The Board of Taxation's push to increase the super payment threshold for low income and casual workers to $1350 a quarter has been deemed unfair by the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST).
The AIST is calling on the Federal Government to refuse this measure, saying low income workers and those in dangerous jobs already face many challenges in accumulating sufficient savings.
The body is also pushing for the scrapping of the $450 monthly super payment threshold, saying all employees should receive super payments. The threshold means those who earn below $450 miss out on otherwise compulsory super contributions.
"If you work, you should get super," AIST CEO Tom Garcia said.
"Moves to deny more workers of super will simply widen Australia's retirement savings gap."
Garcia rejected arguments moving to a quarterly threshold would decrease red tape on small businesses, saying e-commerce reforms in the super industry is already doing this.
"The super industry has spent millions of dollars moving towards electronic super payments making payroll thresholds for super redundant."
Garcia added removing the monthly $450 threshold would impose minimal costs to the Government.
He said it would help disadvantaged workers, including those with more than one employer — common in industries like retail, hospitality and nursing as the monthly threshold applies only to a single employer, not on a combined income level.
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.