NSW Liberal back-bencher, Senator Andrew Bragg has continued his campaign for a single default fund and for people to be able to access superannuation for a first home deposit.
In a webinar sponsored by the Financial Services Council, Bragg told actuary, Michael Rice, that the Government should provide a basic default product through an organisation which would provide a cheap and cheerful and outsource funds management to the Future Fund.
“Because the Future Fund has investment management credentials this is an easy thing for us to establish,” he said.
What is more, Bragg claimed that if default superannuation had been established by the former Fraser Liberal Government rather than the Hawke/Keating Labor Governments it would have looked very different.
“My view is that we are so heavily invested in this scheme we need to have the best deal possible,” he said. “We would have had this if the Fraser Government had implemented superannuation rather than the Hawke/Keating Government.”
Bragg said that he believed that the superannuation industry needed to be open to the debate around allowing people to access super to purchase a first home, rather than be trenchantly closed to the issue.
“I’m not saying this is something for the silvertails, it is for those who are doing it tough,” he said.
Bragg also suggested that the Government’s hardship early access scheme should not necessarily end with the resolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that there should be room for a repeat exercise, if necessary.
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.
Two totally different issues, mixed into one.