And I think it needs to be applauded. But the other piece of the puzzle is the co-contribution initiative, and the changes that have been made to that as a result of the last couple of years. I think that needs to be relooked at in terms of raising the threshold and the amount [Corboy was obviously speaking before the Budget announcement that increases in the co-contribution rate out to 2015 would be removed]. And then that will fill the gap. You’ve got the $500 that’s going to the very low income earners, which is good because it offsets their tax, then you’ve got the next group that will be given more incentive to put in their own contributions with some government matching. I think that fills the gap and goes some way over the 12 per cent for the group that does need to go to 15. For our members, 85 per cent of whom are women, they’re very good initiatives. There’s a couple more you still need to do, the $450 monthly income threshold before you can get super being one. Martin Codina (director of policy, IFSA):

Just to add to your 12 to 15 conversation, I think we shouldn’t forget that Henry’s proposal’s quite different in the context of getting rid of cocontribution type arrangements. When you look what the government’s done for those on $37 K and below, they’ve effectively taken someone from a real contribution rate of 7.65, you add in the rebate, they’re now getting a real 12 per cent and the cocontribution on top of that. We’ve basically given them 15 per cent. Ian Silk (CEO, AustralianSuper): Every change to super since 1992 has been heralded as the most important since 1992. This puts all of them in the shade. Absolutely fantastic. But I do just want to talk about this phasing issue. Because even in the blue collar industries, where AustralianSuper has significant membership, this notion of a package of wage and super is increasingly understood to be the case, not like the old days where you got a wage of 480 bucks and you got some super out the back end. And the Government has expressly picked this up because the announcement on May 2 explained the deferral in terms of giving employers and unions and workers the capacity to factor in these changes in their wage negotiations. So with that in mind, I thought the timeframe was more conservative than it needed to be.

Leave a comment