Read Advisory BAN TACS Accountants Mackay

25/10/2026

Monday Money Talk with Noel Whittaker

Private health insurance rebates are back in the headlines, with a fierce political battle unfolding in Canberra. Labor wants to cut the rebate for Australians aged 65 and over; the Coalition and Greens oppose the move. The motion to strike out the bill was led by Senators Jacqui Lambie and Anne Ruston. The Greens have indicated they may compromise, but only if pensioners are protected.
The rebate was introduced by John Howard in 1999 to encourage take-up. It was initially set at 30% for everyone. In 2005, his government increased it to 35% for people aged 65 to 69 and 40% for those aged 70 and older. Subsequent governments reduced those percentages and introduced income testing.
Today, the rebate depends on both age and income, with higher-income earners receiving a smaller rebate or none at all. Once income exceeds $328,000 for couples or $164,000 for singles, the rebate disappears entirely. But within each eligible income bracket, Australians over 65 still receive a higher rebate than younger people.
That's what Labor wants to abolish from 1 April 2027: not the entire rebate, but the additional age-based concessions. The government argues that taxpayers shouldn't subsidise older Australians more generously simply because of their age. There's some logic in that, particularly when wealthy retirees can qualify for concessions unavailable to younger families struggling with mortgages and living costs.
But there's another side to this. Many older Australians have maintained private health insurance for 30, 40 or even 50 years, faithfully paying premiums that have added up to tens of thousands of dollars. For much of that time, when they were younger and healthier, they may have made relatively few claims. Their premiums helped support the system year after year. Now, when they are older and more likely to need medical treatment, the government proposes to reduce the rebate that helps them maintain their cover. There's something fundamentally unfair about changing the rules at precisely the stage of life when long-standing policyholders are most likely to need the protection they've been paying for. Increasing premiums is likely to encourage thousands to abandon private cover or downgrade their policies, putting more pressure on an already overstretched public hospital system. And that's where the government's sums may start to unravel.
National Seniors Australia, the peak advocacy consumer body for older Australians, has released survey findings suggesting that 15% of seniors will most likely drop their private health insurance and another 16% will most likely downgrade their cover to cope with the increased cost. If those survey results were reflected across the wider population, an estimated 480,000 people could abandon private health insurance altogether, while up to 560,000 could reduce their level of cover. That's substantially more than the government estimates.
And here's the catch-22: if older Australians downgrade their policies to save money, they may sacrifice the very benefits they're most likely to need. Downgrading higher-level hospital cover, for example, could mean not being covered for important procedures, such as hip and knee replacements, which are more likely to be needed in later life. Dropping or downgrading extras cover could mean losing assistance with dental treatment, optical services and physiotherapy. These are hardly luxuries for people in their seventies and eighties.
This is why the impact should not be measured only by the number of people who cancel their cover. Downgrading policies, delaying healthcare and sacrificing other essentials have equally serious consequences.
The government says the changes will improve the budget position, with estimated savings of around $3 billion over four years. But what happens if hundreds of thousands of older Australians reduce or abandon their private cover? Most who need care will turn to the public system, where waiting lists are already stretched and hospitals are struggling to cope.
Meanwhile, older Australians are waiting months for Support at Home care packages, which remain rationed. Thousands of patients are also stranded in public hospitals because suitable aged care accommodation or support isn't available. Just this week, I heard a chilling account on ABC radio from a woman whose elderly mother had spent more than two days on a stretcher in a public hospital corridor. She couldn't visit because access was restricted, and her mother found it almost impossible to get someone to help when she needed to use the toilet. What an indignity for anyone who is already ill and vulnerable.
Surely, if the government is determined to cut the rebate, any savings should be directed towards fixing these problems, rather than simply disappearing into general revenue.
There's a final sting in the tail. If the legislation passes, the cuts will take effect on 1 April 2027, the very day private health insurers traditionally increase their premiums following government approval. Older Australians could therefore face a double blow: higher premiums and a reduced rebate on the same day.
The government may regard this as a sensible budget saving. But if the result is greater pressure on public hospitals, because thousands of older Australians abandon private health insurance, it could prove to be one of the most expensive savings exercises imaginable.
Through its ongoing Health Costs campaign, National Seniors Australia is advocating for a fairer, more affordable healthcare system. Visit nationalseniors.com.au to join the campaign and help ensure older Australians' experiences are heard.

Noel Whittaker is the author of Retirement Made Simple, Wills Death and Taxes and numerous other books on personal finance. Email: [email protected]

18/10/2026

Monday Money Talk with Noel Whittaker

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” These are the most terrifying words in the English language, according to former US President Ronald Reagan. And you can see why as Australians grapple with changes to credit card surcharges. The incoming ban was supposed to save consumers $1.56 billion, but businesses such as restaurants and coffee shops are already raising prices to compensate. Taxi companies have joined in, some charging 5% of the fare as a “service charge”. Institutions that can’t easily raise their prices are refusing to accept credit card payment, so if that’s how you budgeted for school fees, council rates or income tax payments, you’ll need to think again. And, of course, the banks couldn't let the opportunity pass. Annual credit card fees have leapt, reward points have been slashed, and consumers are wondering where their promised savings have gone.
But it needn't be like this. Here are three simple changes the government could make, at little cost, that could transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians.
ONE
Let's start with the issue dominating talkback radio since I wrote about it a fortnight ago: banks freezing customer accounts without warning because they haven't supplied additional identification or other information. It's a financial cyberattack, but it's the banks attacking their own customers. Suddenly, people can't access their money, pay their bills or run their businesses. The consequences can be devastating. The only remedy is to spend hours on the telephone trying to reach a human being, or to find a branch that's still open and join the queue in person. Imagine a small business owner, already battling rising costs and endless red tape, who suddenly finds his account frozen. He can't pay staff or suppliers, and must abandon his business for hours to sort out a problem entirely of the bank's making. That's productive time lost, income forgone and another blow to a business already struggling to survive.
My inbox has been flooded with horror stories, but one takes the cake. A friend was in discussions with the Commonwealth Bank about whether her family trust's name should include the word “the”. Was it “XYZ Trust” or “The XYZ Trust”? While those discussions were underway, the bank froze the account. You couldn't make this stuff up. Who in management decided that minor confusion over the official account name justified denying a customer access to her own money? The sheer arrogance beggars belief.
Electricity companies have special obligations to customers who depend on life-support equipment. Once registered, those customers must receive advance notice of planned power interruptions so they can make alternative arrangements. Yet a bank can suddenly cut off someone's access to their money, leaving them unable to buy food, pay bills or meet essential expenses. Legislation forces electricity companies to take special precautions before interrupting a customer's power lifeline, surely a bank should have similar obligations before cutting off financial lifelines. The principle is identical: give people reasonable warning and an opportunity to protect themselves before pulling the plug.
Of course, banks have legal obligations to verify identities and comply with anti-money-laundering laws. Nobody disputes that. But those obligations should not be an excuse for treating customers like criminals. We need legislation requiring banks to exhaust every reasonable avenue of communication – including personal contact where practicable – before freezing an account, unless immediate action is legally required or necessary to prevent fraud. And if an account is frozen, there should be a fast, direct, and effective way to resolve the problem, not hours spent begging for someone to answer the telephone on the general number.
This would spare customers enormous distress, save businesses needless disruption and reduce the time bank staff spend cleaning up the mess. It would cost the government virtually nothing. Banks make billions in profits from their customers. Giving those customers access to their own money – unless there's a compelling legal reason not to – is both core business and basic decency.
TWO
Borrowers are constantly urged to shop around for a better home loan rate, but there's a catch that keeps buyers without a 20% deposit tied to their bank. It’s lenders mortgage insurance, which can cost more than $20,000.
Suppose you've paid $20,000 in mortgage insurance on your ANZ loan and discover CBA is offering a much better rate. You decide to switch. Same borrower, same property, same risk. But lenders mortgage insurance isn't transferable between banks, so you could face another $20,000 premium. That's money struggling borrowers simply don't have.
The result? Borrowers become prisoners of their existing lender until they've built enough equity to avoid mortgage insurance. And the banks know it. The solution is obvious: legislate to make lenders mortgage insurance transferable between lenders without another premium. There are only a handful of insurers; it can’t be that hard.
Borrowers could then shop around without being penalised. More competition, lower repayments and not a cent of government expenditure. Problem solved.
THREE
Some of Australia's most vulnerable people are older renters, particularly single women who have escaped domestic violence or never managed to buy a home. As rents soar and Centrelink assistance falls behind, returning to work can make matters worse.
Take Margaret, 67, who has virtually no assets and pays $400 a week in rent. Rent assistance of $111.90 reduces that cost to $288.10. Her full age pension of $32,180 brings her annual income, including rent assistance, to $37,999. Suppose she takes a job paying $45,000, or $1667 a fortnight. Once assessable income exceeds $226 a fortnight, her pension falls by 50 cents in the dollar. The Work Bonus exempts $7,800 annually, with a possible additional $4,000 credit. Even so, Centrelink assesses $33,200 of her wages, reducing her pension by around $530 a fortnight to $18,518 a year.
Then comes the taxman. Margaret’s salary and pension produce an estimated tax bill of $10,298. So working costs her $23,960 — more than half her wages – and leaves her over $11,000 worse off. What an extraordinary way to treat someone trying to improve her circumstances.
Contrast this with the Wilsons, who own a $3 million home, and have $800,000 in super and $50,000 in lifestyle assets. They receive a part pension of $21,138, enjoy concession cards and withdraw $80,000 tax-free from super. Because Centrelink deems their super to earn just $27,788, they can earn another $52,863 from work without losing any pension.
It’s insane. Margaret, with virtually nothing, loses more than half her wages to tax and pension reductions, while a wealthy couple can earn $52,863 without losing a cent of pension. It's welfare turned upside down.
The government should urgently ease the pension income test for older renters, allowing them to earn substantially more before their pension is reduced. These are people who want to work, need the money and have something to contribute. Instead of punishing them, we should be encouraging them. Surely that's what good government is supposed to do.

The response from Canberra was revealing. Both One Nation and the Greens said they would support these ideas, while Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson said: “While we have not announced a formal policy, we support greater flexibility in lenders mortgage insurance, allowing pensioners to work without penalty, as we advocated at the last election, and preventing banks from freezing accounts unnecessarily because of needless regulation. We will consider these issues as part of our deregulation agenda.”
Labor was less enthusiastic. It failed to answer the first two questions and offered a generic response on pensions that suggested it hadn't even understood the problem. Clearly, there's little hope of relief for low income single pensioners from that quarter. Three simple reforms, virtually no cost to taxpayers, and enormous potential benefits. Surely that's not too much to ask of our politicians.

16/10/2026

The 30 per cent floor lands hardest on the beneficiaries least able to bear it.

11/10/2026

Monday Money Talk with Noel Whittaker

Artificial intelligence is making headlines everywhere, with dire predictions that if we don’t regulate it properly it may eventually take over and we’ll all die a terrible death. As a “glass-half-full” person, I’m not too concerned about that. What does concern me is the way bots are taking over our lives, and what a hash they tend to make of it.
Try ringing a restaurant these days and there’s a fair chance you’ll be answered by a bot. That’s fine if you simply want to make a booking. But try something slightly different and you enter territory beyond the bot’s comprehension: “I’ve got a booking for two people at noon tomorrow, but I want to make it three people.” Thankfully, most restaurants give you the option of speaking to a real person, at which point the problem is usually solved in seconds.
Unlike bots, ChatGPT seems able to answer almost any question instantly. A few months ago, I bought a Brother QL-820NWB label printer because I occasionally post out books and like to put a nice clean address label on the envelope. It worked superbly for a while, but after my Mac had a software update, the printer ceased to work.
My IT guru told me this was a typical Brother trait and reckoned every time there was a major software update I would end up needing another machine. I have no idea whether that is correct, but I took his advice and bought another one; within a few months I was having similar problems.
Obviously, Brother’s service department was the place to go, but their website pointed me towards online support rather than somebody I could talk to. Fair enough – surely a bot could solve something as basic as this. The bot asked me what the problem was, and I responded, “My printer won’t print.” “I don’t understand the question,” came the response. I tried again. Same result. I even typed, “Is anybody there?” Apparently, nobody was.
So I got back on the Brother website and submitted an email request. I had just one problem: this required me to enter the serial number of the printer, which could be “found on the back of the machine”. I went to my label printer, turned it around and searched everywhere, but there was no serial number to be found. Once again, ChatGPT saved the day. It told me I had to open the printer, remove the paper roll and look inside. There was the serial number. Problem solved.
I then outlined to ChatGPT what had happened. Within seconds it suggested that, for the four or five address labels I print each week, I didn’t need such a sophisticated machine. A cheaper Brother QL-800 would do everything I wanted, use my existing labels and connect directly to my Mac via USB cable. The price was around $130, less than half the cost of the previous two label printers.
ChatGPT recommended I buy from Officeworks, mainly because if anything went wrong I could simply take it back. But I’ve never had any trouble with Amazon, and on the rare occasions I’ve needed to return something their service has been superb. Furthermore, a trip to Officeworks wasn’t particularly attractive: the local store has one of the worst car parks I know, and once you finally find a parking spot and head inside, the next challenge is finding somebody to talk to. So Amazon was my choice. I placed the order around 4 pm and was told the new printer would arrive between 4 am and 8 am the following morning. When I woke up, there it was, sitting outside the door.
That little incident raises some much bigger questions. Brother is no small business: it operates in more than 40 countries, employs almost 40,000 people and has annual revenue of around A$8.5 billion. If artificial intelligence has reached the stage where ChatGPT can understand my vaguely expressed problem, work out what I actually need, compare the alternatives and recommend a solution in seconds, why does a huge international company like Brother have a customer-service bot that cannot understand the words, “My printer won’t print”? And what does this mean for the future of retail?
The irony is that technology is not the problem. ChatGPT just demonstrated how extraordinarily good the technology can be. The problem is the way businesses are using technology. As wages and other costs keep rising, businesses understandably look for ways to reduce staff. Bots, self-service checkouts and online systems are part of that process. But there is a danger of confusing lower costs with better service. A bot may save the cost of employing somebody to answer the phone, but how much does a business lose when frustrated customers simply give up and go somewhere else?
There are millions of Australians who are perfectly capable of using technology but still want to speak to a human being when something goes wrong. This is particularly true of older Australians. Yet businesses increasingly make talking to a real person who can solve your problem the hardest option of all.
Traditional retailers also face challenges. If I have to drive there, find a park, wander around looking for somebody to help me and then discover the product isn’t in stock, online shopping becomes increasingly attractive. If I can order the same product at 4 pm and have it outside my door before breakfast, the physical retailer needs to give me a compelling reason to make the trip. Customer service should be the drawcard.
The great debate right now seems to be whether artificial intelligence will eventually take over the world. I’m more concerned about something that is already here: artificial stupidity taking over customer service.

Noel Whittaker is the author of Retirement Made Simple, Wills Death and Taxes and numerous other books on personal finance. Email: [email protected]

06/10/2026

I’m a glass-half-full person, but there’s no doubt the world is going through a challenging period.

Governments everywhere are struggling under massive debt burdens, and the irony is that there are only a few ways out: cut spending, raise taxes, or somehow generate much stronger economic growth.

The first two are politically unpopular, while the third is much easier said than done.

The bond market is pointing to higher interest rates, while many of the headlines right now are about falling property prices. When I talk to agents around the place, they tell me vendors are becoming reluctant to sell because they know they may not get the price they expected.

Even the Bank of Mum and Dad is becoming more cautious. Parents are asking why they should help their children buy a home today if they believe it may be cheaper tomorrow.

And that hesitation has ripple effects. A quieter property market means less stamp duty revenue for state governments and less spending on furniture, appliances, renovations and all the other things that go with buying a home.

That’s the challenging part. But adversity also brings opportunity. Markets and circumstances change, and opportunities appear where we least expect them.

The important thing is to understand what is happening, keep a sense of perspective and be ready to take advantage of those opportunities when they come.

[Full newsletter linked in the comments.]

05/10/2026

04/10/2026

Monday Money Talk with Noel Whittaker

When announcing last Tuesday’s interest rate increase, Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock stressed that Australia has a serious productivity problem. She’s stating the obvious: we now rank just 16th among OECD countries for labour productivity. And we seem determined to make it worse, with ever more regulation, more compliance and more red tape. No wonder productivity actually fell in the latest year. What’s more, Commonwealth gross debt is around $1 trillion, and the latest Intergenerational Report tells us the federal budget faces deficits for the next 40 years.
We’ve already seen what red tape can do. It is slowing the building industry and has virtually hamstrung the financial planning industry. Comprehensive financial advice now costs at least $5,000, and comes buried in a mountain of compliance paperwork few ordinary Australians could possibly be expected to read, let alone understand. And now we are doing it again with ever-expanding identity checks and anti–money-laundering rules. Nobody disputes the need to catch criminals and stop dirty money flowing through the system. The question is whether forcing millions of innocent Australians through increasingly intrusive and time-consuming compliance procedures is catching criminals, or simply making everybody else less productive.
That question became very personal for me recently. My wife and I have been customers of St. George Bank for more than 40 years. Recently we both received letters asking us to verify our identity, and answer a lot of questions. Some of these seemed ridiculous: “What is the origin of your net worth?” and “What is the purpose of the bank account?” If the object is to catch criminals, I doubt the baddies are going to provide their criminal history. And to me, the purpose of a bank account should be bleeding obvious.
We completed the forms and returned them, only to receive identical letters four weeks later. Reluctantly, we went through the whole process again, including a visit to our accountant to have copies of our passports certified. A fortnight later came a third request asking the same questions. I’d had enough. I lodged a complaint, pointing out that we had supplied the information twice in the bank’s own reply-paid envelopes without receiving any acknowledgment.
The bank’s response was extraordinary: they froze our bank accounts. I don’t think I have ever been more angry in my life. What happened next? Well, when your accounts are frozen, you’re told to ring a 1300 number, so you can spend an eternity listening to, “We’re experiencing an unusually high volume of calls.” It took two hours to get our accounts operating again, and by then I was determined to find out what was going on.
I set up discussions with AUSTRAC, the Australian Banking Association (ABA) and senior bank executives – channels most customers cannot access. The ABA told me that identification requirements were a major source of customer complaints, while one senior banker said that much of what was needed to detect criminal activity could be found simply by examining transactions in the account. A senior bureaucrat told me his 80-year-old mother nearly had a heart attack when asked to identify herself, because she thought she had been the victim of identity theft. He also pointed to the difficulties in some Indigenous communities, where people may not have the documents the government requires. Last week my doctor told me the same thing had happened to her – this time with ANZ. After threatening to move all their accounts, the bank finally relented.
AUSTRAC says the questions help banks establish what normal activity should look like for a customer. “Knowing who a customer is, where their money comes from and how they intend to use financial services are effective ways to identify suspicious activity and protect customers,” a spokesperson said. Questions about wealth or the purpose of an account do not themselves reveal criminal activity, but provide a benchmark. If subsequent transactions don’t fit the customer’s story, that may raise a red flag. AUSTRAC argues this makes it harder for criminals to launder illicit money through Australian banks.
I can’t argue with the objective. I’m less convinced about the method. A criminal is hardly likely to answer “drug dealing” when asked about the source of their wealth. Surely the real giveaway is what actually happens in the account. The transactions should tell the bank far more than a questionnaire ever could. Meanwhile, think of the productivity cost of all this checking. Banks send these requests to millions of customers, irrespective of what is happening in their accounts. Customers spend hours finding documents, getting them certified and returning forms. Banks then spend countless hours processing them. Or customers don’t return the forms, and suffer all the indignity and inconvenience of spending hours getting access to their own money again – losing time, effort, and trust in the system along the way.
The obligations on those dealing with financial matters do not stop with banks. Real estate agents are also now caught in the anti-money-laundering net. AUSTRAC says: “Real estate agents are not required to ask every buyer where their money comes from. Source-of-funds and source-of-wealth checks generally apply only to higher-risk customers or unusual transactions, such as purchases involving virtual assets or $50,000 or more in cash.
“For lower-risk customers, checks are more straightforward, including verifying identity, sanctions and politically exposed person status. Where enhanced checks are required, businesses must verify the information against independent evidence. If the customer’s story and the evidence don’t match, that may raise a red flag and trigger a suspicious matter report. AUSTRAC sets the requirements, but businesses take a risk-based approach: the higher the risk, the more extensive the checks.”
But surely the Nobel Prize for bureaucratic stupidity goes to whoever decided the best way to follow up an unanswered request was to freeze the customer’s bank account. Think about the consequences. The customer discovers their money has suddenly become inaccessible, rings the inevitable 1300 number and joins a queue. Eventually a staff member has to investigate the problem, establish the customer’s identity, find out what happened and get the account operating again. Then there are the hidden costs nobody measures. Destruction of goodwill is one: a decades-long relationship can be destroyed by freezing someone’s money without so much as a phone call. What about customer mental health crises caused by suddenly facing all this stress? And what about the bank staff? Is anyone supporting them to deal with distressed customers day in, day out? Or to be confident in the judgements they are making about whose accounts to freeze, when, and why?
As for productivity, how many thousands of hours are being wasted in this process? Much of it could surely be avoided by contacting the customer first and asking what is going on.
And that brings us back to where we started. Australia has a productivity problem, yet we keep designing systems that consume more of everybody’s time. Every hour a customer spends chasing paperwork, every hour a bank employee spends sorting out the resulting mess, is an hour that could have been used productively.

Noel Whittaker is the author of Retirement Made Simple, Wills Death and Taxes and numerous other books on personal finance. Email: [email protected]

30/09/2026

Australian house prices fell for a sixth straight month in September, and the property market is likely to continue experiencing falls of up to 15 per cent in the coming months off the back of higher interest rates and cuts to property tax breaks, experts say.

29/09/2026

Property clock out now https://htw.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/HTW-Month-in-Review-September-2026-Resi.pdf

28/09/2026

In some countries, home owners can take in boarders with a tax-free threshold to incentivise renting out spare rooms.