Senator Jane Hume has the opportunity to show “real leadership” by committing to boost the superannuation savings of women as women tended to retire with almost $60,000 less super than men, according to Industry Super Australia (ISA).
ISA called on Hume, the Minister for Superannuation Financial Services and the Digital Economy, and the Minister for Women’s Economic Security, and the Government to re-commit to sticking with the legislated super guarantee (SG) increase as it had been “dragging its feet”.
It also pointed to the fact the Government was considering leaving the SG at 9.5% even though Government members of parliament earned 15.4% super.
ISA advocacy director, Georgia Brumby said: “It is time we bridged the gender super gap, it’s not right that women retire with balances persistently lower than what they need for an adequate retirement.
“Politicians have a choice they can fight for a super increase and to get super paid on every dollar earnt or turn their back as more women risk retiring into poverty.
“Jane Hume, as both the super minister and the minister for women’s economic security, has an opportunity to show real leadership and re-commit to boosting the super savings of women everywhere.”
ISA said the median super balance for a woman in her early 60s was $146,900 compared to men with $204,200, and both genders had less than the $545,000 recommended for a comfortable retirement.
ISA noted the Government was dragging its feet on reforms that would improve women’s economic security including:
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.