Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 100

Superlinks - not a gift to the rich

Congratulations on the 100th edition of Cuffelinks and thank you for asking me to make some observations on the state of the superannuation system.

We have a system that has grown rapidly to a scale considerably larger than the entire market capitalisation of our stock market so it is little wonder that it is never long out of the news or the thoughts of our politicians. Despite our pleadings this is unlikely to change. Rather, we must be vigilant and energetic to ensure we avoid disastrous policy swings and encourage moderate and rational reforms.

Currently some commentators are highly focused on the tax breaks available for super in relation to both its compulsory and voluntary forms and see attacking these as a simple solution to the structural public deficit implied by current spending and taxation projections.

Place super concessions in context

There is undoubtedly a case for some reform, but context is important.

Firstly, the current tax incentives are in fact far less than those applicable up to 1983, well before the system became universal.

Secondly, the various estimates made by Treasury over the years of the amount of tax revenue foregone are somewhat debatable. They assume that, in the absence of these concessions, the system would still have sufficient political support to continue into the future, but with contributions taxed at personal tax rates. In reality, the long term outcome of removal of concessions cannot be known and is not measured by Treasury.

Thirdly, those that lobby for winding back superannuation or its preferred tax treatment often do so on the quite erroneous assumption that governments would direct the savings towards support for welfare recipients and lower-income households. There is little evidence to suggest that this Government would rank the case of the welfare sector ahead of the strident demands of corporate Australia for reduced company tax and a lower marginal tax rate on high income earners.

Superannuation for the average worker and particularly for working women had to be fought for. That much does not change.

It is also true that some estimates of the extent to which tax concessions on super accrue to the rich are misleading because they do not take account of the extent to which this is caused by the fact that a very high proportion of contributions, and especially of voluntary contributions, are made by those who are relatively well off.

Worst public policy was a ‘parting gift to the rich’

Having said all of that however, it is undoubtedly the case that former Treasurer Peter Costello’s parting gift to the rich, massively raising the amount they could contribute to super while simultaneously abolishing any earnings tax on funds held in a superannuation pension environment, must rank as one of the worst pieces of public policy in living memory.

Far better to skew the tax concessions the other way, that is to the low paid who will struggle to build an adequate retirement nest egg and who will make the greatest claim on future public spending on the age pension and associated health care needs.

Funding infrastructure needs

A second area of significant current public focus is the question of funding for infrastructure. While it may have appeared, following a number of public statements by NSW Premier Mike Baird, that there was finally an awareness among politicians for the need to show leadership in creating new infrastructure, even if this meant recycling existing state-owned assets, the recent Queensland election landslide has again cast doubt upon the possibilities of a consensus model.

It is not yet clear whether the Queensland result was triggered by the particular circumstances, such as substantial public sector job losses or perhaps an allergic reaction to excessive Abbotism. What is clear is that we require a new way to reconcile the need for private sector funding for our substantial future infrastructure needs with the justifiable public aversion to a sell-off of assets to (potentially foreign) financial intermediaries and others primarily interested in short term profit and possibly lacking the long term interest in the public benefit to be derived by these assets.

On a number of occasions in recent years I have attempted to advance a model that might be characterised as the ‘mutualisation of infrastructure’ by more directly linking our world class superannuation system to our need for nation building economic, social and environmental infrastructure. The model is most recently set out in my March 2015 paper, Mutualisation of Infrastructure.

Our super system has evolved to the point where it has the potential to lead this country’s newest and strongest source of comparative advantage, abating our dependence on commodity exports. For example, IFM Investors already has many more offshore clients than Australian clients and manages money not only for leading pension funds, but for some of the world’s largest insurance companies.

Fair system can also be engine of growth

Our system needs reform at the margin to ensure it has credibility from a fairness point of view. But with appropriate nurturing our system can also be an engine of advancement for our nation, solving our needs for infrastructure development, while taking the pressure off the public purse and simultaneously creating a clean and prosperous new sector of world comparative advantage.

 

Garry Weaven is Chair of IFM Investors, ME Bank and ‘thenewdaily.com’. As ACTU Assistant Secretary in the 1980’s, he played a seminal role in the development of the industry super fund movement.

 

6 Comments
David
March 14, 2015

Gary. While I applaud your ambition about Australia potentially exporting a skillset in managing infrastructure, the fee revenue from IFM hasn't reached the $100bn Australia earns in commodity exports yet - or has it? As an industry fund member I look forward to the Fruits of that in my next statement. I hope your fees for foreigners are exorbitant.

Max
March 12, 2015

Super is not a panacea for funding endless infrastructure investment. It is often more risky than its reputation and more illiquid than is appropriate for funds under the current choice of fund model.

Graham Hand
March 12, 2015

Hi MattD, I don't believe my assessment is that different. In my article, I was quoting Treasury saying the $32 billion number should not be used or relied on. Garry says "... some estimates of the extent to which tax concessions on super accrue to the rich are misleading".

MattD
March 13, 2015

Garry says "They (I take this to mean Treasury) assume that, in the absence of these concessions, the system would still have sufficient political support to continue into the future, but with contributions taxed at personal tax rates". In your piece Treasury makes it clear they don't make these assumptions. They are given the task of determining the value of the tax concessions, they don't make assumptions about how individuals or governments might react in response to changes. Nor do they make any policy recommendations based on their findings. Nit-picking I know, and not that significant to the article in its entirety. Thanks for the feedback.

MattD
March 12, 2015

Graham Hand recently provided a very different assessment of how Treasury understands their Tax Expenditure Statement with regard to tax-concessions related to superannuation.

http://cuffelinks.com.au/treasury-says-dont-use-32-billion-number/

David
March 12, 2015

re
"...it is undoubtedly the case that former Treasurer Peter Costello’s parting gift to the rich, massively raising the amount they could contribute to super while simultaneously abolishing any earnings tax on funds held in a superannuation pension environment, must rank as one of the worst pieces of public policy in living memory."

Not to mention the stupidity of it. Why are Costello and Howard lauded? Current govt woes re deficts would be almost non-existent if this bit of boom-wasting, vote-buying stupidity had not occurred.

Thanks

David, certainly not rich, but on a tax-free life in pension mode.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Do you plan to be a ‘have’ or a ‘have not’?

A super consensus needed before the demographic tsunami

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.