Australians' ability to save for their retirements will be tested by poor health cutting their working lives short before they are eligible for the Age Pension, research reveals.
The AMP.NATSEM report, Going the distance – working longer, living healthier, found that in 2035 one in four Australian's in their 60s will have limited potential to work due to poor health, despite the Government increasing the age they can access the Age Pension to 70.
"In 2035, the majority of retired or unemployed Australians in their sixties will not have enough superannuation for retirement," the report said.
"If the pension age is raised to 70, many Australians will need to consider working longer to have an income and build more retirement savings.
"The ability of Australians to work longer is directly linked to health with a much higher chance those aged over 60 will work full or part-time when they assess their health status as good, very good or excellent rather than fair or poor.
"The key issue for Australia is that between 60 and 70 years of age, the proportion of people reporting fair or poor health increases.
"For those expected to be in fair or poor health, the majority of men and more than two thirds of women are likely to be unemployed.
"It is these Australians who may struggle to participate in the workforce if the pension age is increased to 70 years.
"The challenge is how the nation and employers can support future generations to remain in the workforce longer in environments that allow flexibility and the ability to transition to retirement."
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.