Millions fall ‘victim’ to super system: KPMG

Australia discriminates against the majority of its population, according to financial services giant KPMG.

piggy bank

Australia discriminates against the majority of its population, according to financial services giant KPMG.

The repercussions are severe, long lasting and costly for the government in the long run, it argues.

In its submission to the government’s review, KPMG says that just over half of the population is not adequately supported by one of the key retirement income pillars, superannuation.

Treasury received hundreds of submissions by last week’s deadline, including one from YourLifeChoices, and a big number criticised the adequacy of super for this group – women.

KPMG says women are victims and that there are “ significant disparities’ in the super system for men and women.

Rather than supporting women, KPMG says the system “does the opposite”.

Australian women on average, earn $26,000 a year less than men, according to KPMG figures.

And the divide becomes more substantial after leaving the workforce, with women currently retiring with around half the superannuation balance of males. Latest government figures show the median balance for men at or approaching retirement is $183,000 and for women, $119,000.

KPMG says the imbalance is due to several longstanding reasons:

  • less continuity in women’s careers and fewer hours worked
  • less pay for equal work and less likely than men to gain promotions
  • more time out of the workforce to have children
  • more responsibilities in caring for family.

KPMG executives Linda Elkins, partner and national sector leader, asset and wealth management; Grant Wardell-Johnson, partner of economics and tax centre, and Cecilia Storniolo, director, superannuation advisory wrote: “With a blank sheet of paper, one might expect a retirement income policy to redress the unequal contribution that women have made to society through care of the future generation.

“However, Australia’s current retirement income policy does precisely the opposite.

“Through superannuation concessions, for example, it takes the inequality in earnings that arise from the inequality in parental care responsibilities and amplifies them. That is, it exacerbates the issue by providing for a lifetime disadvantage for a current acceptance of a greater burden of parental responsibility.”

For older women, KPMG has suggested providing super contributions for those aged 50 to 59 who receive Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

“These individuals (largely women) would also benefit considerably from having their superannuation savings topped up directly, as they would have limited ability to supplement their own mandatory superannuation contributions,” KPMG says.

“This might ultimately save the Commonwealth money over the longer run if the superannuation fund performs well, and would deliver additional personal wellbeing benefits compared to greater reliance on the Age Pension.”

It has recommended a number of additional changes, including extra contributions for parents and carers, and the removal of the $450 per month wage threshold for entitlement to employer super contributions.

Kobi Maglen, director of strategy and advocacy for housing at not-for-profit group Social Ventures Australia (SVA), drives home the point that the retirement income system does not adequately support women. “There are more than 300,000 women between the ages of 45 and 65 who are at significant risk of homelessness when they retire, if not before,” she told The Age.

During the five-year period between the 2011 and 2016 censuses, there was a 31 per cent increase in the number of older women experiencing homelessness.

Do you believe the super system needs to be urgently overhauled to better cater for women? Are you confident this will be a priority for the government in the wake of the retirement income review?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
mogo51
12th Feb 2020
9:50am
If the average super balance is $183k, why does the Govt penalise pensioners who earn more than $300 fortnight? Do they enjoy watching pensions eating dog food or going without medication etc?
When will these pretenious jerks in Caberra extract their heads from their anus???
Horace Cope
12th Feb 2020
10:59am
Not again! This subject has surely been done to death about women's incomes and super? Women earn less than men because they don't work the same hours as men. All industrial awards in Australia don't differentiate between genders. Those who negotiate a salary package do so with eyes wide open. It naturally follows that if women work less hours than men and take breaks in employment then the super must be less than men.

I note that the ACTU is agitating for women to be paid a rate of 15% super to enable a catch-up. Plibersek has also made a similar statement about a government "topping up" super for women. Women apparently want equality as long as they get more than men. This is dividing people and destroying any sense of equality.
Triss
12th Feb 2020
11:22am
Perhaps we need a shift, Horace. All men stay at home and be house husbands and lose a great part of super and, like women who work less hours outside of the home, have a lot less to retire on. That should be true equality.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
12:28pm
Well Triss once again we look at an issue with total gender bias. The only 'true equality', ie YOUR true equality, that we ever consider is in favour of one gender. That gender, in all aspects of present day Society, is female gender. There is relentless aspirations to advantage women, and it has succeeded. The true sector of a present day identity driven Society the sector that receives advantage in every aspect of consideration is women.

So what we are going to give all women who work less ours than men, a taxpayer funded Government contribution for Superannuation. That means all those women who receive greater income than many men, receive a tax payer funded Government contribution. And no man who works less hours, has greater time unemployed, or spends more time with his kids, is excluded.

FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL CAN WE GET OFF "IDENTITY" POLITICS AND APPLY LEGISLATION FOR EVERYONE ACROSS THE BOARD.
Triss
12th Feb 2020
12:38pm
Wow, Olde, loosen up, grow a sense of humour for heaven’s sake.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:03pm
Triss - the Family Unit that once was holds the Family Unit Super - there is no discrimination there, even in divorce.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:12pm
Houdini II, the clear discrimination is that in divorce the female will get 50% - 80% of ALL assets, as well as a component of on-going income including salary and Super. That is why many male divorcees no longer work and inhabitant out of or edge of outer town , rural caravan parks.

See the kids.- No.

Recover - No

Marry again. - NO

Alienate from Society - Yes

Commit suicide - Yes.

So Society, Governments, the media, KPMG demonstrated light weight analysis, AND PARTICULARLY WOMEN - Keep it up. Your goal will be reached.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:14pm
And TRISS it is easy for the beneficiary to have the sense of humour. It goes hand in hand.

And if you think it is funny. I don't.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:38pm
I was referring to the split of super in isolation, Olde... you are correct. on the other points.

Some things that have crept in need to be rectified, such as this 'primary caregiver' thing that leads to direct discrimination - there are caregivers - no such thing as a primary one.
Sundays
12th Feb 2020
3:50pm
...except that for Anyone earning less tgan $450 a month the employer does not have to contribute to Super. This affects more women who work part time. If employers had to contribute for all employees there would ne more of a level playing field
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
4:06pm
Sundays, it may be worded as employer contributions but the Super actually comes out as the percentage of your salary package. The <$450 a month people can still contribute the same Super amount. It is not compulsory to do so, and it is simply not the employer's responsibility to do so either. It is the same for tradies working for themselves. They have to contribute from their own income.

But oh yes, women would be getting diddled again. But they do have a tax free <$450 a month. Just like men as well. But there you go, gender getting in the way again. It is an addiction in today's Society, and contains the usual victim/poor me addiction as well.
Horace Cope
12th Feb 2020
4:19pm
Sundays, the minimum wage in Australia is $19.49ph so anyone who earns less than $450.00pm will be getting less than 23 hours work per month or about 5 hours per week. I would respectfully suggest that most employees (if not all) who are working those hours have made a personal choice to do so.
Sundays
12th Feb 2020
4:52pm
Yes it must be a personal choice in the current environment of several part time jobs just to get by. Super is paid by the employer at 9% for employees working more hours. It only come from individual contributions for public servants and the like
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
5:13pm
Sundays I will emphasise it again. The Super is out of your salary package. It is NOT a contribution by your employer. I for example worked for the Federal Gov at the time Super became compulsory. It means your take home pay was reduced by the % required for the introduced 'compulsory' contribution. It was and still is deducted by your employee by your negotiated salary (package) and accumulated on your behalf by the employer contracted Super Fund. That contribution by the individual is a tax free element of your salary package, deducted from salary prior to application of the ATA taxation thresholds.

A look at salary pay slips will confirm what I am saying. Federal Govt pay slips particularly . And there is not difference in private employment. It is one of the contributing factors for companies to go on the 'part time employee' cash payment (contractor) path. ie less salary component requiring Super contributions, less office space, no long service commitments etc
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
7:53pm
One good reason I will never vote Labor as it is currently constituted, Horace. Money equals power and obviously they think we, as Australians, are stupid enough to not realise that handing to one group more money as a 'right' is going to create a massively divided society - with you know who at the top.

This idea from Plibersek is as bad as the decision of the High Court saying that two men - criminals - who were not citizens but who claimed 'Indigenous' status - could not be deported because Indigenous had some special connection to the land etc.

Jesus God - that means that any landholder - who obviously has 'connection to the land' - cannot be deported.

This kind of fairy floss 'thinking' has got to stop - or this country will end up in the absolute gutter, with separate little supremacist groups running around all over the place and being nothing but endless trouble. BTW - if women ever run the show, as these 'feminists' clearly want - this country will fall... to the first 'patriarchal' invader. Traditional Aussies are already being eaten alive, and have been eaten alive since the heady immigrant days, by the 'patriarchals', who act as a group, do not tolerate divorce, and where the men make the decisions and everyone in the family knows his/her place at the direction of the head of family ....
Sundays
12th Feb 2020
11:34pm
Olde, you worked for the Federal Government, a completely different system to the Private Sector. In the Private sector it is the employer who must put in the 9% Superannuation guarantee. This is why small and medium businesses are often investigated because they fail to pay the employees super. It is Not an after tax contribution from the employees salary such as you are used to.

Employees can add to super but it is not mandatory like the public sector schemes. Likewise, you have probably retired on a defined benefit pension whereas in the Private sector their super is held in an accumulation fund. Having worked in super, I fully understand the difference.
Sundays
12th Feb 2020
11:38pm
A Private sector employee receives Gross minus Tax equals Net. That is their tale home pay. In addition, the employer pays super. It shows on the payslip but does not reduce take home pay. Employees have traded wage increases for super.
Anonymous
13th Feb 2020
3:14am
Sundays I can assure you that there is not one rule for some and another rule for others.

And I can assure you that however presented a persons income is the total income package minus a tax free Super component, and the take home pay is the tax adjusted balance.

it is that way because your Super component is the % proportion of your over package . Pl check the accuracy of the proportion which will confirm the total figure to which the % is applied.
Sundays
13th Feb 2020
9:18am
You are incorrect. there are very different rules for public servants as there are for Parliamentarians. I am referring to ordinary workers in offices, banks, retail, hospitality, factories etc who work for a wage. For those people Super is not, repeat not deducted from their pay. It is paid the employer. Do a bit of research rather than try to assure me!
Anonymous
13th Feb 2020
10:48am
Well Sundays you have the attitude of ALL women. Salae[ries for men and women in Public Service and private wage earners have the same legislation covering compulsory superannuation. Whether taken out before or after wage payments.

It is a play on words if people think it is any different for one or the other. Admittedly politicians have a different arrangement. But does that surprise you. I can assure you that Federal Public Servants do not fall into that framework. They have identical legislation to private enterprise covering their compulsory Super contributions. Same % and everyone has the opportunity to contribute more.

Sundays it is not like women who have seperate Legislations covering plenty of concessions towards their cost of living. This KPMG article is suggesting a further concession to females in the same Legislation that should sim[ply apply to all persons, regardless of gender. All that does is confirm that women have a higher delegation of superiority in the human race

It is long overdue that we have no Legislation that is gender specific. We could for example even introduce that women receive the same sentence as a man for committing identical criminal offences.
Sundays
13th Feb 2020
2:29pm
Obviously, you didn’t bother to research the current Superannuation system
Anonymous
13th Feb 2020
4:30pm
Sundays i just saw a News item that reported (by female presenters as usual) that under the current Sex Discrimination legislation men and women have to be treated the same. However there are moves to make changes that allow different treatment and special contributions by the Government for females, like in the (Government generated KPMG recommendations, that women are able to be given and receive more favourable Government based and taxpayer funded Superannuation contributions.

If you and women in general think this is acceptable you are under severe self delusion. Would it be acceptable if the genders were reversed.

Pleasing for you I feel totally alienated from the Country from where my relatives first settled in the 1820s. Two of them were convicts, just as white men are presently. Oh sorry in your terminology that is OLD white men. You know the ones that the backbone of this Country was derived under. Furthermore 5 immediate male relatives lost lives in WW1 and WW11, and this Country wishes to turn on the white males from the very same derivation or ancestry.

You can twist any current definition of Superannuation to suit your purpose. Women are dedicated to that modus operandi. You and your kind would be pleased if your 'old white males' terminated their own lives. Well the continuing rejection from our Society is heading towards that outcome, to add to the already greater instance amongst males.
Anonymous
14th Feb 2020
12:09am
Olde, your comments are correct, and Sundays, you are wrong about the private sector, as it is the same as in the Govt. I have mainly worked there, and have seen all the way through that Super was /is part of the package, not paid in addition to whatever package you agreed with the employer. As far as I know, only politicians get these massive Base Salaries (which increase every year without fail) and then get 15.4% Super on top of it.
Anonymous
14th Feb 2020
7:12am
Thank you GeorgeM.
ex PS
14th Feb 2020
4:40pm
Defined Benefit Super Schemes were phased out of The Queensland State Governments years ago. They went to the same type of schemes as the public, payouts are now dependant upon the performance of the fund. Many Super contributions were funded by the Public Servants agreeing to forgo pay increases for increased payments into Super.
State Governments as the employer pay the mandated payments on behalf of their employees, employees are free to make extra payments or make Salary Sacrifices as they wish. No extra payments go into the Defined Benefit part of Super, it has to go into an Accumulative Account.
When I retired eight years ago I had money in both types of accounts, with my investment strategy I would probably have been better of if all my funds were in an Accumulative Fund.
It is my experiance that Public Servants are no better or worse of with Super other than having the Union overseeing what the Industry Fund is doing with the fund.
Tanker
12th Feb 2020
11:01am
The Govt is too bust looking after their donors and the demographic who vote for them. I just heard that Morrison will not consider the motion passed by the Senate for an independent ICAC. What is he hiding?
He is all about reducing tax for the wealthy and has no time for us also rans. The KPMG recommendation re leveling the playing field for women has no chance unless they band together as a concentrated voting bloc, then he will listen.
Triss
12th Feb 2020
12:39pm
Yes, Tanker, that ICAC is worrying.
KSS
12th Feb 2020
12:49pm
But The KMPG recommendation has nothing to do with 'levelling the playing field' and everything about discriminatory affirmative action for women.

Where are the recommendations for 'levelling the playing field' for men who are single fathers, the main carer, in low paid jobs, have been out of work for extended periods and are in danger of being rendered homeless and more susceptable to mental health issues and suicide?
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:03pm
Agree 100% KSS. Our Society is totally operating within this vengeful imbalance
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:07pm
It also appears that my small efforts to support Greg Mullins have borne some fruit - Scotty has committed to the purchase of water bombers from Canada... my estimate on fund raising required privately (my scheme) was about $1Bn to purchase and provide for six.

Not much to a government - but a lot of private fundraising without any wages etc being accepted from the funds... 100% for The Cause!

Fairbairn looks a likely spot.... Lake Burley Griffin next door, plenty of water to pick up..RAAF crews getting valuable experience.. and guys - leave the Ground Proximity Warning System on when doing a low-level run in smoke.. I know it's annoying... but it can save your life... better still, refine your tactics and avoid the smoke, and keep you eyes out of the cockpit.
cupoftea
12th Feb 2020
2:45pm
Tanker you are so right there will not be an ICAC with this government in office so the people that voted them in must be just as scared it must be rubbing off the cheat in cricket got the highest award in cricket in Australia no wonder we are the laughing stock of this planet
Tanker
12th Feb 2020
11:01am
The Govt is too bust looking after their donors and the demographic who vote for them. I just heard that Morrison will not consider the motion passed by the Senate for an independent ICAC. What is he hiding?
He is all about reducing tax for the wealthy and has no time for us also rans. The KPMG recommendation re leveling the playing field for women has no chance unless they band together as a concentrated voting bloc, then he will listen.
Linda
12th Feb 2020
11:02am
I think one big issue is that someone who must leave paid employment loses earning power. This is most commonly done by women but not exclusively. When a family member steps up and volunteers to care for another, it saves the tax payers money. There should be more recognition for that sacrifice. If a partner is being cared for and they were the big earner, then if when they die the caring spouse misses out on the joint income that kept the two going in retirement. This seems grossly unfair in situations where a person cares for a partner who has a long and debilitating illness.
KSS
12th Feb 2020
12:50pm
You don't get paid for being a family member! Nor should you.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:13pm
While that one leave employment and loses earning power - the other one is paying the bills etc...... no argument, Linda.

You CANNOT have your cake and eat it, too... despite what the empty-headed 'feminists' insisted so long ago - and women/girls cannot do everything...

I agree to some extent on the carer role... but where does the money come from? I'm a carer - even on 80 hours a fortnight, which someone said was the point at which they were cut off for not doing 40 hours a week 'carer duties' - that calculates out to $1.62 an hour.... companies are paid up to $100+ an hour to provide in-home services.

We've been over that. If the argument is that being a SAHP should be a paid job - again - where does the money come from? Personally - considering the time I took off with my children, I'd be happy, as a man, to receive back pay at today's rates for PPL and childcare subsidy.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
6:41pm
I'll add to that - there is already a massive outpouring of public funds into PPL and childcare - which blow out the Welfare budget - 'welfare' does NOT include pensions and unemployment benefits...

Of course as the inimitable Barnaby said - any government that chopped PPL and childcare, instead of attacking retirees, would lose the election..... and that is all they care about.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
7:57pm
.. same with any government that stopped affirmative action and mandated genuine equal treatment as the standard (precisely my point when I resigned from the CPS). They'd lose the election because the 'other' side, rather than looking at fair play for all as is demanded of them in their job, would make hay out this terrible thing being done to women, foreign-borns, non-English speakers, and Aborigines.

Cutting out the half-way house employment for such groups in PS and similar jobs - all well paid and funded - would cause screeching from the rooftops all across the nation.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
7:58pm
**St Julia enters stage left - screeching - "Misogyny!"**
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
8:00pm
... and look how she suffered so dreadfully under the patriarchal jackboot..... **eye rolling emoticon inserted by proxy**

I wonder if any of these people ever look in a mirror or wake up in a cold sweat thinking what they are doing to this nation and its people?
Rae
13th Feb 2020
8:05am
Carers make a choice as do the stay at home parents. Those choices are often made because it's easier at home than going to work every day. Perhaps making it easier to get paid carers in the home while couples both work will help solve the problem of no work = no super.

12th Feb 2020
1:01pm
I am staggered by the misandry based sexism that is displayed by this article, and its reflection of the uncouth bias within the KPMG modes operandi and operation foundation.What were the dot points of consideration for the basis of the assessment Probably the greatest untruth is "less pay for equal work and less likely than men to gain promotions". It is more accurate too say that women, who attend to less work hours than men, get legislated the same 'equal pay'.

It is long overdue that the men in lesser paid jobs and subject to periods of unemployment are not overlooked, and excluded, purely on gender obsession. And anyone who believes that men get greater income for lesser performance or lesser hours worked is suffering from severe delusion.

To even consider, or recommend as by KPMG, that Superannuation should be legislated with a gender basis for determining outcomes, and the eventual Legislation should contain that bias is not part of a genuine Democracy.

Also,I have just seen on television the concern that our Indigenous people experience a seven year less lifespan than non indigenous people within our population. i might add that our white males have a 4 year less life expectancy than our white females within our population. Any concerns? Also,Is it because men work harder and more physically than women.

My point overall is that white males are being alienated from our Society in a dedicated and intentional manner. Particularly driven by women. I will add, another article on the increasing suicide rate of particularly young males. This is no doubt driven by a schooling and education program that has a altered framework that elevates females above males and results in the 62% to 38% ownership by females of University entrance and graduation. And then we still wish to undertake and include directions governed bt STEM definitions, that will increase the female education dominance. On this basis a true assessment of future income potential and outcomes, will (and should) heavily favour females. But that analysis will also be deliberately fabricated. Ultimate discrimination.

The attitude revealed by the KPMG biased finding's is entrenched within our Society. It is an approach that is entrenched in our Society, and we all should be ashamed. It is even worse that our Society deliberates in the same manner.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:19pm
Anyone who suggests that women are 'less likely to be promoted' - should take a long, hard look at the 70% public service women and such - all in sweet super jobs.

What likelihood do you think a man has of being promoted there, given the never-ending howling in the corridors about women this and women that? Once the Liberal government brought in affirmative action disguised as 'equal employment opportunity' in the Commonwealth PS, it became the norm for women to cop the first appointment and promotion, and for men to languish at the bottom regardless of performance - and the attitude that women should get first preference persists to this day - not only there, but also in the Labor parts such as Unions and Party.

Men can just do the sh1t work and cop the sh1t pay and perks... women deserve a break.

Tell it to your sons... my son is a tradie - like me, very few could do his work and follow his work ethic - and no woman could sustain the physical work. I KNOW the truth of that.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
1:51pm
I will add to my above comment about the total bias against young males reflected in the education system. Are we proud that we drill into kids through the education system that females are superior and males are inferior. There is no doubt that our kids can only secure that mentality when they leave such a bent system.

The males can then go on and secure work and receive less Superannuation than females for doing the same job, via a tax payer funded top up, while they the young males are working more hours.

KPMG should be reprimanded under whatever system is available.
sunnyOz
12th Feb 2020
3:35pm
Houdini - you are PARTLY correct. I have worked in a number of public service jobs in HR, and yes, there are a large number of women making up the numbers. BUT - almost without exception - every department I had dealings with, the supervisor, manager, leader, boss, was a male. And even if a woman did happen to be in the position, it was always at a lower pay rate than the so called equal male.
An example - one position advertised for a senior - only male applicants were even considered. Even new in-coming males to my department - with less experience and less qualifications - would be on higher rates than me. I used to butt heads with my area manager regularly, to the point I came very close to a written reprimand when questioning this. At one stage, of 122 staff, 89 were female. Of the 12 high level positions, 11 were males. I saw so many highly qualified and exceptionally talented female workers leave their job due to the brick ceiling. (wasn't glass - glass could be broken. Bricks couldn't).
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
4:19pm
sunnyOZ, I doubt your figures, but in any case in the higher level jobs they do like someone who turns up all day, every day. But the 89 females out of 122 that you refer to do have guaranteed Super. Same in school teachers only women have around 80% of the jobs and 99% of Principal positions. Women also dominate Banks, Commonwealth, State, and Local Council employment numbers, and TV Docmentary reporter referrals for on site news.

You sound like a parrot. Nothing new in repeat fabricated translations. I worked within the federal Government and affirmative action was an addictive formality. Even a performance criteria for Assistant Secretaries.
Horace Cope
12th Feb 2020
4:31pm
sunnyOz, it's easy to single out a particular area without looking at the whole. The ACTU last year trumpeted that it is their intention to push for fairness in the workplace by creating more jobs for females, especially in the building trades. On the face of it, a most worthwhile aspiration. A reporter then asked what the ACTU was going to do about nursing (92% female) and education (78% female) and whether they would support applications for males only until there was a balance. (Cue the noise of crickets)
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
4:51pm
Co-rrect, Horace - equality by numbers requires that women give up those position to permit en equal number of men... that's one of the basic flaws in this kind of ideological nonsense based on emotion and not reality.

The realities just pile up and up... and of course, nobody wants to hear that, but instead resorts to insults and name-calling - 'racist, sexist, homophobic' as that post ...**eyes rolling emoticon required and inserted by proxy**

I like to watch the ABC news for 'the good oil' on some things... but it's hard not to notice the absolute predominance of attractive (in the main) females doing all the prime jobs, and the obvious gays ... I don't mind the attractive females... but seriously a Wispperer (wallowing in self pity p****er) doing a report from a battle zone, duckies? Then there are the amazing number of interviews with an endless chorus line of women force fed into position via several routes - bastardised and discriminatory education, special scholarships, pogroms to force men out of academia and teaching thus creating 62% women graduates, funny job 'academic curricula', affirmative action - pure discrimination as in employment in the banks etc... not to mention the basic underlying fear that unless kow-towing is done to ethnic groups, Indigenous ideas, and women in appointment and election to 'mayor', CEO, etc position, there will be an endless screeching of racism, homophobism, discrimination and sexism up to and including 'misogyny'....

It's called by what it is - BULLYING!

Affirmative action? Nope - pure discrimination...
Sundays
12th Feb 2020
5:01pm
Ah so Olde you must have been one of those dinosaurs who thought a womens place was in the home and could not accept that the applicant with the best skill set was sometimes a women. If women are receiving a better deal than they used to (which I doubt is in all workplaces) its fantastic for all our daughters!
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
5:49pm
Sundays, for a male to win a job application or promotion in these environments he needs to be a minimum of 20% better than any female but that will give him no guarantee above quota satisfaction. Likewise if a female applicant wishes to torpedo an opposition male applicant for appointment or application she can just raise fabricated sexual assault charges. Guilty until proven innocent. eg the present NRL player facing similar circumstances

This extends even further into complete minimisation of male school teachers. Males are completely jeopardised against becoming a teacher. Opportunities for promotion or appointment that challenge a female individual (including appointment dominance) can simply be met by fabricated sexual assault charges. Guilty until proven innocent. Similarly fe3male students can use similar threats to assure examination outcomes.

And inclusion Sundays I cannot accept your "fantastic for all our daughters. I would prefer ' fantastic for all our daughters and sons, and fantastic for all our granddaughters and grandsons.

So please continue on with name calling like 'dinosaur' or 'old white male'. Very trendy and unaccountable in our present day Society. And a true reflection of women's attitude towards men. Do you think 'respect' is diminishing?
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
5:51pm
And Sundays, I would suggest that the diminishing respect (for women) is self induced.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
6:34pm
Sundays - that is called an ad hominem and is used to avoid discussion of facts. I have to agree with Olde that it would have been far better if you'd said 'fantastic for all our daughters and sons'..... that you did not, but chose instead to trumpet the 'victory' of girls in getting pushed up unequally - shows where you stand..

I have a grandson and two grand-daughters - I expect and demand that they all get a fair chance and an equal go..... their grandmother and I have earned it, trust me on this.
Sundays
12th Feb 2020
11:54pm
Except they are not the facts. When I held senior positions in both the Private and public sectors i was promoted on merit. There was no quota. Neither did I have to fabricate sexual assault charges. It is insulting to suggest otherwise. You and Olde may wish to change the narrative but it is incorrect. However, when I first started work in a bank only men could be tellers because they were thought to be better with numbers! Fortunately, when I went to university as a mature student, my higher grades spoke for themselves! Maybe that’s why I was promoted!
Anonymous
13th Feb 2020
1:37am
So all those men around you who weren't promoted on genuine merit - not the EEO 'merit' of being of a Chosen Group - were just not good enough? they've been doing the job for decades and very well, thanks, and showed the way to how it is done - now they are not good enough to even get a start in the banks etc?

I'm not the one changing any narrative - I always out-performed everyone.... you know - designed and implemented new systems used to this day.. monumental work ethic ... always the one who stayed on Christmas Eve and answered the phone until closing... actually DID things - not just relied on idiot savant learning and paper tiger qualifications - which BTW - have increasingly become avenues of propaganda.

In the PS results are not what counts.... it's Mz Congeniality and Mz Kow-Tow and say the right words (as opposed to an Australian MAN who does not push his own barrow and does not gild the lily to suit himself but continues to imagine people making decision know WTF they are talking about) - Jesus, woman - there are now 'courses' to teach people how to apply for the Defence Force.....

You mean those interviewing have no idea what they are looking at and what they are looking for - beyond quotas? Maybe in that arena I've somehow been fortunate - on performance two Commando officers had no hesitation about me doing a one-man op at night, and certain others had no hesitation about giving me command of certain things you will never hear about, such as deep intrusions into hostile territory..... but then I'm spoiled, eh? Must be preferential treatment... we men had it so good for so long, and never got anywhere other than by preference, eh?

(Jesus)... one day the real world will rise up to bite PC Australia - big time...
Anonymous
13th Feb 2020
3:29am
Well i can assure people that within the Federal Government the methodology was to 'spill' all positions within a sector of the Department, call for applications, and then apply a quota to favour female appointment. End of story. Many men with a long period of years in dedication were simply given the flick. The really high ball performers, some favourites, and women were generally given exemption of their position being 'spilled'.

And yes that is wonderful Australia driven by PC ideology.

The long term mental impact on many me was irreversible. Like go get another job and start again. No compensation for being a victim of the quota ideology. Defence was a particular example.
Anonymous
13th Feb 2020
7:32am
Hey Sundays you can delude yourself as much as you wish.

However if we get back to the point of discussion, if the Government is going to top up women's Superannuation, as per the KPMG proposal, that top up comes from taxpayer funding. Men making up a greater proportion of the workforce (because men have no choice), then men contribute a greater amount to tax revenue. On that principal men will proportionally contribute the greater amount to any proposed top up by taxpayers to women's Super. So men contribute the greater amount to women's Super.

Can you please comment on the acceptance if such a proposal were gender reversed.

I might add that at my level of work attainment within the Federal Government, i would suggest that the KPMG report is a sub contracted report initiated by the Government with guidelines and parameters set in and determined by the Government. The desired outcomes would also have been identified. That is the lead up to Government policy formulation. It also provides the inequity of the Government being able to issue misleading statements like, "well this was an independent public finding".
Sundays
13th Feb 2020
9:26am
I actually do not support the KPMG proposal, it does not make economic sense. I would like employers to be forced to pay Super for all those earning less than $450 per month. This mostly affects casual and part time employees who are mostly women
Sundays
13th Feb 2020
9:32am
Houdini, when I worked in the Public Sevice, the selection panel was always made up of both men and women. Often I was asked to be the token woman on a pane of 3. The men on those panels chose the best applicant based on merit. They were not brow beaten by anyone. Are you suggesting the men were all sell outs?
Anonymous
13th Feb 2020
11:03am
Sundays - "Sell outs". They were sell outs because I observed in that same environment where policy direction that was applied, ensured that any majority or blank 100% white out of 3 out of 3 interviewers were female, was put in place.

If the required interview result to abide with female selection domination, represented by quota was not met, then the outcome and interview report was rejected, and the position re-advertised and replacement interview panel selected. Selected until the desired gender based outcome was achieved.

So instead of 2, 3, or 4 interview panel processes, the end result was a female winner was selected for appointment. Today's outcome of total domination of Federal, State or Local Government positions by women, with the ease of generous Super conditions, and longer term work position security is endemic.
Anonymous
14th Feb 2020
12:21am
Olde, lots of great comments. The KPMG statement about women getting "less pay for equal work and less likely than men to gain promotions" is the biggest lie in this article, and is sufficient reason to consign the entire article into the rubbish bin as a biased piece of garbage. Females are already being promoted and put into higher paying jobs too often with qualified men being pushed aside - have seen many examples of it, and they now seem to be over-represented given the many who still prefer to look after families instead of getting corporate careers.

If they really want to help under-represented categories, they (Labor to listen here) should start putting into executive roles people from Aboriginal, Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, Middle-Eastern, etc, etc, backgrounds through Quotas too - call it Affirmative Action, hey?
I think we have reached a point where sane people (including women) need to speak up and knock down these nonsensical discriminatory practices denying rewards based on merit.
Anonymous
14th Feb 2020
7:40am
Agree GeorgeM, and we also should 'knock down' having white men as the only identity that can be discriminated against and used as an item for detrimental abuse as a form of entertainment.

The actions we refer to is the main reason for my inputs.

Thanks again.
Anonymous
14th Feb 2020
1:10pm
Olde, while I agree with most of your comments, it is not correct to say "..white men as the only identity that can be discriminated against" - as all of the many backgrounds I listed (add to that any non-whites) are also discriminated against - usually in favour of women, especially in favour of white females, and even more so, the blonde (mostly fake being coloured hair) white females.
Anonymous
14th Feb 2020
3:50pm
GeorgeM I interpreted your final para as being satire. The difference being that those identities that you have identified can all claim discrimination. Yes. but white males cannot without being labelled sexist, racist or some other kind of 'ist'. I agree with your 'white woman' aspects. You know, some kind of protected species. Can do wrong but it is never defined as 'wrong'.

12th Feb 2020
1:02pm
"Australian women on average, earn $26,000 a year less than men"

Absolutely correct - they EARN what they earn...super is based on what you earn - no discrimination there in any way. anyone else sick of this nonsense doing the rounds?

Does a labourer on $26,000 part-time casual get as much super as a builder pulling $278,000? Get with the reality for a change.

What are your wonderful proposals? Give women (and all others on low incomes!!!) all the best paying jobs (already in action)? Pay them a bonus on their super to 'top up'?

If you work on average 32 hours to another group's 41 - you EARN less.. at least they got that word correct, even though they still have difficulty with its meaning.... you EARN what you WORK for in hours and effort under circumstances where everyone is paid the same rate for the same job - you understand what is this EARNING?

Work ten hours you EARN ten hour's pay - work forty hours you EARN 40 hour's pay. (DUH).

Sounds a little like the far more honourable Trebor Scheme, in which every working age individual has a specified amount placed every fortnight, and can then add savings over and above but under income tax rules and with a specified limit.

Good Old Trebor! Every day YLC says he doesn't exist - every day like a modern Prometheus, he re-lives... and will keep the girl in play until you fix your system or stop acting like children - whichever comes first.
Horace Cope
12th Feb 2020
4:59pm
Nice post Bob, nice avatar stolen from a previous poster whose name shall not be spoken.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
6:17pm
Same Poster, Horatio.... they just keep vanishing my account so I have to re-boot every day.... hence the Houdini title...

Trebor Lives!! Not sure if it's a computer thing or I'm being sneakily targeted by some ideologue who can't handle the truth... but every week it's the same - I go to log on - says 'wrong password' - then I say 'remind me - it says 'email address not known' - so I re-enlist.... under a different name..

I warned that I would keep the girl until this nonsense stopped.. told the webmaster about it - no response...
Tomi
12th Feb 2020
1:41pm
When I read these comments, I’m disgusted and saddened by the lack of compassion shown..
There appears to be no value, placed on unpaid work..
The only people that seem to make comments on here, are old white males..
Racist, sexist and probably homophobic, who probably don’t believe in climate change..
Like most of the politicians running our country..
All people deserve our compassion..
It’s up to us to make changes to support all disadvantaged people, or we are just savages.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
2:08pm
Yep; Tomi ,'old white males'. The ONLY group in Society against whom discrimination is authorised. The epitomy of the 'identity' culture, under which we exist.

Yes you are savages because this focus once again is on females, and by females, reflects the attitude prevailing today.

Your last para says 'support all disadvantaged people'. Well why are males excluded under the subject article.

Why use the convenience based lazy, degrading and derogatory identity terminology, like 'old white men' (your terminology). It reflects your character, or lack there of. And you emphasise the most derogatory terminology used for group identity insults, based on hatred and contempt.

Only savages would rest their laurels on abuse of one sector only of Society. All groups, and particularly women. satisfy sadism and dismissal with the terminology - 'old white males'.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
4:40pm
**falls of chair laughing** so now citing facts and realities obvious to all if they but choose to look, makes one "Racist, sexist and probably homophobic"!

Affirmative action ISN'T racist, heterophobic and sexist?

Your Newspeak performance is outstanding...

Well, schweetheart - when the 2011 Census came out it said --- well let's just cut to the chase...:-

Let us do a simple calculation or two:-

Men work 41 hours and earn an average $1576.60 = $38.45 an hour

Women work 32 hours and earn an average of $1243.80 = $38.87 an hour

With me so far? Do I need to go further?
Any differences are in favour of women on the total full-time jobs - and the rest is taken up by the fact that women CHOOSE to work part-time - and/or like many men these days - have only part-time to look for.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
4:52pm
Hey Houdini II, on your second example: If your figures reflect the situation in 2011. men would presently be far worse off than the $0.07, or 7c per hour deficit that your example demonstrates.

Additionally for 'affirmative action' being: racist, heterophobic and sexist, there is a large element of 'misandry' in the female affirmative action, accountability exemption addiction.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
6:24pm
Exactly, Horace - I did three renderings of those figures - haven't done one for a while.

I forgot to add 'ageist' to Tomi's comment... which is sexist, heterophobic, racist AND ageist....

**why does it say 'heterophobic' is a mis-spelling, might one ask? This is like when I was air-lifted to Canberra Hospital and the ambo para-jumper said (sotto voce) - as we alighted next to the brand new Women's and Children's Hospital - "Wonder when they're going to build the men's hospital?"**

Similarly - how come it's perfectly all right to screech 'homophobic' - but the poseur can't handle the response that his/her screeching is 'heterophobic'?

Actually the difference then was $0.42 per hour in favour of women per hour worked. It will be MUCH worse now, and will really hit the fan when super reaches its 50 year lifespan and we suddenly find that all those lovely soft seat jobs with fine government, bank etc super for women mean they have more...... as they will do.... trust me on this.

Will the same thing be aired on a daily basis, as it is how, but in reverse? MEN are retiring with less super..... they will be soon. Happens a lot already ...
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
6:37pm
Sorry - that was Olde - not Horace...
Rae
13th Feb 2020
8:10am
There is a safety net for older women who chose not to work. It's called the aged pension.

There is also the choice made when choosing not to work to have extra savings from the breadwinner put into super or elsewhere.

Choosing to not work for various reasons, none actually vital, costs a lot of money and lost opportunity if couples don't plan for later years of life.

What are the kids who supposedly benefitted from all this sacrifice doing to help?

12th Feb 2020
4:29pm
A quiet day in YLCLand - let's go out and stir up a fight by saying 'women suffer'... let's get someone killed so it'll make the papers.. clear the boredom...

No matter what facts you present- the whining will never cease...

Now are the whiners in their discontent, made glorious summer in this sun of pork barreling...
simo60
12th Feb 2020
5:42pm
Has anyone looked where women spend there money, they spend more on themselves.
Travel , cloths and what ever . Don't need this rubbish again . They don't listen some times , that is why they are where they are . Figures are great but everyone needs to get the full story.
Aussie
12th Feb 2020
6:42pm
Firstly, I made the decision to have kids, so before I had kids, I contributed extra to super. I didn't expect the government to do it as it was my choice to take time out of the workforce.

Secondly, paying super to people earning less than $450 makes no sense except for the govt and super funds. By the time the govt take their 15% contributions tax and the super fund take admin fees, and then if the employee has any insurance in their super fund, their balance will be negative.
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
8:05pm
Well said...
Anonymous
12th Feb 2020
8:07pm
As a sidenote - back in the 1980's, my kid's mother - a name in film etc - said to me "You know - I'm one of those women who have no super!"...

What could I do but raise my eyebrows... hello Robinson Crusoe! What was I doing? Sitting back in the country club throwing back a cold one while the 4A females are out there humping the boonies in the mud and dirt?

12th Feb 2020
8:44pm
Hey as a final input can women please cease from portraying themselves as a disadvantaged discriminated against group in the same context as the indigenous portion of our population.

There are, and should be, self induced limits to use of and projection of yourself as in greater need than those in genuine need.

Wake up ladies.
simo60
12th Feb 2020
9:00pm
Olde so true

13th Feb 2020
12:55pm
Above all I have just witnessed on TV news, that the PM is establishing further female focus with similar promises approaching International Women's Day. How many days to go. So that has started already with obsession to reach crescendo by the due date.

I do not think he is preparing a similar attitude for International Men's Day. he does not know the date.


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles