The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) has rejected the Grattan Institute’s proposal to dump superannuation guarantee (SG) increases, labelling it “another contrived assault by Grattan on our world-leading superannuation system”.
ASFA chief executive, Martin Fahy, said the institute’s judgement was clouded by its “ideological hostility” towards superannuation, posing “a danger to current and future generations of Australian retirees”.
According to ASFA, increasing the SG to 12 per cent would allow 50 per cent of Australians to live comfortably in retirement by 2050, just over double the current proportion.
The organisation said this would allow the retiree to undertake essential home repairs, visit the dentists, and heat and cool their homes.
“Grattan clearly doesn’t care about the adequacy of people’s retirement incomes or their quality of life in retirement - they are condemning retirees to be sicker, poorer and older for longer,” Fahy said.
“Impoverishing retirees is no way to deal with the challenges they face, such as funding rising health and aged care costs. Ignoring these problems won’t make them go away.”
Fahy labelled Grattan’s perspective as “self-serving”, as it did not consider the additional capital available to retirees in super savings, which would increase income levels and generate higher living standards.
“Grattan selectively considers the interaction of superannuation and the age pension for a very narrow cohort to covertly justify the diminishment of superannuation. The reality is that having more private savings, for all cohorts, results in better retirement outcomes,” he said.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.