Has the Senate Committee ignored industry consensus?

16 August 2018
| By Hannah |
image
image
expand image

The Senate Economic Legislation Committee’s recently-released majority report on the Protecting Your Super reforms ignores the collective view much of the industry on the removal of insurance cover for active superannuation accounts under $6,000, Berrill & Watson Lawyers has lamented.

Principal of the superannuation and insurance law firm, John Berrill, said the report disregarded the opinions of the consumer movement, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA), the Productivity Commission and the insurance and super industries regarding the issue.

He warned “the end result will be a poverty trap and greater welfare dependence” should the cover be removed.

Related News:

Super complaints jump 5% in FY23–24

APRA tightens scrutiny on super fund spending, targets travel and entertainment

“Rarely do all of these groups speak with one voice. But one thing is clear, the measure to remove insurance cover for people with active account balances under $6,000 is not in the interests of super fund members,” Berrill said.

Premium Content logoVIEW ALL

View all

“Removing insurance cover for people with active accounts under $6,000 will mean two things. Firstly, higher insurance premiums for everyone else. Secondly, already vulnerable communities such as indigenous Australians, new migrants, casuals and mothers returning from maternity leave will often be left without valuable insurance cover for upwards of two years.”

Berrill cautioned that the report’s suggestion that those losing insurance cover would still have support from the disability support pension or workers compensation to rely on wasn’t true. He said that the former was “extremely hard to get” and the latter did not contribute anything to super.

Furthermore, Berrill said that by enforcing an implementation timeline for the policy of July, next year, the Committee risked higher costs and premiums being imposed on super members. He said that July 2020 was “not an unreasonable time frame”.

Berrill noted that Labor Senators filed a minority report voicing concern about both the removal of insurance for low-income accounts and the implementation timeframe. He said he remained “hopeful that Labor can work with the Government and cross-benches to ensure that appropriate amendments can be made”.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

1 year ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

1 year ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

1 year ago

Super funds had a “tremendous month” in November, according to new data....

3 days 21 hours ago

Australia faces a decade of deficits, with the sum of deficits over the next four years expected to overshoot forecasts by $21.8 billion....

4 days 3 hours ago

It seems the government is still determined to push through its controversial super tax legislation, according to its Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement released tod...

4 days 17 hours ago