Stephen Jones: Former Labor assistant treasurer named Australia's ambassador to the OECD
Just two months after retiring from Federal politics, Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced the appointment on Sunday.
Mr Jones will take up the post in September, replacing ex-Liberal PM Scott Morrison's trade and investment adviser Brendan Pearson, who was appointed in 2021.
Senator Wong and Dr Chalmers said their former colleague would bring a 'wealth of experience' to advancing Australia's interests after he served in Federal Parliament from 2010 until this year.
During his stint, Mr Jones spent almost six years in the Treasury portfolio and nearly half that time as Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services.
'In Government, Mr Jones delivered reforms to strengthen Australia's superannuation and financial systems, modernise markets, and improve the integrity of our tax system,' the joint statement said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has appointed several former Labor Federal parliament members to prominent international diplomatic positions.
Notably, former Labor PM Kevin Rudd as Australia's Ambassador to the United States and former Defence Minister Stephen Smith as High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. Nationals MP Keith Pitt was also recently appointed as Australia's ambassador to the Holy See.
Mr Jones had been a prominent and longtime supporter of Mr Albanese, and thanked him for his 'friendship and support over many decades' when announcing his retirement.
Dr Chalmers had acknowledged him as a 'terrific colleague' who will leave behind a 'proud legacy.'
Former WA senator Mathias Cormann, who is the current Secretary-General of the OECD, is originally from Belgium but served as a long-time Coalition finance minister before the role.
Hashtags
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
New polling puts Victorian Labor on track to secure historic fourth term, with support for Coalition falling amid string of controversies
Two separate polls have indicated that if a state election were held today, the Victorian Labor government would cruise to victory, despite the majority of voters preferring Opposition Leader Brad Battin as Premier. A Redbridge poll, obtained by The Herald Sun, showed the Victorian Labor Party was in a prime election winning position, leading the Coalition 51.5 to 48.5 on a two-party preferred count. This would translate to an unprecedented fourth election victory for Labor if the current vote held, with the ALP experiencing a four-point bump to its primary vote. The development comes as Labor grapples with a mounting $149 billion debt pile, a budget crisis with the risk of a credit downgrade, delays and cost blowouts to critical infrastructure projects, and surging youth crime rates among other issues. Support meanwhile for Mr Battin's Coalition has plunged to 38 per cent, five points lower than when he was appointed leader in December. The poll of 1,183 Victorians represents a significant shift, with the Coalition having led Labor 51–49 on a two-party preferred basis eight months ago shortly before John Pesutto was dumped as leader. The Coalition has lost the support of almost all demographics, including every age group, tertiary educated and women voters, signifying a major blow to Mr Battin's leadership amid the tumultuous legal feud between MP Moira Deeming and Mr Pesutto. The opposition has also lost the support of migrant voters and those residing in Melbourne's inner, middle and outer suburbs, leading Labor only in rural areas. Only 26 per cent of Victorians polled said they believed the opposition was worthy of governing. However, support for Premier Jacinta Allan had similarly taken a hit, with only 27 per cent of those surveyed saying they had confidence in a re-elected Labor government. A Newspoll conducted for The Australian also showed that Ms Allan would cling to government, with Labor leading the Coalition 53–47 on a two-party preferred basis. Ms Allan's personal popularity and voter satisfaction suffered a bruising and trails Mr Battin 41-36 as preferred Premier. A resounding 59 per cent of voters polled said they did not believe Labor deserved to be re-elected, with 61 per cent stating they were unhappy with Ms Allan's leadership style. Victorians are equally dissatisfied with the Coalition, with 60 per cent stating they did not believe the opposition was ready to take the reins after 11 years in the wilderness. Labor secured 37 per cent of the primary vote, with the Coalition sitting at 34.40 per cent and the Greens at 11.50 per cent. The poll further uncovered that support within the major parties rank and file had plummeted, with 44 per cent of Labor supporters and 23 per cent of Liberal voters turning away from their respective parties. Although Labor is well short of achieving it's thumping 2022 result, Redbridge co-director Kos Samaras said preference flows from minor parties would comfortably deliver Labor a record fourth term. 'Labor is racking up support in fast-growing urban electorates within diverse Melbourne and highly educated constituencies,' he said. 'While the Coalition is piling up votes in ageing, shrinking seats they already hold.'
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Death toll in central Texas flash floods rises, 41 still missing
China is looking to capitalise on Australia's fraying ties with the United States by enlisting Anthony Albanese in its tech and trade war with Donald Trump via an expansion of an existing free trade agreement to include artificial intelligence and the digital economy. As the prime minister prepares to travel to China later this week, Beijing's top local diplomat, ambassador Xiao Qian, has also seized on the Albanese government's domestic political pledge to boost productivity, championing deepening economic ties between the two nations as a way to end the growth slump. While Labor has successfully pursued a policy of 'stabilisation' after acrimony between 2020 and 2022, when the communist regime imposed trade sanctions on $20 billion of Australian exports and froze high-level dialogue, Xiao has signalled Beijing's impatience with the steady approach. 'Over the past three years, through the joint efforts of both sides, China-Australia relations have stabilised and improved, achieving a comprehensive turnaround,' Xiao writes in an opinion piece for The Australian Financial Review.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The simplest solution to a taxing problem is upping GST
For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost. For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost. For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost. For the umpteenth time, tax reform is back on the agenda - this time as the centrepiece of Treasurer Jim Chalmers' latest talkfest aimed at boosting productivity. Chalmers is now positioning himself as a crusader against red tape, but it's hard to take that seriously when the Albanese government has introduced 5000 new regulations in its first term, according to recent reports. There's the usual story of wasteful government spending at every level, but the deeper issues lie in changing demographics. The number of non-taxpayers is rising rapidly as more of the Baby Boomer generation of Australians retire and live longer - 90 per cent of retirees pay no income tax at all. Add to this our skewed personal income tax system, where just 12 per cent of taxpayers are footing 62 per cent of the bill, and the imbalance becomes clear. Just look at the current system. Once a person earns $135,000 a year, they start losing 39 per cent of every extra dollar. That jumps to 47 per cent once they earn $190,000. These are not very high income figures by today's standards, yet we've created a tax system in which someone earning over $190,000 loses almost half of every additional dollar. There's something fundamentally wrong with that: it shifts the focus from earning more and being more productive to finding ways to minimise tax - and that's a dead weight on the economy. The problem is that most taxation changes are difficult to implement. For years, there's been talk about eliminating the capital gains tax exemption on the family home, but that's a practical impossibility. No government would dare to do it - and even if they tried, the massive disparity in house prices across Australia would make it unworkable. There's also ongoing discussion about reducing the capital gains tax discount on assets held for more than 12 months, but again, implementation is tricky. It's a fundamental tax principle that you shouldn't tax inflation, yet removing or substantially reducing the CGT discount without addressing inflation would do just that. And if a change was phased in by applying the change only to assets acquired after a certain date, you'd see a frenzy of purchases before the deadline, followed by a slump. The result? Distorted markets, disrupted planning, and more confusion than clarity. Super is always a target, and now there's talk the government might slap a 15 per cent tax on some pension-phase accounts that are currently tax-free. But there's a major flaw in that plan: super's purpose is to provide retirement income, and it does that by creating a low-tax or zero-tax haven. A couple with $800,000 invested in their own names would pay no tax anyway, thanks to offsets and franking credits. Tax their super, and they'll just pull the money out and invest it themselves. The practical solution is to increase GST to 15 per cent with no exemptions. That would strike a blow to the black economy and ensure retirees contribute something towards the rising cost of supporting them. Any GST increase will be slammed as regressive - hurting the poor more than the rich - an argument that applies to most embedded taxes. Petrol tax, liquor excise and cigarette duties are all regressive, yet these are widely accepted. The strength of GST is that it's almost impossible to avoid: it captures a large slice of the cash economy and, while it hits low-income earners hard, it hits big spenders hardest - the more you spend, the more you pay - so those with the most disposable income typically pay more. Question: I'm 57, have $815,000 in super, and own my home worth $1.3 million. My employer pays super into my fund about six weeks after payday - I get paid on the 14th, but my super doesn't appear until the 28th of the following month. They say this is legal for employer contributions. But I also salary sacrifice each month to reach the cap. Since that's my money, shouldn't it go into my super account the day I'm paid? I'd prefer my investments to start working straight away. Answer: There is no legislative timeframe placed on employers for paying salary sacrifice contributions to an employee's super fund. You've reached that fortunate position where the earnings on your investments far outweigh your contributions. For example, if you have $815,000 in super, the annual growth should be at least $57,000 a year, or $1,000 a week. If your maximum contributions are $30,000 a year, your net figure after the 15% contribution tax is $25,500, which comes to just $2,000 a month. The timing of contributions-$2,000 a month net-is minuscule compared to the size of your fund. In any case, because you are in the balanced and growth areas, unit prices fluctuate daily. A contribution that is four weeks late may end up being worth more than one made immediately after you were paid. You're on the right track, -just keep doing what you're doing. Question: I'm confused about how Centrelink assesses the gold and silver I own. I've been told they are iven a deemed income, even though they don't actually produce course, as their value rises, my pension decreases. For context, I own and live in my home, which I purchased over 11 years ago, and still have a mortgage. Any time I sell an asset, the proceeds go into my mortgage savings account to pay off my principal and interest, meaning my overall asset value remains fairly static. Answer: You are correct that gold and silver are subject to deeming under Centrelink's rules. This means that even if you do not sell them, their assessed value can impact your pension.. If you sell part or all of your metals, you must notify Centrelink. While your metal holdings decrease, your bank balance increases, which Centrelink will reassess. When you pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) to the ATO, this reduces your bank balance. Once the payment is made, you should report the lower balance to Centrelink, which may result in a higher pension. If you are receiving only a part pension due to asset limits, you might consider using the proceeds from selling metals to pay down your mortgage. Centrelink does not count the mortgage balance as an offset against assets, but selling assessable assets such as metals to reduce your mortgage moves that wealth from an assessable to a non-assessable category. This could lead to an increased pension. Question: I retired last year but won't be eligible for the age pension until September. I'm not working and don't plan to. Should I keep paying for TPD insurance through my super? Answer: Insurance comes at a cost, so weigh the chance of claiming against your financial needs. If you're not working and don't plan to, a successful TPD claim may be less likely - especially if your policy requires you to be permanently unable to work in any job. Premiums also rise with age and can eat into your super. Review your policy and decide if it's still worth the cost.
