But the super industry is giving allthat away because it’s saying, we’ve gotour fingers on the ledge and by Godwe’re going to hang on, we’re not goingto discuss any of this stuff because wemight get a smaller super pool and it’staken us this long to get the thing setup. But those are the things that are upfor grabs it seems to me.Rod Glover: I could not agree withthat more strongly. The other observationI’d make is some of those discussionsare happening. They might not behappening in the public debate, but theyare definitely happening.

And I think ifthe super industry is not in that space,and is not engaging in those debates,then they might just find it happenswithout them.Garry Weaven: If people want toadvocate the ability to get your handson your super at any time in your lifeand just spend it, fine. But don’t thensay you’re about building long termsavings.Nicholas Gruen: Well you are, becauseyou’d have a higher SG. You cando two things at once, not one. Walkand chew gum!Garry Weaven: How much higherdo you reckon the SG needs to be if people can take their house deposit outat the ages of between 20 and 35? And your education expenses. I can see the ads – ‘You can send your children to Carey Grammar.

Give us your super.’Tony Cole: I personally wouldadvocate getting retirement incomessorted out first before we expand super.Pauline Vamos: The industry isnot, as Nick says, hanging on to thecurrent framework for grim death. A lotof the change in the industry has beendriven by the superannuation industryitself. And there are some tax incentiveswithin super that maybe we just need togive back to government so they can usethat for other things.

We need to debate the wholepicture, the impact on wages as well.Remember to get SG up, there was awage freeze for quite some time.So in terms of going backwards andthen forwards again, you’ve got to thinkabout, well what will that do to wages?I think one of the universal statementsthat has been made here is that thereneeds to be a band, and there needs tobe a floor. And I suppose what we aredisagreeing on is where that floor needsto be.

Garry Weaven: If politicians decidethe SG is the centre of their response tothe crisis, the superannuation industrymay be doomed. I think there are otherthings that should be at the centre ofthe response, like investment by superfunds. Michael Bailey: One of the proposalsin the economists’ open letter was arelaxing of some of the hardship accessrules around super. What specificallywould you like to see happen there?Rod Glover: We were thinkingabout it from this perspective, is itbetter to hold on to the current systemor is it better for someone to keep theirhome?I’m talking quite exceptional circumstanceshere, not a general propositionabout people being able to tap into super for general housing or employmentor retraining services.

Join the discussion