Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 98

Treasury says don’t use the $32 billion number

If you enter ‘superannuation $32 billion’ into Google, you receive about 18,000 responses. The $32 billion number has become the most dangerous weapon used by critics of super tax concessions. For example, in ABC’s The Drum, it says:

“The cost to revenue of the concessional treatment of superannuation reached $32 billion this year. That is almost 50 per cent more than the Defence budget and $2.3 billion above Commonwealth spending on education.

Treasury projects that the figure will jump to $45 billion by 2015-16, by which time it will overtake the cost of the age pension. So where is the sense of outrage about this budget-blowing, out-of-control 41 per cent increase in government spending, making it the fastest growing major area of government?”

It is important to know what this number means, as it is often used as a budget example of how the Government could make savings for other purposes.

At the SMSF Association Conference on 19 February 2015, Rob Hefernen, Executive Director Revenue Group, The Treasury spoke at a session with industry regulators called, ‘The evolution – Superannuation as the leader in the wealth industry’. This talk has not been posted on The Treasury website.

“I’m a bit of an imposter as The Treasury is not strictly a regulator, we’re a policy adviser to the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer, and on broader economic policy to the Government as a whole. One thing John Fraser (the new Treasury Secretary) is very keen on is that senior staff should have a much better understanding of how business and private sector make decisions, which is why we welcome these sessions.

The superannuation system is growing at an extraordinarily rapid rate, with SMSF growth outstripping the overall system. In 1996, at the time of the Wallis Inquiry, superannuation assets totalled $245 billion or about 38% of Australia’s GDP. Today it is over $1.85 billion, greater than the GDP. SMSFs are now 35% of all super assets, a massive growth. This growth is something that policy advisors and regulators need to understand. We need to understand the drivers, and what it means for the economy. Clearly a vehicle for people who want a direct say in their own retirement savings must be something that people value highly. The idea of people taking responsibility for their own savings and having the highest quality of life in retirement is a good thing and should warrant appropriate government support.

There was a fair amount of comment in the Financial Systems Inquiry about the objectives of superannuation. It’s fair to say the objectives are sometimes not fully understood. From the Inquiry’s point of view, to provide income in retirement and increase the quality of life is a key objective. Some people might quibble about the effect on the aged pension and we’ll see more discussion on that.

I do want to address our Tax Expenditure Statement (TES). It is part of the Charter of Budget Honesty. Let’s be clear: there are some things that the TES is, and there are some things the TES is not. It is not a document with a policy message. When it is reported in the press - God bless them - there seems to be an inference that simply because there is a large measured tax expenditure, the Government should do something about it. That is not the case. There is no policy message whatsoever in the Tax Expenditure Statement.

What it is meant to be is a benchmark or measure of the amount of money potentially foregone. If I could just bore people for a second, if you think about the aged pension. This costs about $20 billion a year, the measured outlay. No one would say if the aged pension was repealed – not that this would happen – would you get a $20 billion saving. People would go onto NewStart, they might go back into the labour force, they might go onto a Disability Support Pension. All it is the amount of the pension multiplied by the number of people who receive it.

Does it take into account behavioural change? No, it doesn’t. When people report things that say this is a measure of tax expenditure, and therefore that’s the amount the Government could save if they did something about it, that is untrue. We do attempt to do a revenue gain estimate and the TES is extremely qualified on revenue gain. It actually says:

“The revenue gain estimate should be treated with particular caution - (which is code for ‘beware’) -  there is usually little, if any, information on how taxpayers might react to the removal of a tax expenditure. Assumptions about taxpayer behavioural responses therefore need to be made, and these assumptions can be difficult to meaningfully substantiate.”

We really don’t know. Going through that, you might ask, ‘Why on earth would you do it?’ Well, on page 5 of the TES:

“Consistent with a recommendation of the Australian National Audit Office in its 2007-08 performance audit of the TES, the TES reports revenue gain estimates for 10 large tax expenditures.”

We are asked to do an audit, so we do. But be wary on the revenue gain estimates. Don’t use them, they are too unreliable. On the revenue foregone, done according to international best practice, that is not a measure of what is saved. Anyone who says this is not reading the fine print – it’s not even fine print, it’s in bold print. Every year when we put it out, we get criticism, so I wanted to make it clear.”

In response, Andrea Slattery (CEO of the SMSF Association) said:

“Can I just confirm then that the $32 billion that the Government could save on superannuation and then spend somewhere else if it got rid of tax concessions, they will not get all $32 billion?”

To which Rob replied:

“I don’t even think you need a document to confirm that.”

 

Graham Hand attended the Conference as a guest of the SMSF Association. The bold emphasis in the text is his highlighting, not the speaker’s.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

How to prevent excessive superannuation balances

What exactly is the ATO’s role in SMSFs?

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

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.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

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.

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.