Super chief reveals the two biggest concerns Aussies have about super

australiansuper chief ian silk

AustralianSuper chief Ian Silk says that the two most commonly raised concerns fund members have is how much super they need and how to keep the government’s hands off it.

Speaking to the House economics committee, Mr Silk also said that workers are ‘hot to trot’ for a raise to compulsory super contributions and that Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s warning about the ageing population ‘economic timebomb’ was cause enough to increase compulsory super contributions.

“We don’t have members turn up to … briefings and say, ‘we don’t want any more super’,” said Mr Silk.

“The reverse is the case. They are very hot to trot on the issue. They’re telling me in loud and clear terms they want 12 per cent.”

Liberal MP Craig Kelly then asked Mr Silk what he thought about allowing low-income earners to use super for a house deposit.

“I understand that, because who among us would confirm future consumption over current consumption?” said Mr Silk.

“Particularly if you’re a modest income-earner and wages growth is pretty modest.

“But I would say this … that’s the sort of argument that was run in 1992, when the super guarantee was introduced, and the view taken then was it is important to take a long-term view.”

What’s your biggest concern about super?

5 comments

That it will no longer be a tax advantaged investment vehicle. 

I don't have any real concerns about our super, it's with an industry fund, it returns better than the 5% compulsory drawdown on average and the fee structure is acceptable. I would, however, like to address some of the comments raised in the article. The increase to 12% will happen and I don't think that now is the time for it to occur. The 12% is paid for out of employers' earnings and the economy at present doesn't seem to be strong enough to be putting an extra 2.5% impost on business.

It was considered that a long-term view to super was important in 1992 when Keating introduced it and I can't see that any circumstances have changed since then. If we forget for a moment that there is compulsory super, what are low income earners going to do about a deposit on a home, medical expenses or any other unforeseen circumstances. I believe that compulsory super should be a set and forget investment and no release of funds be allowed until the allowable age to drawdown from the fund.

Too much of the benefits of Super are going to the wealthy, instead of boosting Age Pensions or by having Universal Age Pension. Benefits from Super must be severely capped as it is meant to supplement retirement income, not fund it excessively for the rich with less money available for better retirement income objectives such as for Age Pension.

Well said GeorgeM

Well said GeorgeM

My only concern with Super is that various Government change the super rules and the assets/income limits.

Stop the generous salary sacrifice tax break and change the income tax loopholes so that companies and self employed must pay a set percentage of tax on income (say 15%) without the unnecessary allowable deductions.

Then there would then be enough to fund a universal pension (and tax recepients the above tax rate for any income earned above the pension paid). Wage earners would also be taxed at the above rate.

Our national debt would disappear within a few years.

Yes I can see as to why the AustralianSuper chief Ian Silk would be concerned ...just look at all the fees and charges the super industry would be missing out on.


Yes bring on the Universal Pension

5 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment