Category: MIL-OSI

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

Tom Connell:

I spoke to him a short time ago, started by asking him about the impact Cyclone Alfred has on the budget.

Jim Chalmers:

First of all, our focus, as you’d expect, is on the human cost of ex‑Tropical Cyclone Alfred and all of the other natural disasters we’ve seen in recent years. But there will be a substantial economic cost and also a cost to the budget. The $1.2 billion you refer to will be provisioned for in the Budget. It will be one of the key influences on the Budget we hand down in 8 days. But economic consequences as well, about a quarter point of growth, we think in this quarter. One of the consequences of the 12 million work hours that were lost in our economy when businesses shut down.

When it comes to inflation, the 2 things we’re monitoring very closely are the impact on fruit and veg, once we have a better handle on how the various farms and producers fared over a big geographic area during this natural disaster, and then building costs, as you rightly identify.

We’ve made a lot of progress on building and construction costs. It’s actually one of the more heartening reasons why inflation has come off substantially since we came to office. But we do expect some upward pressure here. I’ve been speaking with the insurers about their workforces, for example. They expect a little bit of upward pressure on building costs as well, but hopefully we can keep them contained because we’ve made a lot of progress together on that part of inflation and on inflation more broadly over the last couple of years.

Connell:

You saw a lot of this upfront. One of the big concerns of people ongoing in these areas is insurance. We spoke to people in southeast Queensland who said it’s just beyond them, that cost. Has seeing this upfront and talking to people made you think about whether or not there are elements or parts in Australia where insurance just isn’t going to be affordable, and is there a government role for that?

Chalmers:

Obviously it’s a key concern. We were talking a moment ago about the drivers of inflation and insurance costs is one of those drivers. And unfortunately, it does mean that some people will opt out of the insurance that they need, particularly in areas which are frequently hit and hardest hit. I’ve been in pretty regular contact with the insurers, particularly Suncorp, RACQ and some of the others, to make sure that for people who do have a policy, that they are being dealt with quickly, expeditiously, but I also know that it’s important more broadly, the system.

One of the things which hasn’t got a lot of commentary about this natural disaster is that the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool that’s managed by the federal government is an important part of dealing with what we’ve seen. It is an important backstop. It has had a little bit of an impact on premiums. We’d like it to have more of an impact on premiums, but it’s one of the things that the federal government is doing.

My colleague Stephen Jones is also doing a heap of other work, as have people like Daniel Mulino, who runs the committee process for us, to see what else could responsibly be done. But I don’t want to pretend that we have this insurance market perfectly fixed. We’ve done some meaningful things. We’re working closely with all of the stakeholders, but it is still a big driver of inflation. It still is a big concern for us.

Connell:

Yeah. The other part, inflation, of course, a big driver of that. Alright, so we’re a week and a bit from you delivering another Budget. I know expectation management is important. Do you want to just say, once and for all, is there any chance at all of another surplus?

Chalmers:

There won’t be a surplus this year, I think that’s pretty clear from the Budget we’ll hand down next week. There have been 2 surpluses for the first time in almost 2 decades. As you know, we’ve engineered the biggest ever nominal improvement in the Budget, around $200 billion. We’re paying down liberal debt. We’re saving on interest costs. We’ve made a lot of progress in the budget. And even if you think about the deficit for this year, it will still be a deficit, but it will be much, much lower than what we inherited from our predecessors. And so, we’re making progress, even where we’ve been able to.

In 2 years, we’ve been able to turn big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses. This year we’ve been able to turn a big Liberal deficit into a smaller deficit and that will be demonstration, really, of our responsible economic management and the progress we’re making together as Australians in the Budget, but also in the economy more broadly.

Connell:

And for Australians as well, we’ve got, of course, the default market offer released on energy prices up to the highest increase, 9 per cent. Does that mean not continuing with the energy rebate, $300 energy rebate would be untenable given how much prices would go up by overall?

Chalmers:

I think when it comes to the energy bill rebate, it’s important to remember in the last year that we have data for, electricity prices went down about 25 per cent. They would have still gone down about 1.5 per cent were it not for our rebates. It shows the important role that those energy rebates have played in taking some of the edge off these power prices. The Default Market Offer that you’re asking me about is a forward‑looking thing. It reflects unreliability in the existing coal fired generator market, part of the market.

And that’s why it’s important we get more cleaner and cheaper energy into the system, and to do that in the most reliable way that we can. There are 2 things which are absolutely mad when it comes to electricity prices. One, our political opponents didn’t support energy bill rebates, so Australians would have been much worse off. Energy prices would have been higher if they had their way.

And the second bit of madness is nuclear reactors, which would leave the unreliable parts in the system for much longer while they built these reactors. And then when they were built, they would push up energy prices because they’re such an expensive form of new energy.

Connell:

But if you think of those customers in NSW, for example, facing a 9 per cent increase, could they also face the removal of that subsidy on July 1?

Chalmers:

I’m not going to pre‑empt the Budget. I think you’d understand why I wouldn’t do that. Our focus is on rolling out the cost‑of‑living relief that we’ve already budgeted for, including those energy rebates which are helping people take some of the edge off these cost‑of‑living pressures. That’s what they’re designed to do and that’s what they’ve been doing. It beggars belief that the Coalition didn’t want people to receive that bit of help.

Connell:

I know you’re short on time. Just briefly, the Coalition hinting it’s fair to say, income tax cuts in the next term. Is that something you’re looking at as well?

Chalmers:

I see Angus Taylor’s on a little tour of marginal electorates. While he’s doing that, Tom, he should tell millions of Australians that he didn’t want them to get a tax cut in the first place. As I understand it, this whole brouhaha about tax today, he’s using numbers which are calculated before our tax cuts came into place, before they came into being.

And so, he should visit every marginal seat and he should tell millions of Australians he didn’t want them to get a tax cut. He didn’t want them to get help with their electricity bills. He wants them to have lower wages. These are the reasons why Angus Taylor and Peter Dutton pose such a risk to household budgets, it’s because people would have been worse off to here, and they’ll be worse off still if they win.

When it comes to income taxes, we’ve shown that we are cutting income taxes right now from the first of July last year, a very important decision that we’re very proud of. It means average tax rates come down. It means people get a bit of tax relief that they need and deserve to deal with these cost‑of‑living pressures that they’re still confronting.

Connell:

So, given how recent that last tax cut was, is the indication they’re not coming anytime soon, the next tranche or the next move on that?

Chalmers:

I’ll say the same thing I’ve said on every other occasion, Tom, that I’m asked about this. Our focus is on the tax cuts which are rolling out right now. They’re rolling out in the economy right now. They’re helping every Australian taxpayer with a tax cut that the Liberals and Nationals didn’t want them to get, millions of Australians would have missed out. So, that’s really an important thing I think, the important role that the existing tax cuts are playing in the system.

The fact that we are nowhere near the tax to GDP cap that Angus Taylor is talking about today, the fact that they opposed these tax cuts, which would have meant people would have been worse off, that’s our focus. There are already tax cuts rolling out in the system. They’re an important part, but not the only part, of the cost‑of‑living help that we’re providing in a substantial but also responsible way.

Connell:

Treasurer Jim Chalmers, thanks for your time.

Chalmers:

Appreciate it, Tom. All the best.

Source: Australian Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry

Stephanie Dalzell:

Treasurer, thanks for joining us. You’ve confirmed the government will be handing down a deficit in the upcoming Budget. How bad is the Budget bottom line? What’s the number we’re talking about?

Jim Chalmers:

Oh, good afternoon, Stephanie. Well, first of all, I’ve been saying that for some months that the Budget this year is in deficit, but that deficit will be much smaller than what we inherited from Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor. It will show that we’ve made some very substantial progress cleaning up the mess that we inherited in the budget but as I’ve said on a number of occasions for some time now, those first 2 surpluses that we delivered, the first 2 surpluses back to back in almost 2 decades, they will be followed by a deficit, but the deficit will be smaller than what we were left.

Dalzell:

Treasury have put the cost of Ex‑Tropical Cyclone Alfred at $1.2 billion. What pressure will that, and disaster support more broadly, place on the Budget?

Chalmers:

Well, this will be a key influence on the Budget that we hand down in 8 days’ time. Not the only influence. The global economic uncertainty will be a big part of the story, cost‑of‑living pressures, but also the progress that we’re making getting inflation down in our own economy. These will be the main influences. But when it comes to natural disasters, we will be provisioning another $1.2 billion to respond to Ex‑Tropical Cyclone Alfred. That will take the total of assistance and rebuilding and recovery costs in the Budget from natural disasters to something like $13.5 billion.

Now, you played a grab a moment ago, grabs before from Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor. Remember when they talk about our Budget, they consider things like natural disaster funding as wasteful spending. This is the reason why they won’t come clean on the cuts that they intend to make to the budget because they pose a big risk to people including in these natural disaster affected communities.

Dalzell:

I’ll come to the Coalition’s figures in a minute. But just staying on the Budget for now, we’re expecting the second round of Trump’s tariffs next month. The impact for Australia could be huge. Not just the tariffs themselves, but the global consequences of them. How are you accounting for that in this Budget?

Chalmers:

I think you’re quite right the way you’ve summarised that in the question. There are really 2 sets of impacts on Australia when it comes to these escalating trade tensions coming out of DC, but also retaliatory tariffs from around the world. There are the direct impacts on Australia from things like a tariff on steel and aluminium, but there are also the broader economic consequences in a world where we’re seeing these escalating tensions. I’ll have a bit more to say about this tomorrow when I’m at the Queensland Media Club.

But what we’ve said before is that we have modelled these impacts on the Australian economy. We expect the immediate direct impacts to be relatively manageable. We’ve got wonderful exporters, they will diversify, they will find other markets, but the broader consequences will be much more significant. Particularly when you consider the impact of these tariffs on the big economies, the US, China, Canada, Mexico, Europe, we expect the impacts of those to be much more substantial.

Dalzell:

Just for people not as intimately involved in the Budget as you, which is probably everyone, how do you model those impacts? Is it an initial scenario of tariffs? Can you just walk us through how you’re possibly managing to model something that is just so unclear at the moment?

Chalmers:

Well, what the economists do at the Treasury, and they’re professionals, they model all kinds of scenarios and they try and forecast in the budget the best sense that they can get of the likely impacts of these sorts of policy changes out of DC, but also out of Beijing and elsewhere. And what they do is they have a look at the size of the industry that’s impacted, they look at the likely impacts on that industry, and they come up with an informed and a concluded view. So again, I’ll say a bit more about this tomorrow, but really, you’ve touched on 2 of the big influences on this Budget. We’re 8 days out now. There’ll be extra money for cyclone recovery. there will also be an attempt to quantify the economic impacts of these escalating trade tensions and between them, those 2 influences will be quite significant when it comes to the Budget.

Dalzell:

Now, we heard the Coalition before. They say the average Australian worker paid $3,500 more tax last financial year than before your government was elected. How do you plan to address bracket creep here?

Chalmers:

Well, those guys have got a lot of nerve talking about tax cuts when they tried to prevent almost 3 million people getting the tax cut that Labor is delivering and they tried to prevent 84 per cent of taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut, or 90 per cent of women taxpayers getting a bigger tax cut because of the steps that we took and implemented in the middle of last year. So if they want to talk about tax, they should explain to those millions of Australians why they didn’t want them to get a tax cut in the first place, that’s the first point I would make about that.

What we saw with our tax cuts is every single Australian taxpayer gets a tax cut because of this Albanese Labor government. It means people are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That is one of the central objectives of our economic policy, making sure that wages are growing which is one reason why the tax take is up, but also making sure more people keep more of what they earn because of the tax cuts that our political opponents opposed.

Dalzell:

It seems like the Budget is still relying on upside revenue, on iron ore and coal. Is this economic management or is it economic luck?

Chalmers:

A couple of things about that. First of all, we’re not expecting big, significant revenue upgrades in the Budget. We’re expecting any revenue upgrades in this Budget to be smaller than in the other Budgets we delivered. But what really matters when you do get those upward revisions to revenue is this Labor government in a very responsible way has banked most of those upward revisions to revenue, our predecessors used to spend most of those upward revisions to revenue and that’s the big difference.

That’s one of the reasons why we’ve engineered the biggest improvement in the Budget in nominal terms in the history of this country, around a $200 billion improvement to the Budget. Two surpluses for the first time in almost 2 decades, we’re paying down Liberal debt, we’re saving on the interest costs on that debt as a consequence and that’s really the overarching message I would leave your viewers today, Stephanie.

People are looking for hints in the fourth Albanese government’s Budget, the hints for the fourth one are in the first 3, a Budget defined by economic responsibility, responsible economic management, making our economy more resilient in the face of all of this global economic uncertainty. Those will be the major focuses of the Budget tomorrow week.

Dalzell:

Well, if the hints are in the first 3, does that mean that in this Budget, we can expect an extension of that federal energy subsidy, giving households $300 for electricity bills this financial year? Will that continue?

Chalmers:

Look, as you’d understand, I don’t intend to announce any cost‑of‑living help that will be in the Budget next week. What we have said consistently really for some time now is where we can find an affordable and responsible way to provide some cost‑of‑living help, recognising that people are still under pressure, of course we will try and do that where we can. Again, we have done that in the first 3 Budgets, and we will try to do that again in the fourth.

The Budget is really about managing the nation’s books in the most responsible way that we can so that we can provide that cost‑of‑living relief when we can do that in an affordable way so that we can invest in building Australia’s future and so that we can continue to clean up the mess that we inherited from the Liberal and National parties.

Dalzell:

I also wanted to ask you about breaking news that we’ve had this hour that US President Donald Trump is set to call the Russian President Vladimir Putin about the war in Ukraine on Tuesday, discussing land, power plants and dividing up certain assets. Are you concerned about those words, dividing certain assets?

Chalmers:

Look, I haven’t seen those comments, I haven’t seen those stories that you say have broken in the last little while. I’ve been on video hook ups about the Budget and about other things. So I’ll go through the language that has been used here. We’ve made it very clear we support the people and the leaders of Ukraine. They have been incredibly brave and courageous in the most difficult circumstances. Vladimir Putin and Russia have been the aggressors here and we’ve made clear our position. Beyond that, I’m happy to go through the language that’s been used by President Trump and no doubt we’ll have more to say about it in due course.

Dalzell:

A Labor Party rank‑and‑file campaign to scrap the AUKUS submarine project is intensifying. Concerns are growing about the future of the US alliance under President Donald Trump. Is it time to jump ship? Pardon the pun.

Chalmers:

Oh no, I don’t believe so. And again, I’ve got the most respectful view of people who have other opinions about this, all the way from former Prime Minister Turnbull to some of the branch members that you mentioned there. Obviously, we listen respectfully when people have different views, but we don’t share those views.

AUKUS is in Australia’s national interest. It also has, in my view, big industrial and economic benefits, and we support it for those reasons, understanding that something as big and often controversial as this will attract a whole range of views right across the political spectrum.

Dalzell:

When we talk about the next round of tariffs, how concerned are you that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will become a focus for the Trump administration in this next round?

Chalmers:

That remains to be seen and I’m reluctant to speculate about that. I will say this about the PBS – this is one of the most important features of our health system. We’ve got universal Medicare, we’ve got the PBS, which means massive savings for people accessing often life‑saving drugs. And so it’s something that we’re very proud of. It’s something that we will defend, of course. That’s the position we’ve had for a very long time. Beyond that, I don’t really want to speculate about what may or may not be part of the next pronouncements that President Trump or others make out of Washington DC.

Dalzell:

Well, in terms of the current tariffs then on the table, steel and aluminium, Trade Minister Don Farrell has said he’s not sure what America wants in terms of negotiating. How do we make an offer? In that context, what can we offer?

Chalmers:

Well, there have been discussions for some time, as you would expect. We’ve all been engaged at different levels with different counterparts with the US administration. We’ve made it very clear, I think the Prime Minister was very strong in making it clear that these tariffs are not the actions of a friend. They are disappointing, they make no sense, and they are a recipe for slower growth and higher inflation wherever these tariffs apply, including in the US, so we’ve made our view very clear. But we’ve been engaging in the ways that people would expect here in Australia with our American counterparts pointing out that this is an economic relationship of mutual benefit. We have a lot to offer the United States and vice versa.

Dalzell:

Thank you. Treasurer, thank you so much for your time today. Sorry to cut you off. We really appreciate you taking the time but we’re running out of time. That’s Afternoon Briefing.

Source:

How to lodge

To apply for a private ruling about a demerger:

To lodge a class ruling about a demerger:

Check first whether your question is answered in Demergers.

Supporting information

A request for a private or class ruling about a demerger must:

• be in writing
• include the information listed below – depending on who the ruling request applies to.

If it applies to:

• shareholders of the head entity – refer to
• members of the demerger group – refer to

Demerger group

So we can identify the demerger group, we require (see note):

• the identity of the head entity (see subsection 125-65(3) of the ITAA 1997), demerger subsidiaries (see subsections 125-65(6) and (7) of the ITAA 1997) and the demerged entity (see subsection 125-70(6) of the ITAA 1997)
• details of all ownership interests (see subsection 125-60(1) of the ITAA 1997) in the head entity, including
  • a description of each class of ownership interest (if there is more than one class)
  • the number of ownership interests in each class
  • a description of the rights that ownership interests carry (provide a copy of the head entity’s constitution if appropriate)
  • for each head entity owner, provide the percentage of ownership interests held; what type of entity (company, trust, or individual); and whether their ownership interests are pre-CGT or post-CGT
• the percentage and type of ownership interests that the head entity holds in the demerged entity just before and just after the demerger
• details of the ownership interests that owners of the head entity receive in the demerged entity, including
  • the number and type of demerged entity interests that are acquired by head entity shareholders for each ownership interest held in the head entity
  • a description of the rights that ownership interests in the demerged entity carry (provide a copy of the demerged entity’s constitution if appropriate).

Note: We recognise that for widely held entities some of this information may not be known.

Demerger requirements

In determining the information required to be provided, you should have regard to Taxation Determination TD 2020/6 Income tax: what is a ‘restructuring’ for the purposes of subsection 125-70(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997?

In addition, to ensure the demerger requirements are met we require:

• the date that the demerger occurred or is expected to occur
• the method by which the head entity will cease to own (see paragraph 125-70(1)(b) of the ITAA 1997) at least 80% of its ownership interests in the demerged entity (that is, disposal or transfer, cancellation and reissue, or issue of new shares), including
  • a description and a diagrammatic representation of the steps undertaken to effect the transfer of ownership interests in the demerged entity, and how these steps will be recorded in the financial accounts of the head entity and the demerged entity (that is, specific journal entries)
  • copies of the most recent financial accounts for both the head entity and the demerged entity at the time of the demerger (including an estimated balance sheet at the time of the demerger if materially different)
• what the head entity shareholders or unit holders receive under the demerger – to show that the nothing else test (see paragraph 125-70(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997) is satisfied
• the type of entity the demerged entity is – to show that the same entity test (see paragraph 125-70(1)(e) of the ITAA 1997) is satisfied
• an explanation of how the maintenance of ownership test (see subsection 125-70(2) of the ITAA 1997) is satisfied, including
  • where the head entity and/or demerged entity has a number of different types of ownership interests on issue, how the proportion and market value tests are satisfied
  • if some ownership interests are ignored (see subsection 125-70(2) and section 125-75 of the ITAA 1997) (as employee share scheme shares or rights or adjusting instruments), how these interests satisfy the exemption provision
• confirmation that
  • neither the head entity nor demerged entity is a superannuation trust fund
  • the off-market share buyback (see subsection 125-70(4) of the ITAA 1997) and other CGT rollover relief (see subsection 125-70 (5) of the ITAA 1997) exceptions do not apply.

Shareholders or unit holders of the head entity – CGT consequences

So we can determine the CGT consequences for the shareholders or unit holders of the head entity, we require:

• whether a CGT event happened in respect of shares or units in the head entity and, if so, the relevant CGT event and the ownership interests affected
• whether head entity shareholders or unit holders will choose CGT rollover relief (see sections 125-80 and 125-85 of the ITAA 1997)
• where a private ruling is sought
  • the residency (see subsection 125-55(2) of the ITAA 1997) of each shareholder or unit holder
  • if the shareholder or unit holder is a non-resident, whether the ownership interests they receive in the demerged entity is taxable Australian property (see section 855-15 of the ITAA 1997).

For many demergers, shareholders or unit holders of a head entity may be able to work out the CGT consequences resulting from the demerger by using the demergers calculator.

Shareholders or unit holders of the head entity – dividend relief

So we can determine if dividend relief is available for shareholders or unit holders of the head entity, we require:

• the amount of any dividend paid to shareholders or unit holders under the demerger – refer to Taxation Ruling TR 2003/8 Income tax: distributions of property by companies to shareholders – amount to be included as an assessable dividend
• how the CGT assets of the demerged entity and its subsidiaries are used – to show whether the test in subsection 44(5) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936) is satisfied
• whether the head entity will make an election under subsection 44(2) of the ITAA 1936.

Shareholders or unit holders of the head entity – dividend integrity provision

You need to address all the circumstances in subsection 45B(8) of the ITAA 1936 to enable us to consider the application of section 45B of the ITAA 1936 to the demerger benefit or capital benefit.

We recognise that all shareholder or unit holder information may not be known for widely held entities.

The circumstances in subsection 45B(8) of the ITAA 1936 include, but are not limited to:

• the reason for undertaking a restructure in the form of a demerger
• the effect the demerger will have on the business operations of the head entity and the demerged entity, and a description of those business operations
• the method used by the head entity to determine the amount of capital and profit distributed under the demerger, and an explanation as to why this method was used
• the capital return amount for each demerged entity share
• the market value (or estimates) of the demerged entity and of the entire demerger group (including the demerged entity)
• whether the head entity’s share capital account is tainted withing the meaning of the term in section 197-50 of the ITAA 1997 (and if so, the details)
• whether any payment or distribution made before the demerger by the head entity was taken to be a dividend or was treated as a deemed dividend under section 45B, Division 7A or section 108 of the ITAA 1936
• details of entries made to the equity accounts of the head entity and the demerged entity, including share capital contributions and dividend distributions (over the last 5 or 10 years)
• details of relevant tax attributes of the shareholder or unit holder, including
  • capital losses available to the shareholder or unit holder
  • the residency of the shareholders or unit holders
  • the cost base of the head entity shares or units
• details of any transaction, including any capital raising, prior to or after the demerger that is in any way connected with the demerger, including
  • what the transaction achieved
  • why it was undertaken
  • how it was recorded in the financial accounts of the head entity and the demerged entity
  • the date it occurred
• whether the head entity is a member of a consolidated group at the time of the demerger and, if so, the date of consolidation and identify all members of the consolidated group just before and after the demerger.

Demerger group members – CGT consequences

So we can determine the CGT consequences for demerger group members, you need to provide:

• the CGT event that happened to the demerging entity’s ownership interests in the demerged entity (for example, CGT event A1, C2, C3 or K6), and
• whether a capital gain or capital loss would have arisen, but for the operation of the demerger rules.

Source: Reserve Bank of Australia

16 July 2024

Whilst the 2024-25 Federal Budget did not feature the big-ticket announcement of hundreds of thousands of Fee-Free TAFE places or billion-dollar TAFE specific investment like last year, it did include over $600 million of new skills investments on top of existing commitments to the National Skills Agreement signed in the last year, and the establishment of Jobs and Skills Australia and the VET Workforce Blueprint Strategy. It also included select measures that will influence the operation of TAFE and impact the working lives of TAFE teachers into the future.

Future Made in Australia

The headline priority area for skills in the budget is the government’s “Future Made in Australia” package, designed to be a nation building investment in renewable energy and the transition to net zero, at a total of $22.7 billion over the next decade.

A large proportion of the total investment is aimed at incentivising private investment in net zero industries, however, there are still several measures under the Future Made in Australia banner that directly fund the vocational education sector:

$91 million over five years from 2023–24 to support the development of the clean energy workforce, including through addressing vocational education and training sector trainer workforce shortages, and funding new and existing training facility upgrades across a range of clean energy occupations.

$55.6 million over four years from 2024–25 to establish the Building Women’s Careers program to drive structural and systemic change in work and training environments. This program will fund partnerships between training providers, community organisations, employers, and unions to improve women’s access to flexible, safe and inclusive work and training opportunities in traditionally male-dominated industries of national priority, including clean energy sectors.

However, there is little detail available about how funds from the Building Women’s Careers program will be deployed, beyond the assertion that the program will provide around 10 large grants and several small-scale grants over the next four years.

Announced before the Budget was $88.8 million over three years from 2024–25 to support 20,000 new fee-free training places. This is an expansion of the existing Fee-Free TAFE program with 15,000 places specifically for courses relevant to the construction sector and delivered through TAFE and industry registered training organisations.It also includes 5,000 Fee-Free places to increase access to pre-apprenticeship programs.

Connecting pathways

The Budget also included funding to implement recommendations from the Australian Universities Accord including $27.7 million over four years from 2024–25 (and an additional $32.8 million from 2028–29 to 2034–35) to develop initiatives that “break down artificial barriers and harmonise regulatory, governance and qualification arrangements between the higher education and vocational education and training sectors.” It is expected that this funding will be used to help streamline recognition of prior learning in TAFE and vocational education for students enrolling in university, and to ensure that pathways through vocational education and tertiary education are more clearly defined and accessible.

There were also a number of smaller skills-based measures in the Budget including:

$10.6 million over four years from 2024–25 (and $1 million per year ongoing) for the implementation of a reporting solution for the Australian Skills Guarantee

$9.5 million in 2024–25 in additional funding for Jobs and Skills Australia’s continued provision of advice on Australia’s labour market, skills and training needs

$6.1 million in 2024–25 in additional funding for the National Careers Institute to continue its role in supporting Australians to access targeted careers information

$2.9 million in 2024–25 in reallocated funding for continued implementation work with the states and territories on the 5-year National Skills Agreement that commenced on 1 January 2024.

$4.4 million in 2024–25 to support delivering the VET workforce required to meet Australia’s future skills needs. This will include delivering strategic communications to increase the appeal of VET for students, parents and teachers, and extending community awareness of Fee-Free TAFE courses in areas of high skills needs which has ensured strong uptake of Fee-Free TAFE places to date.

$10.6 million over four years from 2024–25 (and $1.0 million per year ongoing) for the implementation of a reporting solution for the Australian Skills Guarantee

$9.5 million in 2024–25 in additional funding for Jobs and Skills Australia

$6.1 million in 2024–25 in additional funding for the National Careers Institute

$3.9 million over four years from 2024–25 to train TAFE teachers to deliver courses relevant to key professions within the nuclear-powered submarine enterprise.

Further support for the Australian Apprenticeships Incentive System

The government has promised $265.1 million over four years to adjust previously scheduled Phase Two Apprenticeship Incentive System payments “to provide further support for apprentices, trainees and their employers in priority occupations, while the Government undertakes the Strategic Review of the Australian Apprenticeships Incentive System.” These changes are welcome and will increase payments to apprentices from $3,000 to $5,000 and will increase payments to employers from $4,000 to $5,000.

Improved subsidies for apprentices are important, but so is ensuring that apprentices receive a longer term commitment from their employers. The position of the AEU is that this subsidy should therefore be dependent on apprentices having their employment maintained for at least 12 months from the conclusion of their apprenticeship.

Minimal capital investment

A nation building investment in TAFE campuses and equipment was not forthcoming in the Budget. This Budget, centred on the nation building potential of a Future Made in Australia Initiative, lacked a similar bold vision for the future of TAFE campuses and equipment. A new Capital and Equipment Investment Fund, totalling $50 million over three years has been described as part of a co-investment with states to “to ensure that TAFE facilities are equipped and ready to deliver cutting-edge training in clean energy qualifications and support more students to undertake this training.”

Whilst all capital investment in TAFE is welcome, it was nonetheless disappointing that the Albanese government did not manage greater ambition than the Coalition who had budgeted for a very similarly sized short term $50 million TAFE campus upgrade fund in their 2021-22 Budget. If TAFE is to truly be at the heart of vocational education in Australia, state-of-the-art campuses, equipment and facilities are needed.

Time to turbo charge investment in educators

Although the large investment and commitment to TAFE made by the Albanese government through the National Skills Agreement and the expanded Fee-Free TAFE initiative is very welcome, there are still significant concerns among TAFE teachers and support staff on workload, job security, and the level of support required by students accessing the expanded Fee-Free TAFE program.

The AEU’s State of Our TAFE survey showed that students enrolling in Fee-Free TAFE have significantly higher levels of additional needs including mental health, digital skills, literacy and numeracy and English language needs than the overall TAFE student cohort, and that TAFE institutes are generally not currently resourced to support those needs.

The only Budget measure for more teacher support was “Turbocharge the Teacher, Trainer and Assessor Workforce” which will provide $30 million to the states to support existing initiatives and new measures to rapidly upskill teachers, trainers and assessors involved in the clean energy, manufacturing and construction sectors. “Rapidly upskilling” the remaining TAFE workforce is not enough –a comprehensive and long-term TAFE workforce strategy is needed to restore the sector.

Missed opportunity

As the AEU’s 2024 State of Our TAFE survey shows, TAFE workers are chronically overburdened to the point where many are planning to leave the sector. A clear majority of workers said that both their working hours and the pace and intensity of their work increased over the last year, and they are working almost a day a week in excess of their contracted hours.

As a result of these pressures, more than two thirds of TAFE workers had considered leaving the sector in the last year, 45 per cent plan to remain for less than five years and only one quarter plan to spend their entire career in TAFE. Additionally, more than three quarters said that workload has a major impact on the recruitment and retention of TAFE teachers from industry.

The 2024-25 Federal Budget presented the government with an opportunity to provide the support to TAFE students and to help retain TAFE teachers to ensure that the Fee-Free TAFE initiative is a long-term success. It also offered a chance to regenerate the TAFE workforce following a decade of cuts and attrition due to excessive workload and poor pay. Whilst there is a substantial investment in skills in this Budget as the underpinning of the “Future Made in Australia” plan, the opportunity to recognise and prioritise the importance of TAFE workers in that plan was not taken up.

By Jonathon Guy

This article was originally published in The Australian TAFE Teacher, Winter 2024

Source: Australian National Party

Skip to content

---

Source: New South Wales – News

In a significant development in the murder investigation, detectives have also revealed they believe those responsible for the murder returned to the scene in a distinctive grey Holden Commodore shortly before lighting the fire.

CCTV has revealed just after 3.30am on 7 November 2024 the grey Commodore – which has a silver front bumper panel, damage to the front passenger door and a black tyre rim on the front passenger side – was parked on Ridley Grove at Woodville Gardens, a short distance from Mr Frangos’ Essex Street house.

A man wearing a backpack was seen walking from the grey Commodore towards the Essex Street house and a short time later CCTV captured it erupting in flames.

The vision also shows what detectives believe to be the same man then running back to Ridley Grove and leaving the area in a southerly direction in the grey Commodore.

In December detectives released CCTV of a red Ford Falcon XR6 utility leaving the vicinity of the murder. New CCTV footage reveals two people returning to this vehicle before it leaves. Investigations have revealed these two people are male of African appearance.

This vehicle has been seized by detectives as part of the investigation.

This new CCTV footage captured the two men walking between Mr Frangos’ address and back to the utility parked in nearby Parker Street on a number of occasions between 10.30pm and midnight on 6 November 2024.

Detectives believe the same two men are responsible for Mr Frangos’ murder and the subsequent arson attack on his home. It is believed the two men and Mr Frangos were acquainted and the murder is not random.

Major Crime Investigation Branch Officer-in-Charge Detective Superintendent Darren Fielke appealed for anyone with information on the whereabouts of the grey Commodore or who knows of any individual associated with it to contact police.

“It is a distinctive vehicle, particularly with the silver front bumper panel, that people will certainly recognise,’’ he said.

“The investigation is now moving rapidly, but we are still seeking information from the public to obtain more evidence that will assist us in rebuilding the full picture of what happened that night.

“We are confident there will be a resolution in the case as investigations continue. The net is closing in on those responsible for Bill’s murder. Now is the time to come forward with information.’’

Anyone with any information on the grey Commodore or those associated with it during the evening of Wednesday 6 November and the early hours of Thursday 7 November are urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

Source: New South Wales Department of Education and Communities

The Northern Territory Police Force has charged a 24-year-old male in relation to a burglary that occurred in Kilgariff yesterday.

The male has since been charged with Aggravated assault, Indecent touching or Act, and Burglary.

He was remanded to appear in Alice Springs Local Court today.

Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

Man charged following evade incident in Huon Valley

Tuesday, 18 March 2025 – 2:33 pm.

Police have today charged a man with several offences following an evade incident in the Huon Valley.  
The man was arrested yesterday when the vehicle he was allegedly driving was intercepted on Swamp Road at Franklin.  
The 50-year-old man of no fixed address has been charged with several offences including motor vehicle stealing, evade police, drive while disqualified and assault a police officer.  
He was detained to appear before the Hobart Magistrates Court this afternoon. 

Source: New South Wales Community and Justice

Latrobe man charged with drug and traffic offences

Tuesday, 18 March 2025 – 2:00 pm.

A Latrobe man has been charged after an evade incident yesterday, and a subsequent search where police seized a quantity of drugs. 
Around 11am officers from Task Force Scelus attempted to intercept a vehicle on Forbes Street at Devonport. 
The vehicle evaded officers and police subsequently searched a residence in Devonport and took a man, alleged to have been the driver, into custody. 
During a search at the property police seized a quantity of methamphetamines. 
The 40-year-old man from Latrobe has been charged with several drug and road safety related offences including with trafficking in a controlled drug and aggravated evade. 
He was detained to appear before the Devonport Magistrates Court today.

Source: South Australia Police

Wind back the clock and get a glimpse into the past during the City of Wanneroo’s Australian Heritage Festival celebrations this autumn.