Anthony Albanese to bailout millions of Aussies with student debt: How much you'll be getting

Anthony Albanese 's government will cut 20 per cent off all student loan debts, wiping around $16billion in student debt for around three million Australians.
The policy - central to Mr Albanese's re-election campaign - is now set to be implemented following his election victory as of June this year.
Under the plan, a graduate with an average student debt of $27,600 will see their loan reduced by $5,520, according to government figures.
Mr Albanese's proposed reform would apply to all Higher Education Loan Program, Vet Student Loans, Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans and other income-contingent student loans.
'Our whole nation benefits when we make it easier for people to access education. This is about opening the doors of opportunity – and widening them,' Anthony Albanese previously said in a statement when announcing the plan.
The reforms would also raise the threshold for repayment from $54,000 to $67,000 and lower the rate to be repaid.
For someone on an income of $70,000 this will mean they will pay around $1,300 less per year in repayments.
This builds on a $3billion policy introduced last year, which links student debt indexation to the lower of the wage price index or the consumer price index.
Without it, graduates could have faced another steep increase, like in 2023, when indexation soared to 7.1 per cent - up from 3.9 per cent the year before - adding $1,759 to the average student debt of $24,770.
How much your student debt will be wiped by is revealed in the table above
Mr Dutton had vowed to scrap Labor's student debt relief if the Coalition had won Saturday's election, arguing its unfair on tradies who didn't go to university.
Increasing its majority in parliament with a resounding victory, Labor has gained a second term in office with large swings across marginal electorates and in former Liberal heartland seats.
With 71 per cent of the vote counted, Labor has won 85 seats with the coalition going backwards to sit on 37 seats, while 18 seats remain in doubt.
Among the significant wins for Labor was Peter Dutton's electorate of Dickson, as he became the first opposition leader to lose his seat at an election.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said Mr Albanese will go down in history as a Labor hero following the result.
'This was beyond even our most optimistic expectations,' he told ABC's Insiders program on Sunday.
'It was a history-making night, it was one for the ages.
'This victory does come as well with healthy helpings of humility, because we know that there are a lot of challenges to address in our economy.'
With expanded numbers in the House of Representatives, Dr Chalmers said Labor was able to implement its 'ambitious' agenda.
'One of the reasons why we got this big majority last night is because people recognise that if you wanted stability while the global economy was going crazy, then a majority Labor government was the best way to deliver that,' he said.
The coalition crashed to its lowest-ever primary vote and could record a historic low number of seats, resulting in party soul-searching as the Liberals begin the process of electing a new leader.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Spectator

8 hours ago

• Spectator

Tories will remember this assisted dying vote

'I judge a man by one thing, which side would he have liked his ancestors to fight on at Marston Moor?' So said Isaac Foot, the Liberal MP and father of Michael. For some Tories, both in and out of parliament, Friday's assisted dying debate will carry a similar weight in judgements of character. Some 80 per cent of Tory MPs voted against Kim Leadbeater's Bill at Third Reading, with 92 against, 20 in favour and five registered abstentions. Of the 25-strong new intake, elected last year, just four backed Leadbeater's Bill: Aphra Brandreth, Peter Bedford, Ashley Fox and Neil Shastri-Hurst. Social conservatives note that the Tories were much more aligned on assisted dying than Reform, which split by three votes against to two in favour. Only six MPs backed both this measure and Tuesday's abortion liberalisation vote: Brandreth, Shastri-Hurst, Luke Evans, Kit Malthouse, Andrew Mitchell and Laura Trott. A striking number of senior Tories were among the 20 who supported assisted dying including Rishi Sunak, Oliver Dowden and Jeremy Hunt. Six shadow cabinet members backed it too including Mel Stride, Victoria Atkins and Chris Philp. 'That's the end of his leadership hopes', remarks one opponent. Among those who opposed assisted dying, there is praise for Kemi Badenoch. The Tory leader had previously supported the concept in principle before coming out strongly against Leadbeater's Bill in November. Her argument centred on the legislative process: that insufficient time was dedicated to the Bill and that MPs ought to serve as scrutineers, not campaigners. Her robust stance since then has impressed begrudging internal critics. 'She did do a good job', admits one MP who backed a rival candidate. Friday's vote showed Badenoch's thinking to be firmly in-line with the majority of her own MPs on this issue. There is frustration among some of her supporters that if twelve Tory proponents had changed their mind, Leadbeater's Bill would have been sunk. Perhaps, in time, assisted dying will become accepted wisdom in Tory circles. Those in favour cite its public support and point to the party's history of belatedly backing 'progressive' measures. In March 2003, it was a minority of modernisers who disregarded Iain Duncan Smith to back scrapping Section 28. Within five years, one of them, Boris Johnson, was standing for Mayor of London. Within ten, a Tory PM was championing same-sex marriage. But for those still reeling and angry from yesterday's vote, it certainly doesn't feel that way today.

Daily Mail​

11 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

I'm a tax accountant and these are the four biggest mistakes you're making on your returns - and it's costing you money

Australians are forgetting to claim work-related expenses and often select the wrong work from home deduction in their tax returns. That's according to a leading taxation accountant who has singled out the top five errors taxpayers make as tax time approaches on July 1. Belinda Raso from Tax Invest Accounting said taxpayers are missing out on hundreds of dollars by making little mistakes. 'They just rush in and lodge way too early and usually don't claim what they are entitled to,' Ms Raso said. WFH deductions One of the most common tax mistakes involves deductions made for working from home. Ms Raso said people who WFH do not always apply for the maximum deductions they can receive. Work from home expenses can be worked out via two different methods: the fixed rate 'shortcut' method of 70 per cents per hour, or the actual cost method, where they calculate their total expenses. 'It is very important that you work out both methods to ensure that you're getting the largest possible deduction,' she said. 'Another thing that people forget to do is, if they are going by that fixed rate method of 70 cents per hour... they're forgetting to claim everything else, and this includes computer equipment, it includes furniture, it includes software, the list is endless.' Medicare levy surcharge The next mistake Australians often make is incorrectly recording their liability for a Medicare levy surcharge - the additional charge on taxpayers who do not have private health insurance. Ms Raso said that the tax office will change the return if they have proof workers are liable for the levy. Australians forget to work out the most savings-efficient method for determining their claimable work-from-home expenses, Ms Raso warned 'It is up to you to understand when you are and when you're not liable for this,' Ms Raso said. Work related allowances The experienced accountant said some Australians make a huge mistake by failing to claim work-related expenses, such as claiming goods that they use for both personal and work use. 'As an example, one of the most common ones is a computer or laptop,' Ms Raso said. 'You sit there and think, "well, I use this for both personal reasons and for work, I can't claim it then". That's not true. 'Any expense that you're claiming, you can apportion a personal element to it and just claim whatever percentage is for work. It doesn't mean that you can't claim it.' Logbook Her final tip was for Australians who use a personal vehicle for work purposes. She said workers should ensure they are recording their usage accurately in a logbook. 'If you are travelling over 5,000 kilometres for work, for actual work-related travel, you should be keeping a logbook,' Ms Raso said. 'But this is more than just tracking your kilometres in a logbook.' Workers should also keep records of their fuel and oil costs, or odometer readings. They will also need evidence of other car expenses.

NBC News

a day ago

• NBC News

In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'

WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues on Friday in a scathing dissent on a case involving vehicle emissions regulations. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations. She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests." With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote. The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added. The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said. "Also, I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she added. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process. Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading. Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others." Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue. The bottom line, he added, is that the government "may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders." The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act. In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver.