What are the opening hours?

Monday 8:30am - 5pm Tuesday 8:30am - 5pm Wednesday 8:30am - 5pm Thursday 8:30am - 5pm Friday 8:30am - 5pm

https://bantacsfinancialsolutions.com.au/

BAN TACS Financial Solutions, 43 Sydney Street, Mackay (2026)

02/11/2026

Monday Money Talk with Noel Whittaker

Storm season is here: government and local councils are urging us to “be prepared”. It’s sad but true that many people neglect to prepare for stormy weather, as if we think that being prepared for misfortune will bring it down on us. But the time to clean your gutters is in the dry season, not during a storm. Nowhere is that more true than with an enduring power of attorney. As our population ages, more families are confronting dementia, strokes and other illnesses that can rob people of their ability to make decisions. But incapacity is not confined to the elderly.
Imagine Jack and Jill, a couple in their forties, with two young children and a mortgage. Jack has always handled the family finances, and several accounts are in his sole name. One morning he suffers a major stroke and loses the capacity to make financial decisions. When Jill comes back from the hospital, dazed, she goes to the bank to access Jack's account so she can pay the mortgage and household bills. The bank is sympathetic but firm: she can't touch it without legal authority. Sympathy, unfortunately, doesn't pay the electricity bill.
Because Jack never signed an enduring power of attorney (EPA), Jill must apply to a tribunal to have someone appointed to manage his finances. That's QCAT in Queensland, NCAT in New South Wales, VCAT in Victoria and the State Administrative Tribunal in Western Australia. It generally means obtaining written medical evidence about Jack's decion-making capacity, making an application, attending a review, and receiving a formal decision. The tribunal may not appoint the person Jack would have chosen. All of this takes time, at the very moment Jill has the least of it. Had Jack signed an appropriate enduring power of attorney appointing Jill, she could have presented it to the bank immediately.
If all you want is for someone to operate one bank account, the bank's own forms will usually do the job. But if you want someone to manage your affairs when you can't, you need a properly executed EPA.
The language of EPAs can be confusing, so let's start with the basics. The person giving the power is the donor or principal, and the person appointed to act is the attorney. It must be an “enduring” power: an ordinary, or general, power of attorney ends if the person who made it loses decision-making capacity. But that's precisely when a family needs it most. An enduring power of attorney continues after capacity is lost. But every power of attorney ends at death. From that point, the executor or administrator takes over from the attorney, although probate may be required before certain assets can be dealt with.
This means you need a will to appoint your executor, and an EPA to appoint your attorney: they do completely different jobs.
The EPA document sets out what the attorney can do, and that authority can be very narrow or very broad. The rules are set by each state and territory, and they differ more than most people realise. In Queensland and the ACT, an EPA can cover personal and health matters as well as financial affairs. In Victoria, it can cover financial and personal matters, but decisions about medical treatment require a separate appointment process. In New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania, EPAs deal with financial matters, while health and lifestyle decisions require separate enduring guardianship arrangements.
South Australia uses an advance care directive for personal and health decisions, while the Northern Territory has an advance personal plan that can cover financial, personal and health matters. The important point is that a financial EPA alone may not authorise someone to make decisions about your medical treatment, accommodation or personal care. This becomes critical if you lose capacity because of illness or accident, and need hospital treatment or admission to residential aged care. Make sure your solicitor checks that your arrangements cover both financial and personal decisions, using the appropriate documents for your state.
Witnessing requirements also vary, and are very specific. In Queensland, standard forms are available free from qld.gov.au, and an EPA must be signed before an eligible witness, such as a justice of the peace, commissioner for declarations, lawyer or notary public. New South Wales requires a prescribed witness who explains the effect of the document, while Victoria generally requires two adult witnesses, including one with specified professional or witnessing qualifications. The attorney's acceptance must also comply with the relevant state's requirements.
You can often choose when the financial power starts. In Queensland and Victoria, for example, it may operate immediately, or from a specified time or circumstance, including loss of capacity. Remember that an EPA that starts only after incapacity means that in a crisis the attorney must jump through hoops to prove that incapacity has occurred before they can do anything. In Western Australia, an enduring power that is to commence upon loss of capacity requires a determination by the State Administrative Tribunal. These are important issue to discuss with your solicitor. An immediately effective power is much more convenient, but it also gives your attorney authority while you are still perfectly capable of managing your own affairs.
Choosing your attorney obviously requires enormous care. If you are preparing for life’s storms, you’re giving someone extensive control over your finances, so trustworthiness, competence and willingness to accept the responsibility are essential.
You can – and should – appoint more than one attorney so there is a replacement in case one dies, loses capacity or is unwilling to act. Depending on the legislation, you can also specify whether they act separately, jointly, or by majority. Joint and majority appointments provide a safeguard, of course, but can be very inconvenient: every transaction requires two signatures, which can be difficult for the attorneys to organise.
If there is nobody suitable, public trustee organisations may be available to undertake financial responsibilities, subject to their acceptance, fees and conditions. It can be expensive, and this should be a reminder to you that your attorney may be taking on quite significant work by accepting the appointment. In addition, financial abuse is a genuine concern. The Australian Institute of Family Studies' National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study estimated that 83,800 older Australians living in the community experienced financial abuse in the year surveyed in 2020. Adult children accounted for approximately one-third of the perpetrators.
Attorneys have serious legal obligations. They must act within the authority given to them, keep appropriate financial records and avoid conflicts of interest. In Queensland and New South Wales, financial attorneys must generally keep the principal's money and property separate from their own. Appointing someone as your EPA does not mean giving them permission to help themselves to your assets.
There are also practical traps that can turn a carefully prepared document into a nightmare. Alan prepared his will and EPA, then carefully locked both away in a bank safe deposit box. It kept them so safe that when he had a stroke and his family urgently needed the documents, they had to get a court order to access them. It's vital that your attorneys have certified copies of the EPA, know where the originals are kept, and can obtain them when necessary.
I also recommend registering your EPA with your bank well before you need to use it. Maria had appointed her two adult children as joint attorneys. Everything seemed fine until they went to the bank to withdraw $500,000 to pay the refundable accommodation deposit at her aged care facility. The bank discovered that the two children had signed the document before their mother and refused to accept it.
Her lawyer said, "No problem. We'll just get the attorneys to re-sign the document." But the bank replied, "No way. We won't accept that." The matter eventually required in-person attendance at a tribunal to have the re-signed document validated before it could be used. The lesson is that even a minor error in the signing process can cause enormous difficulties when action is urgently needed. The precise legal consequences depend on the relevant legislation, but the practical problems are very real.
In my view, what you need to do is straightforward. Make your enduring power of attorney while you still have capacity, because once that has gone it's too late to grant one. Make sure your attorneys have access to certified copies and know where the originals are kept. Check your bank's requirements, and ensure the people responsible for your health and personal care decisions have the appropriate authority. To really look after your attorneys, use the free “Executors’ and attorneys’ cheat sheet” I made for you, which you can download at www.noelwhittaker.com.au. Review your arrangements regularly, particularly after marriage, divorce, the death of an attorney or any significant change in family circumstances.
The message is simple. It always pays to be prepared for life’s storms: buy an umbrella while the sun is still shining.

27/10/2026

Borrowing to buy a post budget night property
Many thanks to the askbantacser who allowed their Q&A to be published. It is a great practical example of how the rules work regarding deducting interest and an important warning to use and offset account rather than a
redraw, especially now where some loans are more deductible than others.

https://taxquestions.com.au/redrawing-to-buy-investment-property/

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.]