Coalition urged to ditch ‘deeply concerning’ push to ask mums to raid retirement savings
Super Members Council Media Release
The Coalition’s support for paying super on Commonwealth Parental Leave Pay is very welcome – but its bid to make it optional undermines the whole policy intent of boosting the retirement savings of new mums and is a concerning departure from bipartisan principles of universality and compulsion.
The cash-out proposal sends a worrying message to mums that they should sacrifice their future financial security to meet daily living costs – exacerbating women’s retirement poverty risk.
Super Members Council CEO Misha Schubert said the organisation had urged the Coalition to reverse the policy. The proposal, introduced as amendments to the Bill, would see mums asked to take the Commonwealth Parental Leave super payments as cash or additional leave instead of super.
“This opt-out proposal is a deeply worrying departure from bipartisan principles of universality and compulsion in super that are key to a more financially secure retirement for all working Australians.”
“It undermines the policy intent to boost the retirement savings of Australian mums and to start to turn around the gender super gap – which has been widening for women in their 30s.”
“It sends a deeply concerning message to mums that they should sacrifice their future financial security to meet daily expenses.”
“And it risks putting pressure on mums to raid their retirement savings or being forced to by coercively controlling partners. We urge the Coalition to reverse its position.”
Like funding Medicare and wearing seatbelts, super is universal and compulsory for a compelling reason: to protect and grow people’s retirement savings for when they retire. Women already retire with a quarter less super than men.
“Compulsion and universality in super enable millions of Australians to have a far better quality of life in retirement.”
“They are key policy foundations that have built the retirement savings of everyday Australians, if they are undermined or uphauled, all Australian savers will be poorer in retirement.”
Another sector body, Women in Super, have also called on the Coalition to change course.
“Why is it that, once again, women are being asked to choose between financial security now and in retirement?” Women in Super CEO Jo Kowalczyk said.
“The Coalition’s assertion that the value of the superannuation entitlement in a lump sum as it is ‘the same level of financial support’ as a payment into their super accounts is disingenuous.
“Due to compound interest, the impact on a woman’s finances is $7,500 at retirement not simply the $2,900.”
“This proposal does not contribute towards closing the gender super gap or alleviating the risk of women retiring into poverty.”
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
4 comments
Login here Register here-
Andrew Smith -
Pete Petrass -
Terence Mills -
Phil Pryor
Return to home pageThere are many who would like to crash the super system by claiming its a tax on workers (according to many small business owners), while ignoring future demographics and budget health.
Issues with super are deeply ideological for <0.01% following ‘Kochonomics’ ie. industry funds, empowered workers etc. and allowing early access to disrupt the system….
End game they want, see Truss, is economic, government and state collapse, to start again with small govt., smaller budgets, fewer services inc. pensions & health are and no or low taxes…..
As with new home buyers the Noalition are definitely all in for robbing super to pay for things people need today. They want people to retire with no money, to have to retire on a pittance of a government pension, to be poor and downtrodden so they can be better “controlled” by the rich. This is what facism is all about.
Forget all about the whole purpose of super being to enable people to fund their own retirement, so they did not have to rely on government pensions (or welfare in Noalition terms). This is amazing in itself given the Noalition is so anti-welfare, and that it would probably cost the government more in the long run than people funding their own retirement.
The point was made on Q&A that those who need to use their super for a deposit on a home are the same people who don’t have an adequate balance in their super and they are the people who will need their super when they retire.
The coalition have said that when super has been used to fund a deposit, then when the house is sold the super fund should be reimbursed (plus) interest : Michael Sukkar actually said that on Monday.
Coalition conservatives maths is always poor. Jack Howard was useless (we failed general maths together.) and subsequent treasurers have been useless, but politically positioned. One dollar is ONE, and moving it around in a shell game between savings, superannuation, investment, xmas spending, weekly budgets etc, does NOT make two or three dollars out of one. The thieving, profiteering, extractive, predatory, cheating right wing types do NOT wish to raise wages, nor even pay them properly, for wage theft is constant and criminal, while overpaying (laughs) is a rare as rocking horse poo. Only a just society, a healthy inclusive one, with decent pay, prices, conditions, thus faith and happiness, is guaranteed, almost, to give satisfaction.., and proper superanuation, if ever achieved, could assist. But we semi-slaves are to be fooled, not actually assisted here.