Asset managers a rare beneficiary from Labor's proposed super tax changes as panicked Aussies divert savings, investments
Panicked Aussies are taking drastic steps to avoid being hit by Labor's proposed super tax changes to the benefit of some asset managers, as many divert their savings and assets.
The Albanese government's plan to impose a 30 per cent tax on super funds above $3 million, including unrealised capital gains, looms as Labor and the Greens are likely to join forces in the Senate to pass legislation after the former's massive federal election win.
It has raised concerns for Australians with SMSFs as many put assets – including farms, properties and shares – into their accounts.
One of the beneficiaries from the proposal are asset managers who specialise in fixed interest investments, Sky News' Business Editor Ross Greenwood said in an interview with La Trobe Financial's CEO Chris Andrews.
'We're already hearing that Ross, there's no doubt about that,' Mr Andrews said.
'As an investment offering with low capital volatility, low prospect of capital gains (and) really consistent income-based returns - it's true, those sorts of policies are favourable to a business like ours.'
The La Trobe Financial CEO also took aim at Labor for looking to make changes to the superannuation system as it remains one of the party's flagship policies following its establishment in the 90s under former prime minister Paul Keating.
'One thing about a policy like this is you can fundamentally undermine what has been a flagship Labor policy - superannuation,' Mr Andrews said.
'Fiddling with those settings can have long term unintended consequences.'
Mr Andrews' comments follow a report in the Australian Financial Review which stated financial advisers were seeing a trend of wealthy retirees selling assets and restructuring their portfolios to avoid the proposed super tax changes.
One such advisor, Noel Beharis, said there was a 'significant amount of panic' amongst Aussies with self-managed super funds.
'For members of retirement age who can cash out their superannuation benefits, they have started the process of selling down assets and transferring the assets out of the fund to vehicles that will hold that wealth going forward,' he told the AFR.
'They are using the proposed changes as an opportunity to review their succession plans and setting up the appropriate structures to carry those plans out.'
Wilson Asset Management's founder Geoff Wilson has warned the tax changes would be a detriment to small business in Australia.
'People will move away from taking risks. They'll restructure their investments," Mr Wilson told Sky News in a recent interview.
Mr Wilson also said local entrepreneurialism and innovation would be under threat, as many investors use self-managed super funds to invest in tech start-ups.
'Mr Albanese is correct in terms of the tax only affects a very small number of people in terms paying extra tax," he said.
"But it actually affects every Australian in terms (of the fact) the $4.2 trillion is now going to be not going to be productively invested... I actually think it's a disaster.'
The tax has been forecast to raise $2.3 billion in its first full year of implementation (2027–28), with revenue climbing to $40 billion over a decade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
35 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
The billion-dollar industry with scant consumer protections
Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety. Virtually every man, woman and teenager has a mobile phone. Ninety-eight per cent of adults use mobile phones for calls. Behind your phone service is a multibillion-dollar industry critical to education, health, business, leisure, civic life and - in an emergency - life and death. But can we trust our telco providers? And as consumers what protections can we rely upon? Late last month deeply concerning allegations were levelled at Telstra by rival telco TPG/Vodafone which yet again raised red flags about the trust consumers can place in telcos. TPG claims that Telstra - which is Australia's largest telco by some margin - has misled consumers by making false claims about the size of its mobile network in its advertising, website content, annual reports and other sales material. Australians take note of claims made by telcos about their network size, network reliability and network performance in deciding their mobile provider. They do so on the presumption that telcos are honest with this information. Many Australians, particularly in regional and remote areas, sign up for more expensive plans with Telstra because they believe it's the only option for reliable coverage. If these latest allegations are true - and the coverage advantage is not as big as people have been led to believe - regional consumers could be forgiven for feeling betrayed. When consumers are misled, markets are distorted, and trust is eroded. That is why these latest allegations are so serious and should be investigated by the ACCC. Of course, the latest allegations are not the only indication that our trust in the major telcos is brittle. New research undertaken by Essential Media shows that 41 per cent of consumers have limited faith in their telco to act in their best interest -and almost a third said the coverage they received didn't match what they were led to expect. The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has recently identified a spike in complaints, including those for poor sales conduct - misleading and high-pressure tactics - as the most common systemic issue it investigates. In parallel, credit assessments in the telco sector remain inconsistent and inadequate. Complaints to the Ombudsman about poor credit checks increased by over 30 per cent in the past financial year, with financial counsellors reporting that many of their clients are routinely signed onto contracts they simply cannot afford. These concerns are not academic, they have a real-world impact everyday for Australians. The fact that we cannot rely on what telcos tell us about their coverage is why ACCAN supports the Government's National Audit of Mobile Coverage, which is gathering real-world data through 180,000 kilometres of on-the-ground testing each year. This information is important as it could help to build an independent coverage map, a key recommendation of the recent Regional Telecommunications Review, giving Australians accurate, unbiased insight into where they can expect service. But independent mapping will not fix all the problems with the nation's major telecommunications carriers. The fact is there is precious little to protect telecommunications consumers. The telecommunications industry itself develops the TCP Code (the sector's consumer protections rulebook) and is required to conduct a review every five years. The TCP Code already offers inadequate consumer protections and is not underpinned by effective compliance, enforcement and penalty arrangements. There are countless examples of consumer harm from this weak regulation. In May, ACCAN voted "no" in a ballot of the TCP Code Review Committee- of which we are a part - on the question of whether the draft Code should be sent to the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority for consideration. Despite this, and despite 22 other consumer groups already walking away from the industry led code process, the ballot was carried. The revised Code has now been submitted to the ACMA for potential registration - a process that raises significant questions about whether the proposed updates meet community needs. Domestic, family and sexual violence and financial hardship have been taken out of the TCP Code, replaced with direct regulation in the last 18 months. This is a recognition of the critical nature of the problems, and the inadequacy of the code system. The current TCP Code fails to provide adequate consumer protections in two critical areas: irresponsible sales and inadequate credit assessments. These gaps result in thousands of Australians being sold plans they can't afford, don't understand, or never needed in the first place. These harms are exacerbated by sales incentive structures that reward telco staff for maximising sales volume and value - an eerily similar model to that called out and reformed in the financial services sector following the banking royal commission. Despite months of consultation, the final version of the draft Code submitted to the ACMA has not meaningfully strengthened these protections. The sales clauses still allow commission-based incentives and fail to impose clear duties to ensure affordability or product suitability. We are concerned that proposals in the Telecommunications (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 before parliament to make code compliance mandatory will not fully solve the problem - because the issue lies in the content of the industry-led code. The Ombudsman, the ACMA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have all criticised the process in which the industry is in charge of writing the nation's telecommunications protections. ACCAN has now joined the 22 consumer groups fed up with weak telecommunications regulation in the Fair Call Coalition. The answer is simple: new Minister for Communications, Anika Wells must reject the farcical process by which the industry (Communications Alliance) writes the nation's primary consumer protection code for telecommunications - and apply robust and enforceable rules in key areas of consumer harm. Consumers deserve and demand appropriate protections - and will be closely watching the leadership brought to bear by the federal government and the regulator to ensure their safety.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Like winning lotto': $300,000-a-year public servant pensions under fire in super tax battle
Would a 90-year-old need a half-a-million-dollar per year pension to live on? As debate swirls around Labor's controversial superannuation tax changes, critics have set their sights on lucrative taxpayer-funded lifetime pensions paid to former high-ranking public servants and politicians which can stretch into hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Politicians who entered parliament before the October 2004 election, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Sussan Ley, are still accruing benefits under the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS), a defined benefit scheme which pays out an annual pension — indexed to inflation and calculated by a formula including the member's average salary and years of service — when the member leaves office or retires at 55. 'It's like winning lotto,' said veteran fund manager John Abernethy, founder and chairman of Clime Investment Management. 'These guys are giving themselves lotto wins and then complain about paying tax on the income.' Treasurer Jim Chalmers' proposed tax changes, known as Division 296, would double the rate from 15 per cent to 30 per cent for superannuation balances over $3 million and, most controversially, include unrealised gains on earnings on assets held by funds such as shares, farms and property. Labor first announced the crackdown on tax concessions for very large super balances in 2023, but the legislation was blocked by the previous Senate. The changes look likely to become law as a deal with the Greens looms. Only around 80,000 Australians, or 0.5 per cent of the population, currently have super balances above $3 million, but industry groups have warned that if the threshold is not indexed to inflation it could eventually capture the majority of Gen Zs entering the workforce today. The measure is expected to initially claw back $2.7 billion a year and nearly $40 billion over a decade. 'What we need to do is make sure that our superannuation system is fair,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said this week. 'That is what we are setting out to do.' Division 296 will also be applied to defined benefit pensions to ensure 'commensurate treatment' as high-balance super funds — although unlike super account holders, those eligible will be able to defer the payments until they retire. Interest will be charged annually on the deferred tax liability at the 10-year bond rate, currently at around 4.5 per cent. Treasury estimates that 10,000 members with defined benefit interests will be impacted by the new tax in 2025-26, 'representing approximately 1 per cent of the total population with DB interests'. The Australian Council for Public Sector Retiree Organisations (ACPSRO), which represents more than 700,000 retired public servants, has flagged a possible challenge to the new law, arguing it's unfair. ASCPRO notes that unfunded pensions, which do not receive the 'generous and open-ended taxation concessions' available under regular superannuation, are already subject to normal income tax. Recipients who will be captured by the $3 million threshold are already paying a marginal tax rate of 45 per cent on that income, and Division 296 will likely take their marginal tax rate to 60 per cent, according to ASCPRO. 'I'm not stepping away from the fact that these are very wealthy people at the top of the public service — either retired High Court judges, Commonwealth department secretaries, deputy secretaries — it's a very small percentage but it's the principle of the thing,' said ASCPRO president John Pauley. 'Nowhere has the government explained to defined benefit pensioners how they're benefiting from tax concessions at present and therefore why it's fair, just and equitable for this additional tax impost to be paid on top of the tax they're already paying.' A person in an accumulation scheme who would be affected by the tax has the option of moving their assets out of super into another tax-effective vehicle such as a family trust, Mr Pauley argues, whereas those receiving defined benefit pensions have no such option. 'You're at the mercy of the government of the day,' he said. ASCPRO also takes issue with deferred interest being slugged on future pension payments. 'There is zero asset sitting behind these schemes — if you're unfortunate enough to get run over by a car two years into your pension there is nothing there [to leave to beneficiaries],' Mr Pauley said. 'This is the ultimate self-licking ice cream for the government. They are wanting to make people pay tax, not on unrealised capital gains, they're wanting people to pay tax on a hypothetical gain on an asset which doesn't exist, either during the accumulation phase or during the pension.' Mr Pauley estimated that for the roughly one million households receiving defined benefit pensions, the average was only in the range of $50,000. 'Teachers, nurses, police officers, members of the Defence Force, the bureaucrats who do the day-to-day work of government,' he said. 'Yes there's a few who are on very high incomes who have access to a defined benefit pension, [but] this wasn't something that is optional for them. When you signed up to work with the public sector it was a part of your workplace contract.' Mr Abernethy, however, argues any overhaul of super concessions should also include going back to the drawing board on the $166 billion unfunded liability 'black hole', which has continued to blow out beyond forecasts as existing members continue to accrue benefits prior to retirement. 'Just pay out the bloody benefits today and cap it at $3 million, if the government is saying $3 million is more than you should have in super,' he said. 'How about we have a come-to-God moment and say, 'If your net present value of your future pension is $10 million, I'm sorry, $3 million is more than enough. It's a windfall, guys, now you've got to look after yourself.' It would save the taxpayer a fortune.' He added that '[if someone says] that requires a complete renegotiation of what people thought they were entitled to — yes it does, come in spinner!' 'That's exactly what you're doing in super,' he said. 'Current taxpayers weren't even alive when these pensions were set. We've got $240 billion in the Future Fund, if that's not enough to clean out this liability and get rid of it then we better know now.' He suggested complaints about paying additional tax on defined benefit pensions were an apples-to-oranges comparison. 'Imagine I come up to you on the street, I don't know who you are, and promise to pay you $100 a year indexed for the rest of your life,' he said. 'Then in five years I say, 'Look, mate, I'm only going to give you $90.' Am I going to get angry? I didn't contribute to it, you're just taking $10 off my cashflow.' Mr Abernethy, in an op-ed last month, outlined what he saw as the 'diabolical issues' with defined benefits. He cited the example of a high-profile former politician, senior ADF officer or High Court judge in their early 70s who receives a $300,000 defined benefit pension this year. Assuming 3 per cent indexation, Mr Abernethy pointed out that at 75 years old the pension rises to $327,000, at 80 it rises to $380,000, at 85 it rises to $440,000, at 90 it rises to $510,000 and at 95 it reaches $590,000. 'Think about the numbers and you see that over the 10 years to 85, the pension receipts aggregate to about $4 million, and over the 10 years to 95 it aggregates to over $5 million,' he wrote. 'Would a 90-year-old need $510,000 a year to live on? Therefore, is it likely that these funds would flow from the beneficiary to others in a type of living estate? Is that what defined benefit pensions designed to do and are they consistent with Australia's superannuation policy?' Defined benefit schemes were phased out after former Treasurer Peter Costello realised the payments would explode the budget bottom line in future years if not closed off. The PSS has been closed to new members since 2005, while the earlier Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) was closed in 1990. The CSS is a hybrid accumulation-defined benefit scheme, with some benefits linked to final salary and others based on an accumulation of contributions with investment earnings. For military personnel, the defined benefit schemes are the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme and the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS). Following the closure of the MSBS in 2016, all defined benefit military schemes are now closed to new members. The schemes are unfunded or partially funded, meaning the payments come directly from tax revenue, to the tune of about $20 billion a year. In 2006, the government established the Future Fund with an initial contribution of $60.5 billion that included the proceeds from the sale of Telstra. The Future Fund was originally supposed to start paying out pensions in 2020 to take the burden off the taxpayer, but successive governments have delayed drawing from the fund. In November, Labor ruled out taking a dividend from the fund until at least 2032-33, when the savings pool is expected to have reached $380 billion. The announcement came as the Treasurer directed the Future Fund to prioritise investments in renewable energy, housing and infrastructure, sparking warnings that he was politicising the independently managed sovereign wealth fund. Former Labor Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who was appointed chair of Future Fund by Dr Chalmers in January 2024, said the decision to defer withdrawals 'provides the Future Fund with the confidence to provide more focus and resources to the areas of national priority identified in the new investment mandate that align with our risk and return hurdle'. In an op-ed for The Australian Financial Review, Mr Combet said 'as of today, the value of the Future Fund covers about 79 per cent of the estimated APS superannuation liabilities' — suggesting the liability had grown to about $290 billion. The Future Fund was valued at $237.9 billion as at December 31. The most recent federal budget estimates liabilities for civilian superannuation schemes, including the CSS and PSS as well as pensions for judges, at $166 billion in 2024-25, rising to $179 billion by 2028-29. Including military superannuation schemes, the total figure was $303 billion in 2024-25 and $341 billion by 2028-29. Treasury's PSS and CSS Long Term Cost Report, published last year, forecast that the unfunded liability for the schemes would peak at $190.5 billion in 2033-34 before declining to $62.4 billion by 2060. As of June 30, 2023, there were a total of 100,574 CSS members, including 1333 still currently employed, and 214,793 PSS members, 54,870 still employed. 'People who are in public service are entitled to a payout, but that payout should have been calculated and created with a logical and fair mechanism,' Mr Abernethy said. 'Saying to someone you get paid your pension based on your average wage when you leave, you tell us when you want to get it … that's not fair. You create these different tiers of benefits. Society's got to sit back and say, what's fair and what's affordable? Everyone's trying to get at fairness in the super system, but there's only so much money in the pot.'
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Time to pay the Deeming debt and focus on the job of opposition
If we accept that the fundamental aim of political parties is to win elections and then govern on behalf of their constituents, then there is a strong case that the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party no longer meets the definition. Having steadily improved in the polls under John Pesutto as the problems of the state's Labor government mounted, some predicted that Victoria's Liberals would turn the tide at federal level, winning a raft of seats and delivering Peter Dutton the prime ministership. Those lost in this pipe dream did not worry that the state branch was already reverting to the form of a circular firing squad, in which an ousted Pesutto and his nemesis, Moira Deeming, were expected to work together even as she pressed him for personally ruinous millions in court costs. Another member of the humiliated Team Pesutto, shadow health spokeswoman Georgie Crozier, then decided to angrily call out party colleague Sam Groth over alleged misuse of a taxpayer-funded car (which he insists was within the rules). The Victorian Liberal Party has lost six of the past seven state elections, stretching back to the defeat of Jeff Kennett in 1999. That first reversal came out of the blue, but ever since the state party has stumbled in the dark over its identity and leadership. For years, it seemed religious conservatives were determined to turn the party of the social establishment and capital into a Trojan horse for their agendas on abortion and homosexuality. At times – think Bernie Finn or Geoff Shaw – this looked like a simple case of the tail trying to wag the dog. Loading Deeming – who inherited Finn's Western Metropolitan seat – is the latest manifestation of this trend, with her eyes set firmly on an ideological destination to which her fellow MPs can either accede or be swept aside, and if that means remaining in opposition, so be it. At the height of his confidence, Dutton suggested intervention by the federal party in this mess. Such an undertaking seems laughable now, given that Sussan Ley is already up to her eyeballs in the battle to steer the Coalition's shrinking ship in Canberra and leading lights of the Victorian federal landscape, Josh Frydenberg and Michael Sukkar, have been discarded by voters.
