Government’s superannuation plan slammed as ‘inadequate’

ACTU accuses Government of abandoning women in response to super report.

Government’s super plan slammed

The Government’s response to the ‘A Husband is Not a Retirement Plan’ report represents an abysmal failure to boost the inadequate retirement savings of women, according to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).

The report, a result of a Senate inquiry into economic security for women in retirement, made 19 recommendations intended to help women increase their participation in the workforce and improve their superannuation savings.

The report found that women’s low superannuation balances at retirement are the result of multiple factors, including, but not limited to: the gender pay gap; women having more breaks in their career for family and other reasons; and women representing a higher proportion of the part-time workforce than men.

While the report was delivered in April 2016, the Government response to the findings was only delivered last week.

Some of the recommendations in the initial report included removing the $450 minimum earning threshold, paying superannuation on parental leave payments, accelerating the increase of the super guarantee to 12 per cent, increasing paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 26, fixing means-testing of the pension, making tax on super contributions fairer and ensuring tax concessions benefit low income earners.

None of these recommendations were taken up in the Government’s response, preferring instead to extend the spouse offset for superannuation contributions as the preferred method to address the unfairness in the current system.

The 2017 Per Capita report Not So Super for Women’ found that women retire with 47 per cent less super than men and that structural reform, not band aids and expressions of sentiment, is desperately needed to ensure Australian women are not retiring into poverty.

ACTU President Michele O’Neil said the Government response was inadequate.

“Working women have the same right to a dignified retirement as men. But we retire $100,000 worse off under our current system,” Ms O’Neil explained.

“It’s an indictment on Kelly O’Dwyer and her government that their response has been to extend the spousal offset, cementing their view that a husband is an appropriate retirement plan.

“The Turnbull Government can fix this by implementing the recommendations of this report. But Kelly O’Dwyer and the Turnbull Government have decided to ignore the most crucial recommendations of the report, leaving women to retire in poverty.

“This is irresponsible and negligent. We will continue to campaign for meaningful change that secures a dignified retirement for working women.”

What do you think the Government should do to address the inequality in the superannuation system?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Mad as Hell
    22nd Aug 2018
    10:25am
    Don’t trust or vote Liberal.
    Jannie
    22nd Aug 2018
    10:37am
    Don't trust or vote Labour either.................
    Virginia
    22nd Aug 2018
    11:39am
    Ring your member of federal government and tell them to stop the schoolyard antics and get on with governing the country properly.
    Stop the ego trips
    One member cannot vetoe another's ideas without debate and consideration so don't go blaming unneccessarily.
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    4:27pm
    Jannie. Labour is a British political party. The ALP here are far more trustworthy than the Lieberal Party vermin.
    Mad as Hell
    22nd Aug 2018
    6:34pm
    I don’t trust the Nationals, Greens, the minors or Labor. At least Labor spoke against the the changes to the Pensioner Assets Test. Unfortunately Bill Shorten has said he won’t reverse th changes to the Pensioner Assets Test and now he’d like to get his hands onto the tax credits if he could. I’m not a rusted on party supporter it’s just that I don’t trust any party but I mistrust Labor the least.
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    6:41pm
    Vote for labor at your peril
    No helping those with no common sense
    Rae
    23rd Aug 2018
    7:45am
    Labor spoke against it and I even got a letter from our local Labor Senator accepting it was unfair a sort of apology but they still voted for it with the Liberals which got it through.

    Labor could have voted against it.

    Olbaid may be right. The Liberals have destroyed our future by selling us out but Labor started the rot and they will nail the coffin closed if elected now.

    Nobody wins in a class war which is what our Governments are engaged in.
    Jim
    23rd Aug 2018
    8:19am
    Knows-a-lot, you are correct the British Labour Party are different, the Australian Labor party took the U out, so you think they are more trustworthy?
    Anonymous
    24th Aug 2018
    10:07am
    Well one thing I know after nearly 70 years is that if ACTU says something the opposite is actually true. Fortuanetely my 40 years in workforce in military and IT industries - no unions and that was a blessing - unions - lazy unproductive and it comes as no surprise that barely 9% of private sector has unions members and only 19% of public sector and the highest number there are teachers (no wonder our kids education is going backwards) and nurses.
    Rae
    24th Aug 2018
    11:16am
    Yes bob the teachers did their occupation in by refusing to go out on strike and stay out until they received the teaching and childminding package. The childminding alone was worth $1800 a day.
    A grad max used to earn the same as a government backbencher and now earns just 60% of that amount which is why the best aren't becoming teachers anymore.
    Hasbeen
    22nd Aug 2018
    11:18am
    Strange isn't it, we are told that these women are so badly treated in retirement income. Meanwhile cruise ships & European tour groups are full of women, spending their dead or divorced husbands savings & super just as fast as they can.

    God I'm sick of feminist garbage.
    Adrianus
    22nd Aug 2018
    11:29am
    For goodness sake! Women cannot wait for men to die before they go on a cruise! In some cases it may never happen.
    Anonymous
    24th Aug 2018
    10:09am
    Has been - I cruise a lot and it got me thinking - you are so correct - more senior women than men by a long way
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    12:13pm
    Don't forget the five dollar phantoms on the pokies..... who predominates there?
    Adrianus
    22nd Aug 2018
    11:27am
    When is the gender pay gap not a gender pay gap?
    When a proportion of males suffer the same fate, e.g. working part time, Paternity leave, lower paying jobs etc.
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    12:14pm
    How many men in nursing hold the top spots?
    Not a Bludger
    22nd Aug 2018
    11:46am
    Surely you crowd don’t believe the rent seeking, Marxist ACTU and their thug officials as paragons of financial expertise and virtue.
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    4:31pm
    The crowd believes them more than the bludging Lieberal Party - who couldn't manage the finances of a chook raffle - and its bunch of silvertailed lawyers, bankers and other assorted overpaid parasites.
    ex PS
    24th Aug 2018
    9:53am
    Yep, much better to trust the serial protectors of the Banks. We all know what most Union Members stand for, just as we know what Bankers stand for.
    Such an easy choice for working people.
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    5:43pm
    ..and it's Union this and Union that,
    And Union git be' 'ind,
    But it's please to walk in front, SIR,
    When there's trouble in the wind,
    Oh, it's please to walk in front, Sir,
    When there's trouble in the wind....

    As a former Union delegate targeted by management and attacked constantly regardless of outstanding work etc - I can only say that the Union movement shot itself in the foot when it allied itself Siamese Twin style to Labor in its pretensions to 'enforcing equality' by imposing numbers of women, wops and woomera throwers on us instead of proven performers who did the coal face work and suffered loss for doing so.

    Now look at the state of the ACTU and its head honchoes - all sheilas riding the sweet life pending a safe seat in Parliament... and income gracious for life... and not one of them a coal facer.....

    Oh yes...

    It's Delegate this and Delegate that,
    And Delegate get be' 'ind our socialist pretensions,
    But it's please to walk in front Sir,
    When there's problems need a mention,
    Yes, it's please to walk in front SIR,
    When there's problems need a mention....

    22nd Aug 2018
    11:52am
    Here we go again! This is the usual garbage about the alleged inequality in pay for women dressed up as something else. The facts are very simple; women earn less than men because they don't work the same hours. All of the awards in Australia do not have any difference in gender, all workers under awards earn the same salary/hourly rate.

    Women stop work to have children because it's their choice to do that and, while they are not working, they don't get paid nor is any superannuation paid either. There is equality in the workplace. What is the government expected to do? Should they pay women for the jobs they would like to do while they stay away from work just so they can have some superannuation funds? I don't think so.

    Women want equality and when they achieve it, they want more. They want equal representation on boards, government departments, parliaments and all workplaces. We hear that they should be more represented in the construction industry and want places made available for them. When it is pointed out that nursing and teaching are over represented by women, they tell us that that's OK and no places should be set aside for men. I've had a gutful of all of this crap where women want to promote other women ahead of men who, in most cases, are more senior, more qualified and more experienced than the women who want the jobs.
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    12:58pm
    Reading through some of the recommendations is concerning. Removing the $450 minimum earning threshold, paying superannuation on parental leave payments, accelerating the increase of the super guarantee to 12% and increasing paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 26 is all at the cost of the employer. If a business is forced to do any or all of these things it will cause costs to rise which, in turn, will be passed onto the customer. I have no idea what fixing means-testing of the pension has to do with superannuation and making tax on super contributions fairer and ensuring tax concessions benefit low income earners does very little for women because it won't increase the amount of contributions to superannuation funds.
    Triss
    22nd Aug 2018
    3:42pm
    “Women stop work to have children because it’s their choice “. Didn’t the men want children then? So in order that women don’t starve in old age, having children should be totally banned.
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    3:50pm
    Triss - whose income supports the woman and child while she is off work
    Whose super supports the couple when retired ??!!

    Can’t understand how thick some people are
    Anonymous
    23rd Aug 2018
    12:05pm
    Women earn less because they don't work the same hours???? True. They work far, far longer hours - they just don't get paid for the work they do for the selfish bastard men who want children and a nice clean home and their laundry done so they can work and earn, but don't want to support the woman who slaves to provide all those benefits. Geez, Old Man! What a chauvinistic attitude! I've had a gut full of the egotistical chauvinists who think men are superior to women in qualifications and experience.

    I object to a lot of the ''equality'' push, but women work harder than men at the very necessary but unpaid tasks. That's just a fact. And they SHOULD be rewarded in retirement for their unpaid contribution to society.
    Anonymous
    23rd Aug 2018
    2:32pm
    Rainey - you have no credibility whatsoever . All you do is whinge and post rubbish
    Anonymous
    29th Aug 2018
    2:59pm
    Can't understand how THICK you are, olbaid. But just for the record, in our household it's the WOMAN'S super supporting the couple in retirement. And it was the WOMAN'S income that supported the family most of the time. That said, I stand by my statement - that is neither ''whinge'' nor ''rubbish'' - that women who contribute to society by bearing and raising children SHOULD be supported in old age by the society they have contributed so much to.

    Love of money is a disease and it's gripping our nation. There are things that matter more in life, and one of them is FAMILY. Another is COMMUNITY. If we don't look after the people who do unpaid work to support family and community, our society will fall apart. But it already is. The UNADULTERATED GREED AND SELFISHNESS of creeps like you, olbaid, has destroyed the lucky country once and for all.
    Travellersjoy
    22nd Aug 2018
    12:16pm
    They could just RESIGN and let us elect a government that respects women - and does the work.
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:13pm
    Is that the one way 'Respect' or respect we're talking about here? Same as I ask when the Aboriginal question comes up of their 'wanting to do things their way (and not Captain Cook's) or 'gay etc rights' (which exactly rights do they not have in this nation?) - what exactly is involved in this 'respect' (or doing it their way)?

    Give me the nuts and bolts.....
    KSS
    22nd Aug 2018
    12:35pm
    So what about all the men:
    in low paying jobs;
    forced to give up work to look after their children when their wife is sick, dies, leaves; single Dads;
    men who take on being the main carer for other family members;
    stay at home dads whilst their partner is the main wage earner;
    who are made redundant and out of work for long periods;

    and...and...

    As far as I can see, the costs of having children include the 'loss' of earnings and superannuation and arrangements should be put in place by the couples involved to cover these costs. If a single woman (or man - we are talking equality after all) decides to use IVF to have a child then those future super costs should be part of the equation.

    Although we may need more children to pay for our (future) pensions(!), women alone should not be rewarded for providing the future taxpayers ( or viewed differently - punished for not doing so).
    Sundays
    22nd Aug 2018
    1:54pm
    KSS, I agree, no one wants to go back to the days when women were paid less than men for the same work, when women had to resign once they got married, where girls weren’t encouraged to go on to matriculation. However, men on low incomes are more disadvantaged than middle class women yet there are no specific policies to assist them in accumulating more super
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:16pm
    And don't forget that on separation/divorce the entire household goods and finances including super future are divided...

    I take it that if women are to be handed extra privileges in super, they will no longer require a division of the old man's super when they take off with young Damien or Jennifer, as happens in the majority of splits (80%+ of 'marital relationship' separations re initiated by women, primarily for reasons such as they just don't feel 'validated' (gags - there's that 'feels' word again - societal control/government by emotion)..
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:53pm
    Something you hit on there, KSS, is the near lack of planning by couples intending to have a family - suddenly they find themselves short of dollars, and suddenly in 'need' of handouts from employer and/or government..... all of which is a cost borne by the end user - consumer or taxpayer as the case may be.

    I remain astounded that couples on $150k EACH would even be in consideration for PPL - just how much does a couple need to actually pay the bills and get by - as Tony mumbled on about? What sort of 'planning' goes into having a family when your combined income is $300k and you can't budget to cater for time off?

    I argued long ago that PPL should only apply to the lower wage enders.... who actually need it.
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    6:08pm
    As for Affirmative Action putting many men ultimately out of jobs and opportunities - in my argument , while in the CPS, about the intended introduction of THEIR form of 'equal employment opportunity' (AA by another name) - what possible value was there in arbitrarily handing to an upper middle class woman preference in employment/promotion, as opposed to a poor working class (possibly orphaned) man who was trying to get a start from the bottom of society?

    How did such an approach generate 'equal employment opportunity' and 'rectify inequalities'?

    The wording of 'equal employment opportunity' was that (where all else was equal - I say bullshit) preference would be given to women, those from a non-English speaking background, and Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders.

    The results for the CPS you can see today - they are incompetent, gutless, namby-pamby tools in the hands of their political masters, rather than a section of division of powers in our form of democracy, providing unbiased advice and information to elected representatives.

    Affirmative Action by selected social group was always despotism and not a genuine attempt to rectify real issues - and the result has been a shattering of this society and nation into countless tiny little groups set one against the other.
    Rae
    23rd Aug 2018
    8:10am
    Pretty sure it was deliberate to prevent income rising TREBOR. In union meetings it was always women arguing that we "can't go out on strike" because it will be unfair and uncaring etc. Emotional nonsense.

    Women were also more inclined to fix up the ridiculous mistakes and carry poor managers along by doing the work for them in some sort of misguided "mothering".

    Nothing stopping a couple setting up a fund for the woman and paying a bit into it in a regular way. No need for women to be singled out because they choose to stay at home with kids for years. It doesn't hurt kids to go to carers or childcare.
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    9:08am
    Hmm - some said that the PS was handed to women so as to make it a tame workforce unlikely to object to any changes downwards... the fruit may be in the current period, where PS cuts are the norm and many of those women who were pumped up via AA are now feeling the same lash.

    Men would probably strike at the very least.....

    Women 'mothering' bad managers... could be some merit in what you say.

    When I worked in the CPS, I always found it odd that some were 'clerks' and others' clerical assistants' - kind of silly when they did the same work, and of course back then many women were CAs ..... when AA came along, however, my simple stated in writing position was that a declaration of equality and promotion on genuine performance based merit from Day One (as specified) would solve the issues in a few years - instead the CPS went for AA for women (etc - AA by social group as defined) and the results were and are a disaster... and the issues continue to this day with massive divisions and conflicts.

    I had no issue with women who mere mainly CAs being treated more fairly on performance, knowledge and ability - but not at the expense, as occurs in all of these 'feminist' pushes, of all men as a group.

    That is why I oppose 'feminism' in all its guises and thus Labor as it now stands - the Labour Party after they too the YOU out of it.

    BTW - I resigned from the CPS over this issue - and within two years was earning as much p.a. as the head of the Sydney agency I was working in.... in that position I actually advocated for more women in management etc.... now I wonder if my care and consideration was misplaced......
    Jim
    22nd Aug 2018
    1:18pm
    There is no doubt that some women have less opportunity to have a significant balance in their superannuation than most men, the obvious differences have been mentioned already, but if we look at the changes over the past 30 years, compulsory superannuation only came about in the mid 80,s many of us didn’t benefit from it as much as the younger generation now benefit from it, compulsory superannuation is now 9.5% it was only 2.5% when it started. The way I got an increased benefit was by salary sacrifice, this was only possible in the latter years before retirement, most families have by this time become established, this gives both partners or individuals the opportunity to invest more into their superannuation, I guess everyone’s situation is different, most couples that seperate late in life get an equal share of their assets, although there are cases where women have got the larger share due to their financial circumstances, there is nothing stopping either parties from salary sacrifice depending on their individual circumstances, so at the end of the day I think there are better opportunities for both men and women to end up better off in retirement.
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:45pm
    Let's not forget Affirmative Action which, via artificial promotion/employment etc has place countless women into the fat super situations of government 'jobs' - fully 70%+ of public service positions are held by women, and much the same applies in banking and real estate and so forth. All these positions have good incomes and great super and easy conditions.

    Then we have the spectacle of ACTU fat cats whining about women's super, and politicians female and otherwise whining about women's super - while feasting off the best value super funds in the world.
    sunnyOz
    22nd Aug 2018
    1:39pm
    Come on please! - when would the government - any government - bring in anything to benefit people? Their absolute first and aim is to help themselves first, and then to see how much they can get from people, not give to people.

    22nd Aug 2018
    2:50pm
    Solution is simple - women shouldn’t have children and should not get their husbands super when he dies or they divorce
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    4:37pm
    Agreed. Bravo!
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:46pm
    That's true equality...

    22nd Aug 2018
    2:50pm
    Solution is simple - women shouldn’t have children and should not get their husbands super when he dies or they divorce
    Adrianus
    23rd Aug 2018
    8:46am
    Are you saying a husband is not a retirement plan?
    GrayComputing
    22nd Aug 2018
    4:01pm
    It is time for all of us (that means you) to rant at our MPs and Senators daily to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules.

    Hiring more Centrelink staff will only increase taxpayer’s costs for processing the creeping insane red tape monster system politicians and well paid bureaucrats have created.

    Help scrap it now. Become a hero.

    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly.

    Why worry that few million$ earners get it too. That is peanuts to them, not enough for a good vintage champagne.

    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

    We all need to tell our MP and senators every day that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.

    Also do TODAY and every day, contact government, opposition and independent MPs and senators who could help us to get a fair deal on pensions

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Anonymous
    24th Aug 2018
    10:12am
    I disagree - I miss out on any type of pension as I fail the asset test and income test. I do not need an age pension and so I am not a burden on taxpayers. Any and everyone who can afford to look after themselves should not be looking for hand outs - last time I checked government debt is now over $500 billion and we have not yet balanced the budget.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2018
    6:14pm
    Bob Menzies, the point you are missing is that if there were no assets test, there would be LESS dependence on the OAP, not more. The assets test works to discourage saving. Many who fail the assets test are far worse off in income terms than pensioners, and therefore are using up their savings for the benefit of those who were less frugal. What's the point? It's also encouraging over-investment in the family home, worsening the housing crisis, and it's driving manipulation and cheating.

    Add to this inequity, the fact that people are penalized for retaining items of huge sentimental value if they are also of monetary value, and for having items that they use to continue an active and rewarding life - such as a musical instrument that might make the difference between a fulfilled old age and an empty and miserable one.

    The assets test is WRONG. Gray Computing is right. And by the way, the aged pension is not a drop in the ocean when considering the government expenditure that has driven the deficit. In fact, today's retirees contributed enough to a special retirement fund to cover payment of $500 per week to EVERY retirees. Retirees are not responsible for the debt, and neither is there any justice or even basic decency in making them suffer for it.

    22nd Aug 2018
    4:28pm
    The reason women have less superannuation than men is because on average they work less than men. Simple really. Spare us the feminist claptrap.
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    6:16pm
    "The average number of paid hours worked in the week leading up to Census night was 30 hours for females and 39 hours for males."

    census 2017 ..... (sorry 'bout that)

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/MediaRealesesByCatalogue/7E56B97A3FEF932ACA2581BF00364712?OpenDocument

    Let's leave out the initial blurb about women doing more household chores - I suppose that doesn't include cutting the grass or renos or car repairs - as usual.

    Anyway - women working 30 hours and men 39 - that's one hell of a lot of difference to income if all were paid at the same rate.... that a percentage of about 77% women earn compared to men... or a 'gap' of 23%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_Australia

    "Despite these legislations, and other efforts to address this issue, the gender pay gap has remained relatively steady, hovering between 15 and 19% over the past 20 years."

    Only 15 to 19% - when they work 23% fewer hours?

    Women are overpaid per hour worked.
    Anonymous
    23rd Aug 2018
    12:08pm
    Correct, Knows-a-lot. They do less PAID work than men. They do NOT work less. Sadly, their unpaid work is neither properly acknowledged nor properly rewarded.
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    9:29am
    How can it be part of a pay structure, Rainey? Does Joe Bloggs' employer pay him a margin for repairing the car at home in his own time so he can come to work? Or for cutting his grass so he can access the front door for dinner?

    Logically such reasoning about 'unpaid work in the home' leads us inexorably to a 'single wage for all'....... since every individual's contribution to society is equal, all should be paid the same rate of pay. Didn't work out too well in the Stalinist nations....

    Is it unreasonable that the one who does less paid work should do more of the unpaid work at home? My daughter had that very argument with her then fiance, when he was the one at home..... and she ended up turfing him regardless of his high principles and his determination to be elected to the Senate...
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2018
    10:27am
    The problem, Trebor, is the very stupid and socially destructive move away from the concept of a breadwinner and a homemaker in a family. So-called ''libbers'' enslaved women! Of course single-parent families always had a tough time of it, and certainly should have been offered more assistance. But then we had people opting to end marriages or have kids out of wedlock for the benefits offered to single parents!

    I think the solution IS a universal wage, but not a ''single wage for all'' - where regardless of the type of work done, the reward is the same. We need to retain scales of reward. But a universal basic wage that is life-long would give people choice - enabling mothers to be full-time mothers if they chose, carers to be full-time carers, and the disadvantaged to pursue further education or training and to take the time to look for suitable opportunities. It would remove the stigma of ''welfare'', slash the hideous administration and policing costs we currently suffer, and end a lot of the mental illness that results from stress and fear.

    People will always do unpaid work - some to a greater extent than others. It's not realistic to suggest that all unpaid work should be paid for, let alone that all work should be paid for at the same rate. But basic sustenance and a modest degree of free choice should be an entitlement for everyone in a developed society. Nobody should have to beg or suffer denigration for opting to put family or community ahead of earning a wage and paying into a superannuation scheme.
    KB
    22nd Aug 2018
    4:59pm
    Abolish the gender pay gap
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:03pm
    What gender pay gap ?
    Prove it actually exists in the first place
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    6:24pm
    Shot down above... thanks for coming....... there's always next whine ......
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    6:28pm
    The only wage gap is 4-8% AGAINST men per hour worked on the figures shown above - showing that education systems altered to more suit girls/women, extra chances to get a higher education, affirmative action, various campaigns against men in certain jobs, and endless whining about a pack of lies are bearing fruit... (to what ultimate end nobody really knows - but it feels good to have your endless whining 'validated') .....

    No wonder young men are the highest rate of suicides.......
    MICK
    22nd Aug 2018
    8:21pm
    olbaid - there is but blame nature, not men. How to fix? Don't know. The question is do you start paying people for no work and then provide (free) superannuation on top of that. That used to be what the Old Age Pension was for but these days women complain about everything which does not suit them. 'Me too'.
    Rae
    23rd Aug 2018
    8:20am
    There is no gender pay gap that couldn't be fixed by occupations heavy in women striking for better pay. They won't because it's too hard and too mean or some such nonsense.

    It also seems too hard for some women with kids to go to work. It's not easy but a lot of us managed to do it and save for ourselves.
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    5:52pm
    But 'occupations heavy in women' does not constitute a gender pay gap, regardless of the fatuous comment by an adjudicator in the ACT over the difference between private and public community service activities, where private was paid less. Since both were 'heavy with women' this was in no way a 'gender wage gap' - it was a SECTOR wage gap.... two people doing the exact same job and being paid different rates.

    Tell me slowly again where nurses and public servants and teachers are losing out... you cited teachers and their steady decline since that sector became 'heavy with women' - one can surmise that was because they are too tame - but nurses and public servants underpaid?

    I've said it before - will there be discussion of any 'gender superannuation gap' once women are AA'd into all the top paying professions and jobs and best super arrangements (such as banks, public service etc) - and it is men who are behind?

    I'll bet that reality is met with a deafening silence... and then they'll wonder why there is revolution abroad in the land.....
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:07pm
    Feminist nonsense - a husband or wife with super or savings is indeed a retirement plan, since in any dedicated couple each shares the income. Singles on the other hand have one person to support.

    The same as when a couple have a child etc and time is taken off - the costs is shared by the couple, not the individual alone. NONE of the arguments for supplementing women's retirement income hold water, since people have in retirement what they have - and there are, in this day and age, zero guarantees that the majority will even have a permanent job.

    To give women generally more in superannuation is not the issue - what is the issue is ensuring enough people have enough in retirement, since there are many men who are in the same boat. Anyone who wants women to have more super in retirement must either enforce higher rates of pay for women or force them into all the top paying jobs or take a higher percentage out of their pay for super.

    NONE of these 'solutions' holds any water.
    Anonymous
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:49pm
    A rare occasion where I agree with you
    So you do have the power of logical thought
    One only needs apply oneself
    Well done sire !
    Shame you do not apply yourself with similar vigor to disprove the false claims of the labor party :)
    TREBOR
    22nd Aug 2018
    5:56pm
    I hold no brief for any party or its policies - they have all failed this nation. If some of my views appear to align with Labrador - certainly that is no more than with LNP ideas - but I do not accept or subscribe to party platforms of either 'side' of what I term The Tag Team.

    I am, rather, among the strongest advocates for a new party of genuine government for the nation and people.
    MICK
    22nd Aug 2018
    6:09pm
    ‘A Husband is Not a Retirement Plan’

    and

    “Working women have the same right to a dignified retirement as men. But we retire $100,000 worse off under our current system”

    How does SEXISM work???? A one sided issue????

    For the record women get a half of a man's superannuation should they separate.

    This is just the next sexist article of women pushing their own agenda. Disgraceful that YLC is involved and lets this sort of BS run. Shame Ben.
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    5:58pm
    Yes - sexism is the same as discussion of Aboriginals, ethnics, Islamites, gays and their 62 other gender variants, or any other group in society - any disagreement with their chosen line on any given day will be met with name-calling, verbal violence, and even threats and physical violence.

    Discuss openly:-

    An Aboriginal issue, and you are 'racist' unless you agree 100% with what they demand.

    Any ethnic issue, and you are again racist unless you agree 100% with what they demand.

    A Muslim issue and you are an Islamophobe unless you agree 100% with what they demand.

    A gay issue and you are a homophobe unless you agree 100% with what they demand.

    A men/women issue and you are a sexist/misogynist /woman hater/woman basher unless you agree 100% with what they demand.
    Eddy
    22nd Aug 2018
    10:43pm
    ‘A Husband is Not a Retirement Plan’, what an insulting name for what is probably a serious report. I hope you do not apply that sentiment to my wife. She has supported me throughout my working life and is thoroughly deserving of enjoying the superannuation that is in my name. She has her own superannuation from when she returned to the workforce when our youngest child entered high school, but we leave it in the accumulation phase so if I predecease her she will have something to supplement her reversionary pension (which is only approximately 67% of my combined DFRDB and CSS pensions).
    Rae
    23rd Aug 2018
    8:28am
    Yes Eddy I object as well. I was widowed young and did not have a Husband retirement plan. I also had a lower income because women with husbands wouldn't fight for higher pay and caused our salaries to stagnate under the emotional nonsense of "we shouldn't do that it's not nice".
    ex PS
    24th Aug 2018
    10:06am
    Anyone with any sense looks at their spouse as part of their retirement plan. My wife could survive on her Super, I could survive on my Super.
    With our combined Super we live well.
    Fundamental truth of economic management, " Pooled resources can achieve more than fragmented pots of Assets all independently managed"
    About wage gaps, the only way to measure it honestly is to look at hourly rates, you can't work less hours than the person next to you doing the same job and expect to earn the same wage.
    Adrianus
    23rd Aug 2018
    9:10am
    Michelle O'neil is right about one thing. Her Party failed the last time they were in government. A vote for Labor is a vote for more deaths at sea.
    Anonymous
    24th Aug 2018
    10:14am
    and more debt and deficit - and higher energy costs - and less jobs and open borders and will sacrifice our sovereignty to UN and EU + + +
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    12:19pm
    It wasn't Labor that put the debt and deficit up past $500bn, bob.....
    GeorgeM
    23rd Aug 2018
    12:07pm
    Superannuation is good to promote savings from people who work for a wage - nothing else! It's tax advantages should be capped / limited to avoid the wealthy using it to boost their wealth excessively.
    Starting with Keating's propaganda, people have got confused as it is NOT a replacement for Age Pension - which is paid for by the 7.5% tax which is still charged from all taxpayers.

    The only equitable solution is to have Universal Age Pension based only on Age (65 yrs) and Residency (say 15 years) with NO other Tests, and let all make additional money if they wish to or are capable for.

    Leave the other issues in the report quoted as meaningless BS - there is NO discrimination against women in this country - we even have incompetent women in senior positions such as Chairpersons such as in AMP, CBA, etc - which have all been take to task by the RC primarily for their incompetence as well as lack of ethics.
    Rae
    23rd Aug 2018
    3:12pm
    Yes. A lot of women staying home and not working then complaining they don't have superannuation is pretty silly.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2018
    10:13am
    A lot of women staying at home and working UNPAID is doing a lot of good for society (or used to!), but suddenly money is the only thing that counts in this world and those who work for no pay are scorned and deemed deserving of an old age lived in poverty.

    Maybe it's time to restore some of the traditional values that underpinned a much healthier society and happier nation. Women were ALWAYS free to go to work (contrary to the lies told by ''libbers''). What ''liberation'' has done is denied them the right to stay at home and be homemakers and mothers. For many - like mothers of disabled children - that's a terrible tragedy. One mother I love dearly is forced to choose between lifelong poverty and institutionalising her child. Her former work colleagues (in a well-paid profession) say she should just do the latter and get on with life. What a horrid world it would be if all mothers of disabled children opted to do that! But they are not left with much choice in a money-obsessed society.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2018
    10:13am
    A lot of women staying at home and working UNPAID is doing a lot of good for society (or used to!), but suddenly money is the only thing that counts in this world and those who work for no pay are scorned and deemed deserving of an old age lived in poverty.

    Maybe it's time to restore some of the traditional values that underpinned a much healthier society and happier nation. Women were ALWAYS free to go to work (contrary to the lies told by ''libbers''). What ''liberation'' has done is denied them the right to stay at home and be homemakers and mothers. For many - like mothers of disabled children - that's a terrible tragedy. One mother I love dearly is forced to choose between lifelong poverty and institutionalising her child. Her former work colleagues (in a well-paid profession) say she should just do the latter and get on with life. What a horrid world it would be if all mothers of disabled children opted to do that! But they are not left with much choice in a money-obsessed society.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2018
    10:13am
    A lot of women staying at home and working UNPAID is doing a lot of good for society (or used to!), but suddenly money is the only thing that counts in this world and those who work for no pay are scorned and deemed deserving of an old age lived in poverty.

    Maybe it's time to restore some of the traditional values that underpinned a much healthier society and happier nation. Women were ALWAYS free to go to work (contrary to the lies told by ''libbers''). What ''liberation'' has done is denied them the right to stay at home and be homemakers and mothers. For many - like mothers of disabled children - that's a terrible tragedy. One mother I love dearly is forced to choose between lifelong poverty and institutionalising her child. Her former work colleagues (in a well-paid profession) say she should just do the latter and get on with life. What a horrid world it would be if all mothers of disabled children opted to do that! But they are not left with much choice in a money-obsessed society.
    Anonymous
    25th Aug 2018
    10:28am
    Whoops! Sorry for the repetition. The website stuffed up. It honestly wasn't me!
    TREBOR
    24th Aug 2018
    8:58am
    I'll lay it out for you all again:-

    The census said that women work 30 hours compared to men 39 - that's a difference of near 23% ...

    The 'workplace gender equality agency' (there is such a thing now - Jesus!) says that the current 'gap is 17.3% ........

    So that means the current real gap is 23 - 17.3% - 5.7% in favour of women.

    Reality sucks, eh?

    So if women are not accumulating enough money to satisfy their whining in retirement - they'll need to work more hours ...... and if they wish to attain genuine 'workplace gender equality' - they're going to have to slot more men into the higher paid position until equity is attained for real - and men and women are being paid the same per hour worked.

    What an absolute pack of nonsense this all is - and what an utter waste of time and money employing a few ideologues and useful idiots in an agency such as this 'workplace gender equality agency.

    On a side-note - how many more Star Chambers filled with ideologues and useful idiots, all telling lies, does this nation have to endure before it wakes up?