Home ownership and aged care considerations need to be taken into account in assessing what represents a comfortable retirement in Australia, according to major consulting firm, KPMG.
In its submission to the Treasury on defining the purpose of superannuation, KPMG has pointed for a focus on retirement income outcomes and their inter-relationship with the Age Pension.
In doing so, the submission said that there was a need to look beyond the current Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) retirement income adequacy standard and its focus on single and couple units, to one which encompasses broader issues such as home ownership and age care cost considerations.
"If the objective of the superannuation system is to provide income in retirement to substitute or supplement the age pension; then it follows that to achieve this goal the drivers of superannuation balances sufficient to generate adequate income must be addressed," it said.
The submission said this required consideration of measures to boost to boost the contributions of those who due to their circumstances have insufficient retirement incomes," it said.
The KPMG submission then went on to recommend specific measures relating to women and low income earners including the implementation limited exemptions from concessional and non-concessional capping arrangements to allow them to boost their contributions to compensate for broken employment patterns and changed family circumstances including divorce and financial separation.
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.