is 'thinking about trying to leave a legacy for the people I lead'. 'No matter how long I'm here for, I want to be able to look back and say I did it in a respectful way. 'And what I'm focused on is delivering outcomes. 'I've created a process for a discussion within our party room. 'Backbenchers can have Private Members' Bills, but I've got a lead for the entirety of my party, not for individuals. 'And so what I'll do is make sure I listen to my party room and draw on the collective wisdom of that party room. 'That's how I lead.' Opposition to net-zero emissions targets by 2050 has become a sticking point for Nationals backbenchers, as it is seen by the party's base to be harmful to their regional communities. It has proved a problem for Liberal leader Sussan Ley who is trying to renegotiate the Coalition's platform following its May 3 election defeat. The division already caused a split in the Coalition as the Nationals and Liberal Party spent a week apart following the election. Both parties reunited a week later with the Liberals making concessions to key Nationals policy priorities.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
New bill would cut student loans. But risks 'debt treadmill' for some grads
The Albanese government's 20 per cent cut to student debt is the first bill introduced to the new federal parliament. It is clever politics. In the government's first term, the 3 million Australians with a student debt turned high indexation of their loan balances into a major issue. The proposed 20 per cent cut flipped a political negative into a positive ahead of the May 2025 federal election. The 20 per cent cut legislation, introduced on Wednesday, will also change how student debt is repaid. All the 1.2 million people currently repaying student loans will pay less per year as a result. How does the cut work, and what does it mean in practice for current students and people with student debt? These changes come with disadvantages. The 20 per cent cut is not well targeted. It will deliver major benefits to recent graduates, but much less to current students or earlier graduates, and nothing to future students. While repaying less HELP debt per year sounds good, more graduates will be caught on a debt treadmill, repaying less than the annual indexation on their HELP balance. Both HELP changes will also be costly for government. Meanwhile, the government has not changed the cost of degrees. Arts, law and business students continue to accrue debts of about $17,000 per year of study. The 20 per cent cut applies to all student loan schemes, including the five HELPs now operating in higher education - HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, OS-HELP, SA-HELP and START-UP HELP. These cover student fees as well as other programs to assist with overseas study or amenities fees. The loans to be cut by 20 per cent will be based on amounts owed as at June 1 2025. As a guide to the amounts of money involved, the table below shows balances as at June 30 2024. The benefits of the 20 per cent cut will be distributed in a random and inequitable way, as a recent analysis from economic think tank the e61 Institute shows. The biggest beneficiaries will be people who recently completed their degrees: their borrowing has peaked but they have not made any significant repayments. Graduates who are partway through clearing their debt, and current students, will receive some benefit. People who recently completed their repayments, and future students, will receive no benefit at all. Other winners from the 20 per centcut will be current and former students of private higher education institutions, as they pay relatively high fees via the FEE-HELP scheme. So too do people who have borrowed to finance postgraduate degrees. Although most student debtors are women, men on average have higher debts, so they will benefit more from the 20 per cent cut. The government is also changing how student debt is repaid. The income threshold at which repayments start will increase from A$56,156 to $67,000 a year for 2025-26. People with incomes between these levels who currently repay via employer salary deductions can stop after the legislation comes into force. Any unnecessary repayments will be refunded when 2025-26 tax returns are processed. Once the first income threshold is passed, the way repayments are calculated will also change. Under the current system, the repayment is a percentage of the person's total income. At the $56,156 threshold the repayment rate is 1 per cent, leading to a repayment of $561.56. These percentages increase incrementally up to 10 per cent on incomes of $164,712 or more. The jagged repayment amounts in the chart below are the percentage of income rates changing 18 times on their way to 10 per cent. The current repayment system was criticised as "unfair" by the Universities Accord final report in 2024, as an increase in income can result in lower take-home pay. Under the proposed system nobody will take home less money after a pay rise. Repayment will be based only on marginal income - the amount above the threshold. People with student debt will pay 15 cents in the dollar for all they earn between $67,000 and $124,999. From $125,000 the rate lifts to 17 cents in the dollar. The government has capped annual repayments at no more than 10 per cent of the person's total income. This ensures nobody pays more under the new repayment system. But there's a catch. A Parliamentary Budget Office costing released in April 2025 estimates the effects of the new system on HELP repayment times. Obviously, if people repay less each year it will take them longer to clear their debt. For a HELP debtor consistently earning an average graduate income, the budget office estimates full repayment would take one more year, to 11 years in total. But for people starting their careers on lower incomes, below the $67,000 first threshold, repayment times could increase by much more, dragging out full repayment time from 32 to 40 years. What happens early in graduate careers is a major concern with the new system. Consider an arts graduate who finishes their degree with a HELP debt of $50,000. Indexation at the current inflation rate of 2.4 per cent would be $1,200. Under the current repayment system, an arts graduate earning $65,000 would cover their indexation and reduce their debt by $100. Under the proposed system, arts graduates will see their debt increase through indexation unless they earn at least $75,000. For context, the median full-time salary for an arts graduate in 2023 was $69,400. The worry is many people will get stuck on a HELP debt treadmill, seeing their debt increase each year as they repay nothing or less than the indexation amount. In another report, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the initial debt waiver will cost $9 billion, plus the loss of future indexation. But quantifying the total cost of these changes is not straightforward, as it involves estimating the future income and consequent HELP repayments of 3 million people. As most HELP debtors will repay less each year under the new system, for the government it means delayed repayments and higher bad debt. The budget office thinks in 2025-26, repayments of loan principal will decline by $820 million compared to the current system. This highlights the need for a more coherent funding approach, which integrates debts and repayments in ways that are fair to students while moderating the cost to government. The Universities Accord final report recommended student contributions should be realigned with graduate earnings. Ideally, graduates working full-time should complete repayments within similar ranges of years, regardless of which course they took. That is far from what happens under the current system - known as the Job-ready Graduates scheme - set up under the Morrison government. With the annual humanities student contribution for 2026 set at $17,399, many arts graduates will struggle to ever get their debt under control. The government has promised but postponed changes to student contribution levels. The new Australian Tertiary Education Commission will advise the government on this matter. But student contributions alone cannot fix the problem. The repayment system must also be realistic about what different types of debtors earn. Especially with student loans now also serving vocational education, the $67,000 first threshold risks creating a larger group of people with permanent student debt. The Albanese government's 20 per cent cut to student debt is the first bill introduced to the new federal parliament. It is clever politics. In the government's first term, the 3 million Australians with a student debt turned high indexation of their loan balances into a major issue. The proposed 20 per cent cut flipped a political negative into a positive ahead of the May 2025 federal election. The 20 per cent cut legislation, introduced on Wednesday, will also change how student debt is repaid. All the 1.2 million people currently repaying student loans will pay less per year as a result. How does the cut work, and what does it mean in practice for current students and people with student debt? These changes come with disadvantages. The 20 per cent cut is not well targeted. It will deliver major benefits to recent graduates, but much less to current students or earlier graduates, and nothing to future students. While repaying less HELP debt per year sounds good, more graduates will be caught on a debt treadmill, repaying less than the annual indexation on their HELP balance. Both HELP changes will also be costly for government. Meanwhile, the government has not changed the cost of degrees. Arts, law and business students continue to accrue debts of about $17,000 per year of study. The 20 per cent cut applies to all student loan schemes, including the five HELPs now operating in higher education - HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, OS-HELP, SA-HELP and START-UP HELP. These cover student fees as well as other programs to assist with overseas study or amenities fees. The loans to be cut by 20 per cent will be based on amounts owed as at June 1 2025. As a guide to the amounts of money involved, the table below shows balances as at June 30 2024. The benefits of the 20 per cent cut will be distributed in a random and inequitable way, as a recent analysis from economic think tank the e61 Institute shows. The biggest beneficiaries will be people who recently completed their degrees: their borrowing has peaked but they have not made any significant repayments. Graduates who are partway through clearing their debt, and current students, will receive some benefit. People who recently completed their repayments, and future students, will receive no benefit at all. Other winners from the 20 per centcut will be current and former students of private higher education institutions, as they pay relatively high fees via the FEE-HELP scheme. So too do people who have borrowed to finance postgraduate degrees. Although most student debtors are women, men on average have higher debts, so they will benefit more from the 20 per cent cut. The government is also changing how student debt is repaid. The income threshold at which repayments start will increase from A$56,156 to $67,000 a year for 2025-26. People with incomes between these levels who currently repay via employer salary deductions can stop after the legislation comes into force. Any unnecessary repayments will be refunded when 2025-26 tax returns are processed. Once the first income threshold is passed, the way repayments are calculated will also change. Under the current system, the repayment is a percentage of the person's total income. At the $56,156 threshold the repayment rate is 1 per cent, leading to a repayment of $561.56. These percentages increase incrementally up to 10 per cent on incomes of $164,712 or more. The jagged repayment amounts in the chart below are the percentage of income rates changing 18 times on their way to 10 per cent. The current repayment system was criticised as "unfair" by the Universities Accord final report in 2024, as an increase in income can result in lower take-home pay. Under the proposed system nobody will take home less money after a pay rise. Repayment will be based only on marginal income - the amount above the threshold. People with student debt will pay 15 cents in the dollar for all they earn between $67,000 and $124,999. From $125,000 the rate lifts to 17 cents in the dollar. The government has capped annual repayments at no more than 10 per cent of the person's total income. This ensures nobody pays more under the new repayment system. But there's a catch. A Parliamentary Budget Office costing released in April 2025 estimates the effects of the new system on HELP repayment times. Obviously, if people repay less each year it will take them longer to clear their debt. For a HELP debtor consistently earning an average graduate income, the budget office estimates full repayment would take one more year, to 11 years in total. But for people starting their careers on lower incomes, below the $67,000 first threshold, repayment times could increase by much more, dragging out full repayment time from 32 to 40 years. What happens early in graduate careers is a major concern with the new system. Consider an arts graduate who finishes their degree with a HELP debt of $50,000. Indexation at the current inflation rate of 2.4 per cent would be $1,200. Under the current repayment system, an arts graduate earning $65,000 would cover their indexation and reduce their debt by $100. Under the proposed system, arts graduates will see their debt increase through indexation unless they earn at least $75,000. For context, the median full-time salary for an arts graduate in 2023 was $69,400. The worry is many people will get stuck on a HELP debt treadmill, seeing their debt increase each year as they repay nothing or less than the indexation amount. In another report, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the initial debt waiver will cost $9 billion, plus the loss of future indexation. But quantifying the total cost of these changes is not straightforward, as it involves estimating the future income and consequent HELP repayments of 3 million people. As most HELP debtors will repay less each year under the new system, for the government it means delayed repayments and higher bad debt. The budget office thinks in 2025-26, repayments of loan principal will decline by $820 million compared to the current system. This highlights the need for a more coherent funding approach, which integrates debts and repayments in ways that are fair to students while moderating the cost to government. The Universities Accord final report recommended student contributions should be realigned with graduate earnings. Ideally, graduates working full-time should complete repayments within similar ranges of years, regardless of which course they took. That is far from what happens under the current system - known as the Job-ready Graduates scheme - set up under the Morrison government. With the annual humanities student contribution for 2026 set at $17,399, many arts graduates will struggle to ever get their debt under control. The government has promised but postponed changes to student contribution levels. The new Australian Tertiary Education Commission will advise the government on this matter. But student contributions alone cannot fix the problem. The repayment system must also be realistic about what different types of debtors earn. Especially with student loans now also serving vocational education, the $67,000 first threshold risks creating a larger group of people with permanent student debt. The Albanese government's 20 per cent cut to student debt is the first bill introduced to the new federal parliament. It is clever politics. In the government's first term, the 3 million Australians with a student debt turned high indexation of their loan balances into a major issue. The proposed 20 per cent cut flipped a political negative into a positive ahead of the May 2025 federal election. The 20 per cent cut legislation, introduced on Wednesday, will also change how student debt is repaid. All the 1.2 million people currently repaying student loans will pay less per year as a result. How does the cut work, and what does it mean in practice for current students and people with student debt? These changes come with disadvantages. The 20 per cent cut is not well targeted. It will deliver major benefits to recent graduates, but much less to current students or earlier graduates, and nothing to future students. While repaying less HELP debt per year sounds good, more graduates will be caught on a debt treadmill, repaying less than the annual indexation on their HELP balance. Both HELP changes will also be costly for government. Meanwhile, the government has not changed the cost of degrees. Arts, law and business students continue to accrue debts of about $17,000 per year of study. The 20 per cent cut applies to all student loan schemes, including the five HELPs now operating in higher education - HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, OS-HELP, SA-HELP and START-UP HELP. These cover student fees as well as other programs to assist with overseas study or amenities fees. The loans to be cut by 20 per cent will be based on amounts owed as at June 1 2025. As a guide to the amounts of money involved, the table below shows balances as at June 30 2024. The benefits of the 20 per cent cut will be distributed in a random and inequitable way, as a recent analysis from economic think tank the e61 Institute shows. The biggest beneficiaries will be people who recently completed their degrees: their borrowing has peaked but they have not made any significant repayments. Graduates who are partway through clearing their debt, and current students, will receive some benefit. People who recently completed their repayments, and future students, will receive no benefit at all. Other winners from the 20 per centcut will be current and former students of private higher education institutions, as they pay relatively high fees via the FEE-HELP scheme. So too do people who have borrowed to finance postgraduate degrees. Although most student debtors are women, men on average have higher debts, so they will benefit more from the 20 per cent cut. The government is also changing how student debt is repaid. The income threshold at which repayments start will increase from A$56,156 to $67,000 a year for 2025-26. People with incomes between these levels who currently repay via employer salary deductions can stop after the legislation comes into force. Any unnecessary repayments will be refunded when 2025-26 tax returns are processed. Once the first income threshold is passed, the way repayments are calculated will also change. Under the current system, the repayment is a percentage of the person's total income. At the $56,156 threshold the repayment rate is 1 per cent, leading to a repayment of $561.56. These percentages increase incrementally up to 10 per cent on incomes of $164,712 or more. The jagged repayment amounts in the chart below are the percentage of income rates changing 18 times on their way to 10 per cent. The current repayment system was criticised as "unfair" by the Universities Accord final report in 2024, as an increase in income can result in lower take-home pay. Under the proposed system nobody will take home less money after a pay rise. Repayment will be based only on marginal income - the amount above the threshold. People with student debt will pay 15 cents in the dollar for all they earn between $67,000 and $124,999. From $125,000 the rate lifts to 17 cents in the dollar. The government has capped annual repayments at no more than 10 per cent of the person's total income. This ensures nobody pays more under the new repayment system. But there's a catch. A Parliamentary Budget Office costing released in April 2025 estimates the effects of the new system on HELP repayment times. Obviously, if people repay less each year it will take them longer to clear their debt. For a HELP debtor consistently earning an average graduate income, the budget office estimates full repayment would take one more year, to 11 years in total. But for people starting their careers on lower incomes, below the $67,000 first threshold, repayment times could increase by much more, dragging out full repayment time from 32 to 40 years. What happens early in graduate careers is a major concern with the new system. Consider an arts graduate who finishes their degree with a HELP debt of $50,000. Indexation at the current inflation rate of 2.4 per cent would be $1,200. Under the current repayment system, an arts graduate earning $65,000 would cover their indexation and reduce their debt by $100. Under the proposed system, arts graduates will see their debt increase through indexation unless they earn at least $75,000. For context, the median full-time salary for an arts graduate in 2023 was $69,400. The worry is many people will get stuck on a HELP debt treadmill, seeing their debt increase each year as they repay nothing or less than the indexation amount. In another report, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the initial debt waiver will cost $9 billion, plus the loss of future indexation. But quantifying the total cost of these changes is not straightforward, as it involves estimating the future income and consequent HELP repayments of 3 million people. As most HELP debtors will repay less each year under the new system, for the government it means delayed repayments and higher bad debt. The budget office thinks in 2025-26, repayments of loan principal will decline by $820 million compared to the current system. This highlights the need for a more coherent funding approach, which integrates debts and repayments in ways that are fair to students while moderating the cost to government. The Universities Accord final report recommended student contributions should be realigned with graduate earnings. Ideally, graduates working full-time should complete repayments within similar ranges of years, regardless of which course they took. That is far from what happens under the current system - known as the Job-ready Graduates scheme - set up under the Morrison government. With the annual humanities student contribution for 2026 set at $17,399, many arts graduates will struggle to ever get their debt under control. The government has promised but postponed changes to student contribution levels. The new Australian Tertiary Education Commission will advise the government on this matter. But student contributions alone cannot fix the problem. The repayment system must also be realistic about what different types of debtors earn. Especially with student loans now also serving vocational education, the $67,000 first threshold risks creating a larger group of people with permanent student debt. The Albanese government's 20 per cent cut to student debt is the first bill introduced to the new federal parliament. It is clever politics. In the government's first term, the 3 million Australians with a student debt turned high indexation of their loan balances into a major issue. The proposed 20 per cent cut flipped a political negative into a positive ahead of the May 2025 federal election. The 20 per cent cut legislation, introduced on Wednesday, will also change how student debt is repaid. All the 1.2 million people currently repaying student loans will pay less per year as a result. How does the cut work, and what does it mean in practice for current students and people with student debt? These changes come with disadvantages. The 20 per cent cut is not well targeted. It will deliver major benefits to recent graduates, but much less to current students or earlier graduates, and nothing to future students. While repaying less HELP debt per year sounds good, more graduates will be caught on a debt treadmill, repaying less than the annual indexation on their HELP balance. Both HELP changes will also be costly for government. Meanwhile, the government has not changed the cost of degrees. Arts, law and business students continue to accrue debts of about $17,000 per year of study. The 20 per cent cut applies to all student loan schemes, including the five HELPs now operating in higher education - HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, OS-HELP, SA-HELP and START-UP HELP. These cover student fees as well as other programs to assist with overseas study or amenities fees. The loans to be cut by 20 per cent will be based on amounts owed as at June 1 2025. As a guide to the amounts of money involved, the table below shows balances as at June 30 2024. The benefits of the 20 per cent cut will be distributed in a random and inequitable way, as a recent analysis from economic think tank the e61 Institute shows. The biggest beneficiaries will be people who recently completed their degrees: their borrowing has peaked but they have not made any significant repayments. Graduates who are partway through clearing their debt, and current students, will receive some benefit. People who recently completed their repayments, and future students, will receive no benefit at all. Other winners from the 20 per centcut will be current and former students of private higher education institutions, as they pay relatively high fees via the FEE-HELP scheme. So too do people who have borrowed to finance postgraduate degrees. Although most student debtors are women, men on average have higher debts, so they will benefit more from the 20 per cent cut. The government is also changing how student debt is repaid. The income threshold at which repayments start will increase from A$56,156 to $67,000 a year for 2025-26. People with incomes between these levels who currently repay via employer salary deductions can stop after the legislation comes into force. Any unnecessary repayments will be refunded when 2025-26 tax returns are processed. Once the first income threshold is passed, the way repayments are calculated will also change. Under the current system, the repayment is a percentage of the person's total income. At the $56,156 threshold the repayment rate is 1 per cent, leading to a repayment of $561.56. These percentages increase incrementally up to 10 per cent on incomes of $164,712 or more. The jagged repayment amounts in the chart below are the percentage of income rates changing 18 times on their way to 10 per cent. The current repayment system was criticised as "unfair" by the Universities Accord final report in 2024, as an increase in income can result in lower take-home pay. Under the proposed system nobody will take home less money after a pay rise. Repayment will be based only on marginal income - the amount above the threshold. People with student debt will pay 15 cents in the dollar for all they earn between $67,000 and $124,999. From $125,000 the rate lifts to 17 cents in the dollar. The government has capped annual repayments at no more than 10 per cent of the person's total income. This ensures nobody pays more under the new repayment system. But there's a catch. A Parliamentary Budget Office costing released in April 2025 estimates the effects of the new system on HELP repayment times. Obviously, if people repay less each year it will take them longer to clear their debt. For a HELP debtor consistently earning an average graduate income, the budget office estimates full repayment would take one more year, to 11 years in total. But for people starting their careers on lower incomes, below the $67,000 first threshold, repayment times could increase by much more, dragging out full repayment time from 32 to 40 years. What happens early in graduate careers is a major concern with the new system. Consider an arts graduate who finishes their degree with a HELP debt of $50,000. Indexation at the current inflation rate of 2.4 per cent would be $1,200. Under the current repayment system, an arts graduate earning $65,000 would cover their indexation and reduce their debt by $100. Under the proposed system, arts graduates will see their debt increase through indexation unless they earn at least $75,000. For context, the median full-time salary for an arts graduate in 2023 was $69,400. The worry is many people will get stuck on a HELP debt treadmill, seeing their debt increase each year as they repay nothing or less than the indexation amount. In another report, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the initial debt waiver will cost $9 billion, plus the loss of future indexation. But quantifying the total cost of these changes is not straightforward, as it involves estimating the future income and consequent HELP repayments of 3 million people. As most HELP debtors will repay less each year under the new system, for the government it means delayed repayments and higher bad debt. The budget office thinks in 2025-26, repayments of loan principal will decline by $820 million compared to the current system. This highlights the need for a more coherent funding approach, which integrates debts and repayments in ways that are fair to students while moderating the cost to government. The Universities Accord final report recommended student contributions should be realigned with graduate earnings. Ideally, graduates working full-time should complete repayments within similar ranges of years, regardless of which course they took. That is far from what happens under the current system - known as the Job-ready Graduates scheme - set up under the Morrison government. With the annual humanities student contribution for 2026 set at $17,399, many arts graduates will struggle to ever get their debt under control. The government has promised but postponed changes to student contribution levels. The new Australian Tertiary Education Commission will advise the government on this matter. But student contributions alone cannot fix the problem. The repayment system must also be realistic about what different types of debtors earn. Especially with student loans now also serving vocational education, the $67,000 first threshold risks creating a larger group of people with permanent student debt.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
A couple of studs? More like a couple of absolute duds steering us the wrong way
Look, I know milk comes from cows and eggs come from hens. I've even sung "Old McDonald had a farm" to my grandchildren, on loop. And yeah, yeah, money doesn't grow on trees. You may have read that two Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, representing the federal seat of New England; and Michael McCormack, representing the Riverina, want to abandon net zero. It's kind of embarrassing because they are just copying Donald Trump (and we know how that worked out for Temu Trump, our pet name for Peter Dutton). This week, The New York Times reported: "The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan." So catastrophic decision from the US and idiotic grandstanding from the Nationals (dear heaven, the two political parties in this country with the names which bear no semblance to reality - Liberal and National). But this week's comment in response to the derangements of Joyce and McCormack by opposition energy spokesperson Dan Tehan totally perplexed me from an agricultural point of view. He described two former deputy prime ministers, now backbenchers, Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, as "two steers in a paddock". I hastened to Google for agricultural assistance. A steer, by the way, is a boycow* with his nuts knackered. According to at least one livestock expert I spoke to, it's normal for two steers to be in a paddock. Absolutely normal. What would they do to each other? Absolutely nothing. They have no balls. Wow. Similar. John House, associate professor and unit head, livestock veterinary teaching and research unit at the University of Sydney confirms you can put a bunch of steers in a paddock, no problemo. "They just get along, chew grass and chill," he says. Don't think old mate Dan Tehan's made an error. These two aren't bulls at a gate but a couple of has-beens hoping they can be a bit more. Right now, that is so unlikely. Did these two miss the results of the last election? Obvs. After I asked John House all of the farming questions, I asked him about the whole net zero thing. He said bluntly: "I used to vote Liberal but I stopped because of their attitudes to climate change." Same with the rest of the country. They changed their votes too. Says House: "Who has got the most to lose? Primary producers - they are at the coal face. They are the ones getting hit by the floods and the droughts." This appears to be the consensus except among a tiny group of ancient members of the conservative parties in Australia. I ask one conservative politician what he thinks about these two. To sum up: Australia has actual things to worry about, such as floods and fires and algal blooms devouring our waterways. And Barnaby Joyce wants to grandstand about net zero. Completely bonkers? I ask. Very, comes the swift reply. And the Nationals in general? "It is a very small membership, not representative of rural and regional Australia. Their base is completely unrepresentative, more like the Sky After Dark crazy brigade. "Among the three octogenarian men** who are branch members, Joyce would be some kind of hero. The party is not representative of the communities they serve let alone the country." Very harsh. And if Barnaby Joyce (quick reminder: publicly unfaithful to his wife, didn't know if he was the dad to his love child, suggesting HPV vaccines would lead to promiscuity, public drunkenness) were to walk down the main street of any of our major cities, I reckon folks would be more likely to point and laugh than actually approach him for help. Which is what I reckon politicians should be about. Helping us. Helping the country. But how do people in the country feel about climate change? And when I say people in the country, I mean the people who grow our food. Funny you should ask. Even conservatives pointed me to Farmers for Climate Action (FCA), a farmer-led organisation with over 8000 members. It works to manage risks and "find opportunities to adapt to, and mitigate, climate change". Love that for them. And for us. READ MORE JENNA PRICE: CEO Natalie Collard says FCA conducts a regular survey of members. At last count, 55 per cent of members named climate change as the number-one threat to their farming business. At 15 per cent and in second place, we had everyone's favourite: increasing bureaucracy and red tape. Farmers for Climate Action was founded 10 years ago because farmers felt the government wasn't taking farming concerns seriously, nor reflecting farmers' views on climate change. Collard says: "Their view was, 'We are living it, we know'." I ask her what FCA thinks about this latest Nationals move. She speaks like a politician here: "Nationals policy is a matter for the Nationals." Speaking of Nationals, at the last election Michael McCormack won his seat of Riverina convincingly and maybe rolling back net zero is the vibe he gets when he's visiting pubs and clubs in the area. Fourth in the 2025 vote was community independent Jenny Rolfe, who came from a standing start last December. She says McCormack has not been listening to the entire electorate. "He is in an echo chamber of people and failing to show leadership of engaging with the entire community," says Rolfe "If we don't take action on climate change then those of us in the regions will feel the greatest impacts of inaction." Amen to that. Don't let these blokes steer you the wrong way. Sorry. *look, we all know what a cow is, right? But I can't for the life of me find a nongendered word for a single bovine animal so boycow it is. Kind of like cowboy. **I asked about this. Sexist and ageist much? Apparently not. Look, I know milk comes from cows and eggs come from hens. I've even sung "Old McDonald had a farm" to my grandchildren, on loop. And yeah, yeah, money doesn't grow on trees. You may have read that two Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, representing the federal seat of New England; and Michael McCormack, representing the Riverina, want to abandon net zero. It's kind of embarrassing because they are just copying Donald Trump (and we know how that worked out for Temu Trump, our pet name for Peter Dutton). This week, The New York Times reported: "The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan." So catastrophic decision from the US and idiotic grandstanding from the Nationals (dear heaven, the two political parties in this country with the names which bear no semblance to reality - Liberal and National). But this week's comment in response to the derangements of Joyce and McCormack by opposition energy spokesperson Dan Tehan totally perplexed me from an agricultural point of view. He described two former deputy prime ministers, now backbenchers, Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, as "two steers in a paddock". I hastened to Google for agricultural assistance. A steer, by the way, is a boycow* with his nuts knackered. According to at least one livestock expert I spoke to, it's normal for two steers to be in a paddock. Absolutely normal. What would they do to each other? Absolutely nothing. They have no balls. Wow. Similar. John House, associate professor and unit head, livestock veterinary teaching and research unit at the University of Sydney confirms you can put a bunch of steers in a paddock, no problemo. "They just get along, chew grass and chill," he says. Don't think old mate Dan Tehan's made an error. These two aren't bulls at a gate but a couple of has-beens hoping they can be a bit more. Right now, that is so unlikely. Did these two miss the results of the last election? Obvs. After I asked John House all of the farming questions, I asked him about the whole net zero thing. He said bluntly: "I used to vote Liberal but I stopped because of their attitudes to climate change." Same with the rest of the country. They changed their votes too. Says House: "Who has got the most to lose? Primary producers - they are at the coal face. They are the ones getting hit by the floods and the droughts." This appears to be the consensus except among a tiny group of ancient members of the conservative parties in Australia. I ask one conservative politician what he thinks about these two. To sum up: Australia has actual things to worry about, such as floods and fires and algal blooms devouring our waterways. And Barnaby Joyce wants to grandstand about net zero. Completely bonkers? I ask. Very, comes the swift reply. And the Nationals in general? "It is a very small membership, not representative of rural and regional Australia. Their base is completely unrepresentative, more like the Sky After Dark crazy brigade. "Among the three octogenarian men** who are branch members, Joyce would be some kind of hero. The party is not representative of the communities they serve let alone the country." Very harsh. And if Barnaby Joyce (quick reminder: publicly unfaithful to his wife, didn't know if he was the dad to his love child, suggesting HPV vaccines would lead to promiscuity, public drunkenness) were to walk down the main street of any of our major cities, I reckon folks would be more likely to point and laugh than actually approach him for help. Which is what I reckon politicians should be about. Helping us. Helping the country. But how do people in the country feel about climate change? And when I say people in the country, I mean the people who grow our food. Funny you should ask. Even conservatives pointed me to Farmers for Climate Action (FCA), a farmer-led organisation with over 8000 members. It works to manage risks and "find opportunities to adapt to, and mitigate, climate change". Love that for them. And for us. READ MORE JENNA PRICE: CEO Natalie Collard says FCA conducts a regular survey of members. At last count, 55 per cent of members named climate change as the number-one threat to their farming business. At 15 per cent and in second place, we had everyone's favourite: increasing bureaucracy and red tape. Farmers for Climate Action was founded 10 years ago because farmers felt the government wasn't taking farming concerns seriously, nor reflecting farmers' views on climate change. Collard says: "Their view was, 'We are living it, we know'." I ask her what FCA thinks about this latest Nationals move. She speaks like a politician here: "Nationals policy is a matter for the Nationals." Speaking of Nationals, at the last election Michael McCormack won his seat of Riverina convincingly and maybe rolling back net zero is the vibe he gets when he's visiting pubs and clubs in the area. Fourth in the 2025 vote was community independent Jenny Rolfe, who came from a standing start last December. She says McCormack has not been listening to the entire electorate. "He is in an echo chamber of people and failing to show leadership of engaging with the entire community," says Rolfe "If we don't take action on climate change then those of us in the regions will feel the greatest impacts of inaction." Amen to that. Don't let these blokes steer you the wrong way. Sorry. *look, we all know what a cow is, right? But I can't for the life of me find a nongendered word for a single bovine animal so boycow it is. Kind of like cowboy. **I asked about this. Sexist and ageist much? Apparently not. Look, I know milk comes from cows and eggs come from hens. I've even sung "Old McDonald had a farm" to my grandchildren, on loop. And yeah, yeah, money doesn't grow on trees. You may have read that two Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, representing the federal seat of New England; and Michael McCormack, representing the Riverina, want to abandon net zero. It's kind of embarrassing because they are just copying Donald Trump (and we know how that worked out for Temu Trump, our pet name for Peter Dutton). This week, The New York Times reported: "The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan." So catastrophic decision from the US and idiotic grandstanding from the Nationals (dear heaven, the two political parties in this country with the names which bear no semblance to reality - Liberal and National). But this week's comment in response to the derangements of Joyce and McCormack by opposition energy spokesperson Dan Tehan totally perplexed me from an agricultural point of view. He described two former deputy prime ministers, now backbenchers, Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, as "two steers in a paddock". I hastened to Google for agricultural assistance. A steer, by the way, is a boycow* with his nuts knackered. According to at least one livestock expert I spoke to, it's normal for two steers to be in a paddock. Absolutely normal. What would they do to each other? Absolutely nothing. They have no balls. Wow. Similar. John House, associate professor and unit head, livestock veterinary teaching and research unit at the University of Sydney confirms you can put a bunch of steers in a paddock, no problemo. "They just get along, chew grass and chill," he says. Don't think old mate Dan Tehan's made an error. These two aren't bulls at a gate but a couple of has-beens hoping they can be a bit more. Right now, that is so unlikely. Did these two miss the results of the last election? Obvs. After I asked John House all of the farming questions, I asked him about the whole net zero thing. He said bluntly: "I used to vote Liberal but I stopped because of their attitudes to climate change." Same with the rest of the country. They changed their votes too. Says House: "Who has got the most to lose? Primary producers - they are at the coal face. They are the ones getting hit by the floods and the droughts." This appears to be the consensus except among a tiny group of ancient members of the conservative parties in Australia. I ask one conservative politician what he thinks about these two. To sum up: Australia has actual things to worry about, such as floods and fires and algal blooms devouring our waterways. And Barnaby Joyce wants to grandstand about net zero. Completely bonkers? I ask. Very, comes the swift reply. And the Nationals in general? "It is a very small membership, not representative of rural and regional Australia. Their base is completely unrepresentative, more like the Sky After Dark crazy brigade. "Among the three octogenarian men** who are branch members, Joyce would be some kind of hero. The party is not representative of the communities they serve let alone the country." Very harsh. And if Barnaby Joyce (quick reminder: publicly unfaithful to his wife, didn't know if he was the dad to his love child, suggesting HPV vaccines would lead to promiscuity, public drunkenness) were to walk down the main street of any of our major cities, I reckon folks would be more likely to point and laugh than actually approach him for help. Which is what I reckon politicians should be about. Helping us. Helping the country. But how do people in the country feel about climate change? And when I say people in the country, I mean the people who grow our food. Funny you should ask. Even conservatives pointed me to Farmers for Climate Action (FCA), a farmer-led organisation with over 8000 members. It works to manage risks and "find opportunities to adapt to, and mitigate, climate change". Love that for them. And for us. READ MORE JENNA PRICE: CEO Natalie Collard says FCA conducts a regular survey of members. At last count, 55 per cent of members named climate change as the number-one threat to their farming business. At 15 per cent and in second place, we had everyone's favourite: increasing bureaucracy and red tape. Farmers for Climate Action was founded 10 years ago because farmers felt the government wasn't taking farming concerns seriously, nor reflecting farmers' views on climate change. Collard says: "Their view was, 'We are living it, we know'." I ask her what FCA thinks about this latest Nationals move. She speaks like a politician here: "Nationals policy is a matter for the Nationals." Speaking of Nationals, at the last election Michael McCormack won his seat of Riverina convincingly and maybe rolling back net zero is the vibe he gets when he's visiting pubs and clubs in the area. Fourth in the 2025 vote was community independent Jenny Rolfe, who came from a standing start last December. She says McCormack has not been listening to the entire electorate. "He is in an echo chamber of people and failing to show leadership of engaging with the entire community," says Rolfe "If we don't take action on climate change then those of us in the regions will feel the greatest impacts of inaction." Amen to that. Don't let these blokes steer you the wrong way. Sorry. *look, we all know what a cow is, right? But I can't for the life of me find a nongendered word for a single bovine animal so boycow it is. Kind of like cowboy. **I asked about this. Sexist and ageist much? Apparently not. Look, I know milk comes from cows and eggs come from hens. I've even sung "Old McDonald had a farm" to my grandchildren, on loop. And yeah, yeah, money doesn't grow on trees. You may have read that two Nationals, Barnaby Joyce, representing the federal seat of New England; and Michael McCormack, representing the Riverina, want to abandon net zero. It's kind of embarrassing because they are just copying Donald Trump (and we know how that worked out for Temu Trump, our pet name for Peter Dutton). This week, The New York Times reported: "The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan." So catastrophic decision from the US and idiotic grandstanding from the Nationals (dear heaven, the two political parties in this country with the names which bear no semblance to reality - Liberal and National). But this week's comment in response to the derangements of Joyce and McCormack by opposition energy spokesperson Dan Tehan totally perplexed me from an agricultural point of view. He described two former deputy prime ministers, now backbenchers, Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack, as "two steers in a paddock". I hastened to Google for agricultural assistance. A steer, by the way, is a boycow* with his nuts knackered. According to at least one livestock expert I spoke to, it's normal for two steers to be in a paddock. Absolutely normal. What would they do to each other? Absolutely nothing. They have no balls. Wow. Similar. John House, associate professor and unit head, livestock veterinary teaching and research unit at the University of Sydney confirms you can put a bunch of steers in a paddock, no problemo. "They just get along, chew grass and chill," he says. Don't think old mate Dan Tehan's made an error. These two aren't bulls at a gate but a couple of has-beens hoping they can be a bit more. Right now, that is so unlikely. Did these two miss the results of the last election? Obvs. After I asked John House all of the farming questions, I asked him about the whole net zero thing. He said bluntly: "I used to vote Liberal but I stopped because of their attitudes to climate change." Same with the rest of the country. They changed their votes too. Says House: "Who has got the most to lose? Primary producers - they are at the coal face. They are the ones getting hit by the floods and the droughts." This appears to be the consensus except among a tiny group of ancient members of the conservative parties in Australia. I ask one conservative politician what he thinks about these two. To sum up: Australia has actual things to worry about, such as floods and fires and algal blooms devouring our waterways. And Barnaby Joyce wants to grandstand about net zero. Completely bonkers? I ask. Very, comes the swift reply. And the Nationals in general? "It is a very small membership, not representative of rural and regional Australia. Their base is completely unrepresentative, more like the Sky After Dark crazy brigade. "Among the three octogenarian men** who are branch members, Joyce would be some kind of hero. The party is not representative of the communities they serve let alone the country." Very harsh. And if Barnaby Joyce (quick reminder: publicly unfaithful to his wife, didn't know if he was the dad to his love child, suggesting HPV vaccines would lead to promiscuity, public drunkenness) were to walk down the main street of any of our major cities, I reckon folks would be more likely to point and laugh than actually approach him for help. Which is what I reckon politicians should be about. Helping us. Helping the country. But how do people in the country feel about climate change? And when I say people in the country, I mean the people who grow our food. Funny you should ask. Even conservatives pointed me to Farmers for Climate Action (FCA), a farmer-led organisation with over 8000 members. It works to manage risks and "find opportunities to adapt to, and mitigate, climate change". Love that for them. And for us. READ MORE JENNA PRICE: CEO Natalie Collard says FCA conducts a regular survey of members. At last count, 55 per cent of members named climate change as the number-one threat to their farming business. At 15 per cent and in second place, we had everyone's favourite: increasing bureaucracy and red tape. Farmers for Climate Action was founded 10 years ago because farmers felt the government wasn't taking farming concerns seriously, nor reflecting farmers' views on climate change. Collard says: "Their view was, 'We are living it, we know'." I ask her what FCA thinks about this latest Nationals move. She speaks like a politician here: "Nationals policy is a matter for the Nationals." Speaking of Nationals, at the last election Michael McCormack won his seat of Riverina convincingly and maybe rolling back net zero is the vibe he gets when he's visiting pubs and clubs in the area. Fourth in the 2025 vote was community independent Jenny Rolfe, who came from a standing start last December. She says McCormack has not been listening to the entire electorate. "He is in an echo chamber of people and failing to show leadership of engaging with the entire community," says Rolfe "If we don't take action on climate change then those of us in the regions will feel the greatest impacts of inaction." Amen to that. Don't let these blokes steer you the wrong way. Sorry. *look, we all know what a cow is, right? But I can't for the life of me find a nongendered word for a single bovine animal so boycow it is. Kind of like cowboy. **I asked about this. Sexist and ageist much? Apparently not.
