Young Australians who used the early access to superannuation scheme could lose $150,000 to $180,000 from their retirement and one-in-five Tasmanians have accessed the scheme, according to Industry Super Australia (ISA).
ISA said over 10,000 of the state’s workers had emptied their entire super balance as $587 million was withdrawn by over 78,800 applications with an average withdrawal of $7,719 per application.
The super body said if the super rate increase were cut, an average 30-year-old man who took $20,000 from their super would either lose $180,000 from their retirement or be forced to work until 74, while an average 30-year-old female would need to work an extra eight years or have $150,000 less at retirement.
ISA said ditching the superannuation guarantee (SG) increase to 12% would have a “dire impact” on the savings of those who had accessed their super early.
Commenting, ISA chief executive, Bernie Dean, said: “The tens of thousands of Tasmanians who accessed their super to prop themselves up now face a looming tragedy of retiring with less and being more reliant on the pension.
“The only realistic way workers can make up the difference is with the promised increase to the super rate – ditch the super increase and we will be saddling the next generation with a whopping pension bill.
“The youngest Australians would face a shocking double whammy they can’t afford if they have to repay the debt government has taken on during this crisis, and then pay for our retirement on the pension.”
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.