Speaking to media, Andrew Bragg praised the “sound judgement” of Australians who had withdrawn their super under the early release scheme to pay off their mortgages and said that getting “more people into houses” meant letting them withdraw more.
“There was an early access scheme where people could take up to 10 grand of their super in one hit and the majority of people and most of the money that was taken out of super was put into people’s mortgages to pay them down. So people wanted to improve their personal balance sheets. And that shows that people are smarter than the super funds think. I mean, the super funds, they think everyone’s stupid,” Mr Bragg told media.
Mr Bragg believes that superannuation has made home ownership “more difficult to attain” due to the trade-off between a super increase and wage rises.
“It’s OK for the cigar chompers to say that, you know everyone should have both. But for many people, it’s a real trade-off, so the more flexibility that we can give people, I think is the way to go,” Mr Bragg said.
The comments come amid revelations that the Morrison government is considering making some or all of the legislated increase to 12 per cent optional, with workers given the choice to pocket more of their pay instead of contributing to their super.
Mr Bragg called for a form of opt-in super in his maiden speech to Parliament in 2019, where he suggested middle-income earners “could simply tick a box to get a refund when filing an annual tax return”. Mr Bragg told media that the plan for opt-in was now being “seriously considered”.
“The Prime Minister has done a lot to try and help people get into their first homes. We’ve had a number of first home saver schemes. And one thing we haven’t done yet as far as we could do is to open up to super for first time deposits and that’s something that I think we should do, especially for low-income earners,” Mr Bragg said.
But a number of industry bodies, including the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST), have slammed the plan.
“There is a broad understanding that unless we are compelled to save a portion of our wages, very few of us will have enough money for a financially secure retirement,” said AIST chief executive Eva Scheerlinck.
“There are lots of ways to deal with low wage growth but forcing people to use their retirement savings to fund their own pay rise shouldn’t be one of them.”
“There was an early access scheme where people could take up to 10 grand of their super in one hit and the majority of people and most of the money that was taken out of super was put into people’s mortgages to pay them down. ,” Mr Bragg told media.
Is there any evidence this statement is correct or is it just one that fits with his (and Tim Wilson’s) own narrative?
The Federal Govt should be congratulated for allowing fund members to use their own money in a time of national crisis. The crisis has been averted to a fair extent, so it is reasonable that early access arrangements have now been pushed back to it’s original status.
Does that include all the people who withdrew funds and gambled them away. What you don’t seem to grasp is that super and the retirement incomes policy in Australia has been successful because of the restriction on when funds can be accessed. Take that away and the longer term ramifications are huge when they hit a decade or two in the future when social security needs increase exponentially
If a portfolio for the Destruction of Australian Retirement Incomes Policy were to be created, Senator Bragg would be the obvious choice to handle it. If our sector doesn’t unite in seeking to educate the Australians Bragg congratulates for their sound judgment in withdrawing their super, the chorus of anti-SGC sentiment will eventually dominate the attitude of the the average Australian. Time for us all to wake up and educate en masse!!
These comments are very concerning. We have one of the best retirement incomes systems in the world and some of the suggestions and comments from the senator (who is Ex FSC) would seriously undermine the system.
He is correct when he talks about the need for trade offs and home ownership but it is NOT super against which the trade offs should be made. Focus more on the instant gratification society and you will see where trade offs must be made. Small example I make my own coffees every morning at home while my 19yo daughter and her friends go to the shop across the road and pay $5 or $6 for a coffee.