WEBVTT - How Labor’s new super tax works 0:00:01.240 --> 0:00:10.520 From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. 0:00:10.680 --> 0:00:13.080 Labor is poised to move forward with its plan to 0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:16.880 increase the tax on superannuation balances over three million dollars. 0:00:17.480 --> 0:00:21.279 Critics say it's unfair and question why Labour's super tax 0:00:21.320 --> 0:00:24.800 will apply to unrealized gains rather than just money made. 0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:28.120 But with Labour's majority in Parliament and support from the 0:00:28.160 --> 0:00:31.600 Greens in the Senate, their opponents can't do much but complain. 0:00:32.479 --> 0:00:36.239 Today National correspondent for the Saturday Paper Mike Secam on 0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:39.400 Labour's superannuation plan and what it tells us about the 0:00:39.400 --> 0:00:49.040 government's economic priorities in its second term. It's Wednesday, June fourth, 0:00:54.080 --> 0:00:59.440 So Mike, Labor wants to overhaul superannuation. But to begin with, 0:00:59.600 --> 0:01:02.880 can we talk about how what we have at the moment, 0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:05.440 it's the current super how it was created in the 0:01:05.440 --> 0:01:07.959 first place? Because this goes back to Keating, doesn't it 0:01:08.000 --> 0:01:11.440 in the nineties, So what was the purpose of superannuation? 0:01:11.800 --> 0:01:14.399 Yeah, you're right, universal super goes back to Keating A 0:01:14.440 --> 0:01:16.679 fortunate minority if people had it before then, of course, 0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:19.000 but Keating's plan was that everyone should have it. 0:01:20.720 --> 0:01:23.480 Anounable of prime ministers to speak of. This House last 0:01:23.560 --> 0:01:27.440 night passed the Superannuation Guarantee levy, and doing so it 0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:30.760 has entrenched in legislation a great reform which will be 0:01:30.800 --> 0:01:34.800 of great benefit of coming generations of Australia. Let's speak, 0:01:34.920 --> 0:01:37.880 for the first time in our history, well in advance 0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:42.080 of reform in other advanced industrial countries. Ordinary Australians will 0:01:42.080 --> 0:01:44.680 be able to build a decent nest egg for their retirement. 0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:47.400 The idea was that it would provide people with a 0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:50.480 comfortable retirement, but along the way it would also reduce 0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:52.760 pressure on the pension which would be a good thing 0:01:52.800 --> 0:01:55.280 for future taxpayers. And of course you know it gave 0:01:55.320 --> 0:01:58.600 Australia this sort of huge fund of wealth sitting there 0:01:58.720 --> 0:02:00.640 earning income on behalf of it citizenry. 0:02:00.800 --> 0:02:03.360 This is a long term project because workers in their 0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:07.320 fifties and even in their forties on modest salaries simply 0:02:07.360 --> 0:02:10.720 cannot set aside enough of current income to achieve financial 0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:14.680 independence in their old age. To achieve this, these workers 0:02:14.680 --> 0:02:18.080 would have to start contributing as a substantial percentage of 0:02:18.160 --> 0:02:21.560 their income to super in their twenties. Is this likely 0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:22.600 without compulsion? 0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:25.919 The answer is no. To encourage people into this form 0:02:25.919 --> 0:02:28.480 of saving, which is what it is. The government not 0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:32.600 only required that a portion of your pay goes into SUPER, 0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:35.040 so your employer puts it in, but you know you 0:02:35.120 --> 0:02:39.360 can top that up, and a concessional tax rate was applied, 0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:42.480 so fifteen percent was the tax on contributions and earnings. 0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:45.240 So you know, that was well below the marginal rates 0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:47.840 of what most people would otherwise pay. So you know, 0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:50.560 it was a very attractive place to park your money. 0:02:50.960 --> 0:02:53.919 And over the years the superpool has grown enormously. It's 0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:56.440 now I think almost four trillion dollars or something like 0:02:56.480 --> 0:03:00.320 that as of this moment. The Association of super Nuation 0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:04.080 Funds in Australia reckons that for a comfortable retirement you 0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:07.079 need six hundred and ninety thousand dollars for couples five 0:03:07.160 --> 0:03:10.320 hundred and ninety five thousand dollars for singles. But over 0:03:10.400 --> 0:03:14.000 time though super has drifted well past that purpose. You know, 0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:16.720 a growing number of people have way more than they 0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:18.840 need for a comfortable retirement. I mean, there are people 0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:21.680 with tens of millions of dolls, even hundreds of millions 0:03:21.720 --> 0:03:25.480 of dollars stashed away in their super and so there's 0:03:25.520 --> 0:03:27.640 been a lot of complained about this. I spoke to 0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:30.440 Brendan Coates, who's the director of the Housing and Economic 0:03:30.480 --> 0:03:33.400 Security Program at the Graton Institute, and he told me 0:03:33.440 --> 0:03:35.360 the thing was turning into a, as he called it, 0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:39.160 tax subsidized inheritance scheme. Those big balances they often sit 0:03:39.200 --> 0:03:43.440 inside self managed funds. They're stuffed with property or family businesses, 0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:47.119 or real estate investments or even artworks. Then they're never 0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:50.160 selling those assets, they're never paying tax on it, and 0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:51.800 then when they die, they pass it on to their 0:03:51.880 --> 0:03:54.760 children tax free. So it's a very good way of 0:03:54.800 --> 0:04:00.680 minimizing tax in this life and maintaining family wealth in afterlife, 0:04:00.680 --> 0:04:01.160 as it were. 0:04:01.560 --> 0:04:05.000 Right, Okay, so this is what Labor has identified then 0:04:05.200 --> 0:04:08.360 as the problem that it wants to solve. So tell 0:04:08.400 --> 0:04:11.240 me what exactly it's proposing. 0:04:11.480 --> 0:04:14.080 Well, it's pretty straightforward, actually, you know how I said, 0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:18.760 there was a fifteen percent tax on superannuation for people 0:04:18.760 --> 0:04:21.200 with more than three million dollars in their accounts, that 0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:24.400 would effectively double, so it would become thirty percent. So 0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:26.920 you know, if you've got more than three million dollars 0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:29.479 in your super on the amount over the three million, 0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.360 so not all of it, only the extra you pay 0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:35.280 a high rate of tax. And the estimate out of 0:04:35.320 --> 0:04:37.320 Treasury when they ran the numbers on this was that 0:04:37.720 --> 0:04:40.520 it would raise two point three billion dollars for government 0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:42.760 revenue in the first year and that would create to 0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:45.479 forty billion dollars over a decade. So you know, it's 0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:48.839 not to be sneezed at, and actually not many people 0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:52.160 would be caught by this, roughly eighty thousand, which is 0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:56.640 about zero point five percent of people with superannuation funds. 0:04:57.040 --> 0:04:59.600 Almost all of them, would you know, have much more 0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:02.359 than three million dollars on average, in on their funds, 0:05:02.440 --> 0:05:04.080 Like I said, some accounts have more than one hundred 0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:07.919 million dollars. Where Labor's proposal is novel, however, is that 0:05:08.000 --> 0:05:11.800 it would tax unrealized gains. So say you own, you know, 0:05:11.839 --> 0:05:14.200 a super account with three million dollars in it at 0:05:14.240 --> 0:05:16.200 the start of the year, and at the end of 0:05:16.240 --> 0:05:19.000 the year that's worth on paper, worth four million dollars. 0:05:19.200 --> 0:05:21.839 While you pay tax on that paper gain, whether or 0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:24.160 not you know you've actually sold anything and put any 0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:26.279 money in your own pocket, you still pay on the 0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:31.400 notional gain. And this is something that is contentious, okay. 0:05:31.480 --> 0:05:36.520 So it's this idea of taxing unrealized gains that opponents 0:05:36.720 --> 0:05:40.360 are particularly Again, so tell me more about their argument 0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:43.719 as to why that is unfair on principle. 0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:46.080 Really, they say that this is not done very often 0:05:46.080 --> 0:05:49.400 in the tax fhere. In fact, some complain about the 0:05:49.480 --> 0:05:51.839 very idea of the wealthy paying more tax. I mean, 0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:54.840 there are some practical issues that have been raised. You know, 0:05:55.000 --> 0:05:57.640 some critics say, well, some people might not actually have 0:05:57.680 --> 0:05:59.480 the readies to pay the tax when it comes to 0:05:59.520 --> 0:06:01.800 you. You know that they've got all these assets sitting there 0:06:01.800 --> 0:06:03.599 in their account, but they mightn't have the money to 0:06:03.640 --> 0:06:06.120 pay the tax on the notional gain, and so they 0:06:06.160 --> 0:06:08.080 might be forced to sell up. You know, we've had 0:06:08.080 --> 0:06:10.960 the specter raised of you know, farmers having to sell 0:06:11.000 --> 0:06:13.480 their farms. You know, small business people having to sell 0:06:13.520 --> 0:06:16.120 their business and so on. They complain that, you know, 0:06:16.240 --> 0:06:19.640 for volatile investments like for example, startups, that it will 0:06:19.680 --> 0:06:22.080 discourage investment in those Why. 0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:25.840 Did the government choose not to allow people who can 0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:30.880 calculate their actual earnings and they're realized versus unrealized gains. 0:06:30.960 --> 0:06:33.880 Why did you choose to tax everybody on unrealized gains? 0:06:34.200 --> 0:06:37.520 People like a Legraspender, the tear independent MP for Wentworth 0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:41.239 who opposes this measure. She argues that it will capture 0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:45.240 gains essentially that may never be realized. Others would say 0:06:45.240 --> 0:06:47.920 that's in fact the entire point of the exercise. 0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:52.520 This legislation is suggesting is going to tax unrealized gains 0:06:53.200 --> 0:06:57.640 in super which I think is bad policy. And both 0:06:57.760 --> 0:07:01.680 have bad tax policy, but particularly bad for and particularly 0:07:01.800 --> 0:07:04.880 damaging I am concerned to see potentially for the venture 0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:06.640 and the startup and scale up sector. 0:07:06.800 --> 0:07:09.120 A second concern for a Legra Spender, and also I 0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:12.000 might say the Greens, is that the three million dollar 0:07:12.200 --> 0:07:16.320 figure will not be indexed, so as inflation rises. At 0:07:16.320 --> 0:07:19.120 this stage, there's no prospect that the threshold for paying 0:07:19.160 --> 0:07:21.520 the extra tax for rise, which means that over time 0:07:21.600 --> 0:07:23.320 more and more people will wind up paying it. 0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:28.760 So basically, Mike critics say that this breaks with established 0:07:28.880 --> 0:07:32.840 principles and unfairly penalizes a small group of people who, 0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:35.600 at least in their view, have I guess, played by 0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:37.560 the existing rules of superannuation. 0:07:38.280 --> 0:07:40.280 What do you make of those arguments? 0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:41.920 The point I would make is that a lot of 0:07:41.960 --> 0:07:44.960 people came out in opposition to this more recently, quite 0:07:45.000 --> 0:07:46.920 a number of experts have come out and said, hang on, 0:07:47.320 --> 0:07:51.080 these are you know, kind of weak arguments. So one 0:07:51.080 --> 0:07:53.040 of the experts I spoke to, for example, was Professor 0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:55.520 Miranda Stuart, who is a tax specialist at the University 0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:58.520 of Melbourne Law School, and she says, this idea of 0:07:58.960 --> 0:08:01.240 you know that it's a real novel idea to tax 0:08:01.320 --> 0:08:05.679 unrealized gains is not really true. We tax unrealized gains 0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:09.440 in land tax, We tax unrealized gains in council rates. 0:08:09.880 --> 0:08:11.840 So you know, even if it's a bit novel in 0:08:11.920 --> 0:08:15.400 the context of superannuation earnings, that doesn't necessarily make it 0:08:15.440 --> 0:08:18.280 a bad way to go about reining in what have 0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:25.320 become pretty gross inequalities in the current system. As for 0:08:25.360 --> 0:08:28.440 the so called hit to innovation, Brendan Coates from the 0:08:28.480 --> 0:08:31.360 Granton Institute, you know, he says, when it comes to 0:08:32.120 --> 0:08:36.520 providing venture capital for startup companies, only five percent roughly 0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:40.120 of that venture capital money comes from self managed super funds. 0:08:40.280 --> 0:08:42.400 In fact, is all the tax experts that I spoke 0:08:42.440 --> 0:08:45.440 to say, really, you shouldn't be running businesses or property 0:08:45.440 --> 0:08:48.360 portfolios inside your super That's not what it's there for. 0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:51.320 They say, it's purely and simply a tax dodge, and 0:08:51.400 --> 0:08:54.000 that this new tax goes quite some way to fixing 0:08:54.040 --> 0:08:57.959 that problem. 0:08:58.000 --> 0:09:00.880 Coming up after the break, what does labours move on? Super? 0:09:01.160 --> 0:09:03.640 Tell us about their bigger economic plans. 0:09:10.800 --> 0:09:14.600 Mike, these changes to superannuation, they were actually introduced in 0:09:14.800 --> 0:09:17.600 the last parliament, but the bill didn't pass, it was 0:09:17.920 --> 0:09:21.120 killed off and he mentioned Alec Respender earlier as she 0:09:21.280 --> 0:09:22.640 was opposed to these reforms. 0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:24.400 Who else voted against it? 0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:27.480 Well, this is kind of interesting because in the House 0:09:27.520 --> 0:09:31.719 of Representatives, every Teal member voted against the government and 0:09:31.760 --> 0:09:34.920 with the Dutton opposition. So that's Allegra Spender, Kate Cheney, 0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:38.880 Zoe Daniel Manik, Ryan, Sophie Scomp's, Kylie Tink, Zarie Steggel. 0:09:39.240 --> 0:09:41.080 But in the end it was blocked in the Senate 0:09:41.360 --> 0:09:44.240 where David Pocock, who's sort of a Teal and Jackie 0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:47.280 Lamby who's definitely not a Teal but is another independent 0:09:47.600 --> 0:09:51.560 they opposed it, and Allegra Spender claims credit for persuading 0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:54.280 them to vote against it. In a way that makes sense, 0:09:54.360 --> 0:09:56.960 you know, as the political scientists will point out to you, 0:09:57.440 --> 0:10:01.160 Allegra Spender's electorate went worth is the richest in the nation, 0:10:01.400 --> 0:10:05.400 you know, point pipe of all clues those kind of suburbs, 0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:07.280 you can bet there will be a lot of people 0:10:07.320 --> 0:10:11.640 with three million dollar plus balances in their superannuation. So 0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:13.720 you know, you might argue that the Teals, all of 0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:17.760 whom are quite affluent seats. So you know, when Labor 0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:20.839 targets a concession, even though it's enjoyed by only zero 0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:23.520 point five percent of all Australian it affects many more 0:10:23.520 --> 0:10:25.880 people in the Teal seats. And we see kind of 0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:30.440 a clash I guess between the teals progressive branding and 0:10:30.480 --> 0:10:33.640 the financial interests of their constituents. And you know, I 0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:35.200 think that it might come as a bit of a 0:10:35.240 --> 0:10:39.600 surprise to progressive voters, you know, who have tactically switched 0:10:39.600 --> 0:10:42.320 their votes from Labor to the Greens and voted for 0:10:42.320 --> 0:10:45.720 a Teal candidate with the intention of keeping out a liberal, 0:10:46.000 --> 0:10:48.520 because you know, when it comes to this, effectively, the 0:10:48.559 --> 0:10:52.600 Teals are liberals. And yet during this election campaign, even 0:10:52.640 --> 0:10:56.400 during the previous one, we had Conservatives, we had Peter Dutton, 0:10:56.480 --> 0:10:59.280 we had Advanced we had other members of the coalition 0:10:59.360 --> 0:11:02.360 out there saying or the Teals are just Greens in disguise, 0:11:02.880 --> 0:11:05.200 but when you look at how they vote on economic issues, 0:11:05.720 --> 0:11:09.800 they're not. They align very frequently with the Conservative side 0:11:09.800 --> 0:11:11.840 of parliament. They're smaller liberals. 0:11:12.440 --> 0:11:15.760 So that was the last parliament, Mike, But this time around, 0:11:15.800 --> 0:11:19.400 the Tills and the Coalition are essentially powerless. Labor can 0:11:19.480 --> 0:11:22.640 just rely on the Greens in the Senate. So given 0:11:22.720 --> 0:11:26.160 that this legislation it's likely to pass, isn't it. 0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:29.800 Well, yes, so you know the Coalition is up in arms, 0:11:29.880 --> 0:11:32.280 you know, saying that they will fight these reforms. Tim Wilson, 0:11:32.559 --> 0:11:35.720 the newly elected Liberal member for Goldstein, said that it 0:11:35.760 --> 0:11:38.360 would be his first priority in Parliament was to actually 0:11:38.360 --> 0:11:39.240 do something about this. 0:11:39.360 --> 0:11:41.240 But what can he actually do. 0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:44.319 He can complain in the hope of stirring enough popular 0:11:44.360 --> 0:11:47.160 opposition to convince the government to back off. Really, that's 0:11:47.200 --> 0:11:49.280 all that's happening, and I think the chances of that 0:11:49.360 --> 0:11:52.080 happening are just about zero frankly. But you know that 0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:55.120 has not deterred these wealthy superannums and their supporters in 0:11:55.160 --> 0:11:58.319 politics and in the conservative of financial media. 0:11:58.480 --> 0:12:01.120 Now we've been speaking a lot about farmers and other 0:12:01.200 --> 0:12:04.720 Australians may have to sell property or assets to pay 0:12:04.760 --> 0:12:07.800 their tax bill as a result of Labour's new supertax. 0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:10.240 I mean, the Australian and the finn Review have just 0:12:10.280 --> 0:12:13.440 been full of stories about what a terrible thing this is, as. 0:12:13.320 --> 0:12:16.440 If life wasn't hard enough already for our farmers with 0:12:16.520 --> 0:12:20.839 this cost of living crisis, with weather fluctuations, and now 0:12:20.840 --> 0:12:23.520 they're worried about having to sell up to meet a 0:12:23.640 --> 0:12:28.760 tax liability on increased land valuations. I mean, it's insane 0:12:28.800 --> 0:12:30.680 and quite frankly unethical. 0:12:30.960 --> 0:12:33.600 So there's been an almighty campaign run against the reforms, 0:12:33.880 --> 0:12:35.920 but you know Labour went to an election on it, 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:39.360 so it can claim a mandate. The Greens certainly support 0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:42.600 raising the tax on high balanced super accounts. In fact, 0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:45.240 they would say that the threshold should be two million, 0:12:45.400 --> 0:12:48.959 not three million. So a lot of complaining from the sidelines, 0:12:49.000 --> 0:12:51.080 but there's really nothing that the Coalition and the Tals 0:12:51.080 --> 0:12:51.719 can do about it. 0:12:52.240 --> 0:12:54.800 And are we likely to see this play out for 0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:57.520 the next three years, Mike, You know, given the Labor 0:12:57.559 --> 0:13:01.079 government's mandate, is this what opposition to any policy will 0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:02.079 look back in the future. 0:13:02.400 --> 0:13:05.400 Well, not always. I mean there are many issues where 0:13:05.559 --> 0:13:07.480 Labor is closer to the Libs and the Gnats than 0:13:07.480 --> 0:13:09.920 it is to the Greens. You know, if development of 0:13:09.960 --> 0:13:12.520 fossil fuel projects, for example, you know, the Greens say 0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:15.080 there should be no more. Labor is every bit as 0:13:15.160 --> 0:13:17.840 keen on opening up new gas developments and coal mines 0:13:17.960 --> 0:13:21.000 as the coalition ever was. But when it comes to 0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:24.640 tax and to economic policy, the government can probably do 0:13:24.720 --> 0:13:27.240 most of what it was and the Greens will back it. 0:13:30.200 --> 0:13:32.480 The question here is how much does the government actually 0:13:32.520 --> 0:13:35.160 want to change. You know, two elections ago they went 0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:38.160 with the plan of winding back capital gains and negative 0:13:38.200 --> 0:13:41.079 gearing and they lost the election and since then that's 0:13:41.120 --> 0:13:42.800 been put in the two hard basket. Well, a lot 0:13:42.800 --> 0:13:44.920 of people would say, now that you've got all this 0:13:45.000 --> 0:13:48.280 political capital, why not pull those things back out and 0:13:48.920 --> 0:13:51.280 propose them again, you know, even if you propose them 0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:54.640 as something to be done past the next election, so 0:13:54.720 --> 0:13:56.520 that you know, you can claim amandate, you can claim 0:13:56.559 --> 0:13:59.040 to have gone to an election with it, like John 0:13:59.080 --> 0:14:03.120 how did with the GST. So you know, it depends really, 0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:06.760 I think ultimately on how brave labor is when it 0:14:06.760 --> 0:14:09.040 comes to reform. And you know, I would just make 0:14:09.040 --> 0:14:11.960 the observation here that political capital is not like the 0:14:11.960 --> 0:14:14.240 capital and you're a super account. You know, it doesn't 0:14:14.240 --> 0:14:16.960 earn interest if you don't do something with it. You know, 0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:19.400 if you've got political capital, spend it. 0:14:22.320 --> 0:14:24.240 Mike, thank you so much for your time. 0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:25.440 Nowheres Thanks Rum. 0:14:36.160 --> 0:14:39.040 Also in the news today, the national minimum wage will 0:14:39.080 --> 0:14:41.600 be raised to twenty four dollars and ninety five cents 0:14:41.600 --> 0:14:44.560 an hour, or nine hundred and forty eight dollars per week, 0:14:44.760 --> 0:14:47.160 based on a full time, thirty eight hour work week. 0:14:47.720 --> 0:14:50.200 The decision by the Fair Work Commission will translate to 0:14:50.200 --> 0:14:52.920 a three point five percent pay increase from July one 0:14:53.080 --> 0:14:56.520 for millions of Australian workers. The raise is above the 0:14:56.600 --> 0:14:59.560 rate of inflation, which is currently at two point four percent. 0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:02.400 And the last seat in doubt after the May three 0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:05.760 federal election is likely to be called today. The Australian 0:15:05.800 --> 0:15:08.440 Electoral Commission says it expects to finalize the count and 0:15:08.480 --> 0:15:11.760 the seat of Bradfield by this afternoon. After a type contest, 0:15:12.360 --> 0:15:16.400 Independent candidate Nicole Buller was leading Liberal candidate Giselle Capterian 0:15:16.480 --> 0:15:18.640 by just thirty votes yesterday afternoon. 0:15:19.280 --> 0:15:22.520 I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. See you tomorrow.