Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 113

A Swiss makeover for Australian super

Superannuation policy is tired. Yawns greeted the recent seven-year freeze of our compulsory contribution rate, and that’s been just one sign of malaise. Switzerland is renowned not only for high-end spas and wellness clinics, but good retirement policy. It’s time we signed up for a Swiss makeover.

In 1972 Switzerland came up with the useful principle of organising retirement income policy into three pillars:

  • Social safety net.
  • Compulsory occupational super. It reduces free riding on the first pillar by affluent households, helps ensure a decent proportion of wage income is replaced in retirement, and boosts national savings ahead of baby-boom retirements.
  • Incentives for voluntary contributions by people seeking comfortable self-funded retirements. More controversially, it also helps retirees to build up an estate for their children.

Since 1992 Australia too has had three pillars, but each needs re-sculpting.

Updating Australia’s three pillars

Our first pillar, the age pension, goes back to 1909. It has increasingly become not just a safety net but a middle-class entitlement. Seven out of 10 retirees rely primarily on the pension. Nine out of 10 draw some pension during part of their retirement.

Since 2009 the pension for a single retiree has stood at 28% of male average earnings. That’s the highest percentage since World War II, and possibly pre-war as well.

In its first budget the current Government tried to phase in reduced indexation of the pension. Indexation was to be wound back to growth in consumer prices alone, instead of the maximum of growth in wages and growth in consumer prices. The Senate blocked this measure.

The Government could return to the Senate with the relevant Swiss policy, namely, indexation at the average of growth in wages and growth in consumer prices. This would amount to a compromise whereby pensioners are generally protected in real terms but do not participate fully in the growth of community living standards.

Our second pillar is also dilapidated. At 9.5% of wages the compulsory contribution rate leaves us snookered. On the one hand it’s too low to counter pervasive pension dependence. On the other hand, and to the extent employers are unable to pass the compulsory levy on to employees, it jeopardises the competitiveness of Australian workers, particularly young ones. To the extent employers are able to pass on the compulsory levy to employees, however, young workers struggle to pay down study debts and put together a deposit on a home.

Swiss policies towards the second pillar can get us out of this bind.

The lifetime compulsory contribution rate in Switzerland averages about 12% of lifetime wages. This rate would be high enough for our second pillar to make worthwhile inroads into pension dependence.

Because young workers need to pay down study debts, raise a home deposit and avoid being priced out of a job, compulsory contributions on their behalf should be cut. In Switzerland the mandatory contribution rate for workers aged between 25 and 34 is just 7% of wages, compared with 15% in the case of workers aged between 45 and 54. Compared with Australia’s flat 9.5%, Switzerland’s age profile for compulsory contributions is closer to what an intelligent and far-sighted household would voluntarily choose in the absence of compulsory super and the age pension.

To support the competitiveness of Australian workers, future rises in compulsory contributions should fall on employees. This would take us part-way towards the Swiss policy whereby employers are allowed to pay as little as one half of second-pillar contributions.

Employer contributions to our super are generally taxed at a flat 15%, as are fund earnings before retirement. In this way, there is no progressivity in our super taxes, apart from contribution limits and a higher tax on employer contributions on behalf of those with salaries exceeding $300,000 per annum. Wealthy families use housing investments outside super to avoid tax, access the pension and protect planned estates. This diverts savings from productive investments, and props up house prices.

In Switzerland and most other countries, by contrast, super taxes are delayed until retirement. Retirement income is taxed in line with the regular progressive rate scale. So lifetime taxation of super is effectively a progressive consumption tax. This promotes fairness and efficiency.

Then there is the worrying fact that Australian super funds have the highest exposure to growth assets within the OECD. Switzerland, by contrast, caps equity investments at 50% and real estate investments at 30%.

New type of super account

We need a new kind of super account alongside the familiar one paying lump sums after retirement. These new accounts would be reserved for lifelong income streams, again echoing Switzerland, which encourages annuitisation of second-pillar benefits. Precise specification of eligible lifelong income streams — life expectancy products versus full life annuities, minimum annual escalation rates, etc. — is of second-order importance, and is best left to another occasion.

Like existing accounts the new ones would be subject to contribution limits. Indeed, these limits would initially need to be low, to protect the budget in the short term.

The new accounts would be tax-free until retirement, at which point annuity income would face the regular rate scale. Exposure to growth assets within the new accounts, once annuitised, would be capped at 50%.

Super contributors could open either or both types of account, in this respect echoing the United States and Canada. (Good as it is, Swiss policy isn’t the answer to all our problems). Over time, however, changes in contribution limits would redirect compulsory contributions into the new Swiss-style accounts. Likewise, compulsory contributions on behalf of new workers would go into the new accounts.

The old-style accounts would still be taxed upfront, largely free of asset restrictions and eligible for lump-sum withdrawals. But they would eventually be reserved largely for third-pillar retirement savings.


Geoffrey Kingston is a professor in the Department of Economics at Macquarie University. He would like to thank the Centre for International Financial Regulation for research support.


Andrew Wakeling
June 24, 2015

I see the Financial Times likes our pension system ranking it second only to Denmark with Switzerland behind us. (See their survey published today.). The grass is always greener ....... etc.

Greg Einfeld
June 14, 2015

Yes we can certainly learn a lot from overseas systems. Although I don't agree with everything the Swiss are doing either.

I have 6 big issues with our system. And I realise I won't win too many friends in the superannuation industry with these comments. In reality though, the best thing for the industry in the long term is to have a sustainable system that can be left in place without constant tinkering. This is what it could look like:.

1. Employer contributions are taxed concessionally. They should be taxed at marginal tax rates. Why provide an incentive to contribute when it is compulsory. Note this might need to be offset by an increase in contribution rates over time.

2. Unlimited amounts can be withdrawn from super once members retire above 55 or turn 65. Withdrawals from the system should be restricted to a maximum % being withdrawn each year.

3. Tax incentives can be abused by the wealthy. There should be a lifetime restriction on contributions or lower contribution limits or a restriction on voluntary contributions once a member's super balance exceeds a given level. The alternative (not my preference) is a higher tax on large balances.

4. Super benefits can be inherited with little or no tax. There should be a bigger inheritance tax on super. This is where I won't be popular. But let's face it, super is there for retirement savings. It is not intended to be a tax effective estate planning vehicle. Anyone who complains about this is by definition acknowledging that they are using their super to fund their children's inheritance. People would have a choice: Contribute to super to fund retirement tax effectively, or leave money outside super to fund inheritances.

5. The income test on the age pension should be abolished. It discourages older workers from working.

6. The assets test should include the home and if you have more than about $100,000 then you shouldn't receive the age pension. I won't be popular here either. But let me ask - why should anyone receive a handout from the government when they have their own assets?

These changes could not be introduced overnight, they would need to be phased in over many years. But they would take us towards a far more sustainable system. The government could then reduce personal and company taxes.

I'm ready for the rotten tomatoes...

Tim Richardson
June 12, 2015

Thanks Geoffrey, interesting article.
Agree with most of this but I would take issue with your suggestion of scaling compulsory contribution rates by age.
Such a benefit to younger employees would of course be off-set by the disadvantaging of older workers who become relatively less attractive to employers. This is evidenced by the difficulty many workers experience when job hunting in their 50s; increasingly problematic as people delay the family period of their lives. Governments that hope to see retirement dates delayed as the population ages will view this proposal with concern.
Furthermore the issue of compound returns means that retirement incomes will fall significantly if even modest savings are foregone in the crucial early years of employment.
The point about younger workers struggling to access the housing market (whilst making super contributions) is very relevant. However this would be better addressed by government reviewing its economically illiterate long-standing and generationally-unjust policy that house prices must always rise. Better to correct one bad policy rather than off-set it's effects with another.

Andrew Wakeling
June 12, 2015

...That whatever we do there will be a continual agitation for change? That our children and grandchildren ( be they Swiss or Australian) will never be able to rely on any structure for long term savings? That the only constancy will be the continuing outrageous rents paid to the financial services industry?


Leave a Comment:



Changes are coming to superannuation

The most complex super system in the world

How a sidecar can keep super motoring along


Most viewed in recent weeks

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Latest Updates


$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.


Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.



© 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.