Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 86

Retirement system begging for reform

Much attention has been drawn recently to the high cost of the Australian superannuation system compared with pension systems overseas. The industry response has been that our defined contribution superannuation system, with its high exposure to risk assets and included features such as insurance and financial planning, is built for high performance and can’t be compared with ‘no frills’ defined benefits systems overseas.

Missing from the debate however has been proper consideration of outcomes – what do we get from this so-called ‘high performance’ superannuation system? I argue that performance of Australia’s costly ‘bespoke’ superannuation scheme should ultimately be judged on its ability to deliver sustainable and higher living standards in retirement.

Critique of current assessment

The 2014 Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index (MMGPI) released recently compares the retirement income systems of 25 countries on the basis of adequacy, sustainability and integrity. According to the MMGPI, Australia is ranked first in terms of retirement income adequacy and third in terms of sustainability. Overall, Australia’s retirement saving system was “ranked second best in the world beating the Netherlands for the first time in five years and falling just short of Denmark”.

What is remarkable about the MMGPI ranking is that it stands in marked contrast to other global aged living standard rankings. In particular, the UN/World Bank’s Global AgeWatch Index ranks Australia 57th in the world for income security for the aged. The OECD ranks Australia 32nd out of 33 for aged poverty and last for net replacement rates (the ratio of post-retirement income to pre-retirement income). This raises the question of how can the highly positive results of the MMGPI be reconciled against the negative assessment of the United Nations, OECD and World Bank. The answer lies in the way the MMGPI is measured.

First, the MMGPI adequacy index relies heavily on a projected measure of net replacement rates for the median income earner 40 years from now rather than actual replacement rates. That means these projections are based on the hypothetical assumption that the current design of the pension and superannuation systems has been in operation for the full working life of the retired population which is of course not the case for current retirees. The methodology provides an unrealistic picture of the adequacy of retirement incomes in Australia today given that it will be many years before all retirees have been through the superannuation system. Evidence on actual (rather than projected) replacement rates presents a totally different picture. According to OECD estimates, Australia’s replacement rate (retirement income as a proportion of median earnings) is the lowest among 34 OECD countries and it was even lower for retirees over 75 years of age.

Second, the MMGPI excludes a measure of poverty as a key indicator of income adequacy. A common poverty measure is the proportion of the population with incomes below 50% of median income (Burnett, Davis et al 2014). Using this well-established measure, the OECD estimates that Australia has one of the highest aged poverty rates in the OECD region (35% compared with an OECD average of 12.8%), second only to Korea (47%). While the living standards of the aged across the world are generally lower than those of the broader population, this disparity is greater in Australia than in almost all OECD countries. This is a perverse finding for such an expensive system.

Third, the MMGPI includes 25 countries at various stages of economic development while the OECD analysis includes 33 advanced economies all at comparable levels of economic development.

Superior assessment of adequacy

While the MMGPI provides a technical and assumption-driven assessment of the design of various retirement income systems and how well they are likely to perform in the long term, it is much less useful as a tool for the more important task of evaluating actual retirement outcomes. An alternative global index, the Global Sustainable Retirement Income (GSRI) Index, has been developed by the author to enable a comparative assessment of living standards in retirement. This index, covering a broad range of indicators for sustainability and adequacy, incorporates actual rather than hypothetical replacement rates and aged poverty rates in its calculation. For an explanation of the methodology click on the link at the end of this article.

Using this index, the pension system performances of 33 OECD countries were evaluated with scores assigned to each country on the basis of their performance against each indicator. According to this index, Australia ranks 25th in terms of adequacy and second in terms of sustainability. Overall, Australia comes in at a modest 13th place in contrast to second position based on MMGPI.

The low level of income adequacy for Australian retirees compared with their counterparts overseas cannot be explained away by higher rates of home ownership. Many other OECD countries have similar or even higher rates of home ownership. While publicly-provided services are estimated to enhance elderly incomes for Australian retirees by 35%, this rate is lower than the OECD average benefit of 40%. Taking into account in-kind benefits of housing and publicly-provided services does not change the overall conclusion that retirees in Australia are less well off than their OECD counterparts.

Even if the comparison is restricted to OECD countries with high-financially sustainable pension systems, Australia’s retirement system performance is still left wanting. Three fiscally sustainable pension systems stand out as having significantly higher living standards for the aged – Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands – with both Canada and the Netherlands achieving these outcomes despite more significant demographic pressures than Australia.

Policy implications

The relatively low level of income adequacy provided by the Australian retirement system raises fundamental questions. Given the significant level of national resources devoted to retirement in Australia, including superannuation fund assets equal to GDP and public expenditures on superannuation tax concessions and pension payments, should Australians be content with the low level of financial security offered by the retirement income system?

Given the mounting budget pressures associated with the projected growth of superannuation tax concessions and expenditures on aged care resulting from population aging, can we afford to be complacent about the inefficiencies and poor value for money of the retirement income system?

The policy debate is ill-served by glib references to Australia’s ‘world class pension system’ and calls for increasing the flow of compulsory contributions into the superannuation system. Such statements contribute to a sense of complacency about the effectiveness of the system that is not supported by the evidence. Rather than arguing for increasing the contribution rate, we should be asking ourselves how can we deliver better retirement outcomes with the national resources already committed to the retirement system.

Increasing the adequacy of retirement incomes without consideration of budgetary consequences is clearly not an option. The priority is therefore to identify reforms that would improve the level of retirement income adequacy without compromising, and indeed improving, fiscal sustainability. There is no silver bullet. A multi-pronged approach addressing the lack of integration between the public pension and superannuation systems, competition and governance is needed. While such reforms are complex and may take time to deliver outcomes, a good place to start is to address the undeveloped post retirement system given its very direct relationship with retirement outcomes. These issues are exercising the minds of both the Murray Inquiry and Treasury’s Review of Retirement Income Regulation, which are running concurrently.


Patricia Pascuzzo is Principal of Superannuation Policy and Research, and was formerly a Treasury Official and co-author of the Financial System Inquiry 1997. Her most recent report, An International Comparison of Pension Systems Performance in Delivering Adequate Retirement Incomes (2014)”, was commissioned by Challenger Limited, and forms part of that institution's second submission to the current Financial System Inquiry.


Leave a Comment:



20k now or 50k later? What’s driving decisions to withdraw super?

Changes are coming to superannuation

Superannuation is one part of a complex tax picture


Most viewed in recent weeks

Super changes, the Budget and 2021 versus 2022

Josh Frydenberg's third budget contained changes to superannuation and other rules but their effective date is expected to be 1 July 2022. Take care not to confuse them with changes due on 1 July 2021.

Noel's share winners and loser plus budget reality check

Among the share success stories is a poor personal experience as Telstra's service needs improving. Plus why the new budget announcements on downsizing and buying a home don't deserve the super hype.

Grantham interview on the coming day of reckoning

Jeremy Grantham has seen it all before, with bubbles every 15 years or so. The higher you go, the longer and greater the fall. You can have a high-priced asset or a high-yielding asset, but not both at the same time.

Whoyagonnacall? 10 unspoken risks buying off-the-plan

All new apartment buildings have defects, and inexperienced owners assume someone else will fix them. But developers and builders will not volunteer to spend time and money unless someone fights them. Part 1

Buffett says stock picking is too hard for most investors

Warren Buffett explained why he believes most investors should not pick stocks but simply own an S&P 500 index fund. "There's a lot more to picking stocks than figuring out what’s going to be a wonderful industry."

Should investors brace for uncomfortably high inflation?

The global recession came quickly and deeply but it has given way to a strong rebound. What are the lessons for investors, how should a portfolio change and what role will inflation play?

Latest Updates

Exchange traded products

ETFs are the Marvel of listed galaxies, even with star WAR

Until 2018, LICs and LITs dominated ETFs, much like the Star Wars franchise was the most lucrative in the world until Marvel came along. Now ETFs are double their rivals, just as Marvel conquered Star Wars.


Four leading tech stocks now look cheap

There are few opportunities to buy tech heavyweights at attractive prices. In Morningstar’s view, four global leaders are trading at decent discounts to their fair values, indicating potential for upside.


Why copper prices are at all-time highs

Known as Dr Copper for the uncanny way its price anticipates future economic activity, copper has hit all-time highs. What are the forces at play and strategies to benefit from the electric metal’s strength?


Baby bust: will infertility shape Australia's future?

In 1961, Australian women had 3.5 children on average but by 2018, this figure stood at just 1.7. Falling fertility creates a shift in demographics and the ratio of retirees to working-age people.

SMSF strategies

The Ultimate SMSF EOFY Checklist 2021

The end of FY2021 means rules and regulations to check for members of public super funds and SMSFs. Take advantage of opportunities but also avoid a knock on the door. Here are 25 items to check.


How long will the bad inflation news last?

The answer to whether the US inflation increase will prove temporary or permanent depends on the rates of growth of the quantity of money. It needs to be brought down to about 0.3% a month, and that's a problem.


The ‘cosmic’ forces leading the US to Modern Monetary Theory

If the world’s largest economy adopted a true MMT framework, the investment implications would be enormous. Economic growth would be materially greater but inflation and interest rates would also be much higher.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.