MP Jason Falinski accused the superannuation system of “gobbling up” $30 billion in fees and charges while leaving workers worse off and said that the Hayne royal commission “should hang its head in shame” for not investigating it.
“[The retirement income review] shows that the superannuation system that we have in Australia makes workers worse off over their lifetime. It is not an accident. It is the specific policy design of this system,” Mr Falinski told the House of Representatives during a spirited debate over the future of super.
Mr Falinski also said that his criticisms were not confined to industry super, saying, “Retail super is just as guilty of this as any other superannuation system … the super guarantee makes people worse off.
“Anyone with a calculator knows that our super system makes workers worse off. If the objective of the superannuation system is financial security in retirement then the Callaghan report makes it clear that owning or substantially owning the house in which you live is the best, fastest, most secure path to financial security in retirement.”
Mr Falinski pointed to statements made by RBA governor Philip Lowe and the Grattan Institute as evidence that others shared his party’s concern around the efficacy of the superannuation system, while shadow minister for finance Stephen Jones accused the government of a co-ordinated attack on superannuation and warned that Labor would fight any attempt to freeze the guarantee.
“Since the election we’ve seen members of the government backbench running around on an authorised campaign to undermine the superannuation system,” Mr Jones said.
“If the government thinks that we are going to let them get away with breaking a solemn promise that they made to the Australian people to leave superannuation alone, they’ve got another thing coming. They are in for a bare-knuckle fight. We will not let them get away with it.”
Standing committee chair Tim Wilson, another strident critic of superannuation, was ejected from the chamber prior to the debate under standing order 94a – the so-called “sin bin” for disorderly conduct.
You can see why both Labor and Liberal have been hellbent on destroying professional financial advice.
Labor wants people to blindly funnel all their money into union super funds. Liberal wants people to blindly funnel their money into property. Neither wants people to get good advice and make informed choices.
What a dickhead. The only people that super disadvantages are those whose average marginal tax rate is lower than 15% and temporary foreign workers. At least the latter can get it back when they leave.
For everyone else SG is a great compulsory saving to at least have something backing you up.
I see he grew up in Manly, no wonder he advocates using super to buy property – it’s the only way most people could buy in his electorate!
While he is kind of right just in theoretical terms, he isn’t factoring in that for most people if they were given the extra 9.5% each week, they would just spend it. I think being able to use super for a house deposit is a good thing, but there would need to be some caveats around it to stop people stripping it out and spending it on toys.
Jason Falinski wants Australian to have just their home and the aged pension in retirement, nothing else. The $33 billion in fees seems a very high estimate and the large pot of Australian superannuation investments has meant we sailed through the global financial crisis as the banks could simply raise term deposit rates and had all the funds they needed in the middle of the worst financial crisis for 75 years.
A strong super system is one of the best ways to reduce inequality in Australia and to give everyone a stake in the prosperity of the country, something people don’t have when they live on social security only.
This is the often used argument by those that get a financial benefit from it.
People would be much better owning their own home in retirement than having super and no home.