Most private sector workers will suffer a pay cut if superannuation guarantee (SG) increases are pushed through, with the financial services industry reaping the rewards of the change, chartered accountant Wayne Wanders has warned.
Wanders said that total remuneration packages for private employees would likely not change, meaning that getting more superannuation would mean getting less salary.
For an employee on a $60,000 annual salary inclusive of super, this would represent a $1,223.09 salary reduction.
“In non‐unionised private sector workplaces, the employer does not typically want to be beholden to the federal government about what pay increase an employee should get,” Wanders said, meaning they would be unlikely to increase salaries.
He said that it was the financial services industry, rather than the public, who wanted SG changes.
“You can see why the financial services industry want the change. They get a 23.5 per cent increase in contributions before tax and probably a 20 per cent increase in fee income,” Wanders said.
“But … which non‐unionised private sector workers want to have their take home pay reduced by 2.2 per cent today, on a politician’s promise of more super in the future? Very few people. And that’s why most private sector workers don’t want superannuation guarantee increases.”
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.