Category: Save Our Super Articles

Scott Morrison’s 12 tax-free superannuation promises : May to June 2015 – Updated 4 May 2019

(1) 3AW – 19 June 2015

“That is why we are so adamant about not having adverse changes to superannuation, that’s why we aren’t going to increase taxes on superannuation, and why we are trying to provide stability and certainty around superannuation for the simple reason that we want people to invest in it.”

(2) Sky News – 17 June 2015

MINISTER MORRISON: What we are not going to do is we are not going to tax those savings, like Bill Shorten wants to do. That is the difference, we will not tax your super, Bill Shorten will.

MINISTER MORRISON: Yes, and there are other taxation arraignments that apply to superannuation already and we are not going to increase those taxes as the Labor Party does and nothing we have done with the Greens has in any way changed the Government’s position on not taxing your super. We will not tax your super.

(3) Question Time – 16 June 2015

And when they get into their retirement, we are going to make sure that their hard-earned savings in their superannuation will not be the subject of the tax slug that those opposite want to impose, … Those opposite see it as a tax nest—a tax nest for those to plunder.

The shadow minister earlier referred to ‘trousering’. The ‘trouser bandit’ sits over there because he, together with the shadow Treasurer, wants to come after the hard-earned superannuation savings…

What we will do for them is: we will not tax them like the ‘trouser bandit’ opposite.

(4) Sky News PM Agenda – 16 June 2015

The Government has made it crystal clear that we have no interest in increasing taxes on superannuation either now or in the future.

… unlike Labor, we are not coming after people’s superannuation…

(5) 2GB – 25 May 2015

Well that is right because the tax incentives that are given for superannuation – which we strongly support and we don’t want to take away – the Labor Party wants to take those away. What we want to do is encourage people to save for their retirement but then when you are in retirement that is what you draw on, not the pension. The whole point of putting those incentives in place is so that people don’t have to draw down on a pension.

Under us we think that more welfare and higher taxes is not the way forward.

(6) Question Time – 25 May 2015

But on this side we think that those who have an entitlement are those who earn income to save for their retirement, the sort of income that they want to draw down in their retirement and which the shadow Treasurer wants to tax to within an inch of its life. On that side of the House it is all about higher taxes and more welfare, but not on this side and not in this budget.

(7) 3AW – 18 May 2015

MINISTER MORRISON: Well we do want to encourage everyone … to be saving for their retirement and particularly when you are drawing down on that when you are retired we don’t want to tax you like Chris Bowen does.

(8) Doorstop – 8 May 2015

Superannuation is there for people who have been saving over their lifetime to provide for their retirement. We don’t think that people who have done that should be punished with higher taxes, Bill Shorten does, and so does Chris Bowen and I think that’s a stark difference between the Government and the Opposition on these issues.”

(9) Press Conference – 7 May 2015

The Government does not support Labor’s proposal to tax superannuants more on the income they have generated for their retirement.

(10) Sky News AM Agenda – 5 May 2015

…what is not fair is if you save for your retirement and you create yourself a superannuation nest egg and the Government then comes along and taxes that income; which is what Labor are proposing to do.

(11) ABC RN – 5 May 2015

It’s the Labor Party who wants to tax superannuation, not the Liberal Party, particularly the incomes of superannuants and I think that’s a fairly stark contrast that’s emerging.

(12) 3AW – 1 May 2015

My own view is that the superannuation system, for example, meant I don’t want to tax people more when they’re basically investing for their own future… That’s why I think Chris Bowen’s idea, …of …taxing superannuation incomes, is a bad idea, I don’t support it…


Prepared and edited by Save Our Super from:

Labor media release:




Labor’s superannuation and related proposals

Daniel Butler, Director (

Shaun Backhaus, Lawyer (

The next Federal election, according to our current Prime Minister Mr Scott Morrison, will be held in May 2019 and, if the Labor Government is elected, significant change is likely. Thus, a brief ‘stock take’ of what the superannuation landscape will look like under a Labor Government is set out below.

Cash refunds of franking credits

Labor proposes to deny cash refunds of franking credits from 1 July 2019. This proposal would largely impact individuals and self managed superannuation funds (‘SMSFs’).

In its “Pensioner Guarantee” media release on 27 March 2018, Labor claims that the distributional analysis shows:

  • 80% of the benefit of cash refunds of franking credits accrues to the wealthiest 20% of retirees;
  • 90% of all cash refunds to superannuation funds accrues to SMSFs (just 10% goes to APRA regulated funds) despite SMSFs accounting for less than 10% of all superannuation members in Australia; and
  • The top 1% of SMSFs receive a cash refund of $83,000 (on average) – an amount greater than the average full time salary (based on 2014-15 ATO data).

Under the proposed “Pensioner Guarantee”, Labor claims:

  • Every recipient of an Australian Government pension or allowance with individual shareholdings will still be able to benefit from cash refunds. This includes individuals receiving the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment, Parenting Payment, Newstart and Sickness Allowance.
  • SMSFs with at least one pensioner or allowance recipient before 28 March 2018 will be exempt from the changes. For example, if one member was receiving a part Centrelink age pension of $100 before 28 March 2018, the SMSF will be exempt under the proposal.

Thus, under Labor’s proposed “Pensioner Guarantee” an individual who receives an Australian Government pension or allowance will be exempt regardless of whether their pension or allowance commenced before or after 28 March 2018. However, Labor will only exempt an SMSF if the member receiving the pension or allowance was a member of the fund prior to 28 March 2018. Note that there does not appear to be any sound reason or logic why SMSFs with a member who subsequently becomes entitled to an Australian Government pension or allowance should miss out on a cash refund.

The Tax Institute’s Senior Tax Counsel, Bob Deutsch, in his TaxVine report on 5 October 2018 noted that:

  • Interestingly, of the around 1,160,000 individuals who claim around $2.3 billion in cash refunds, 320,000 of them are expected to be exempt as a result of the “Pension Guarantee”. Accordingly, there will be around 840,000 individuals who will be subjected to the proposal.
  • In the context of SMSFs, there are around 420,000 people involved in such funds, with the funds receiving around $2.6 billion in refunds. Around $1.3 billion of these refunds are received by SMSFs that are in full pension mode with each of these SMSFs on average having assets in excess of around $2.4 million (almost 50% of the $2.6 billion in refunds goes to SMSFs with considerably more than $1.6 million in super savings).

Large industry and retail superannuation funds typically will be able to offset any franking credits received against tax payable in each FY and will therefore generally not be adversely affected by this proposal.

The SMSF Association’s submission dated 29 October 2018 to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics on the inquiry into the implications of removing refundable franking credits stated:

Under the proposed policy individuals with the same circumstances, in the same refundable position, will incur a different results depending on the vehicle they choose to hold their shares. Most notably, SMSF members are worse-off under the ALP policy than other superannuation fund members who are in pension phase and benefit from franking credits. The ALP policy proposes that refunds from dividend imputation are appropriate for almost all investors except for SMSF investors and those shareholders with low taxable incomes.

The SMSF Association’s submission also noted that the proposal will:

  • Result in a change in asset allocation, eg, from Australian franked shares to international equities, property or more risky investments.
  • Result in more members joining SMSFs to assist in soaking up franking credits. Refer to DBA Lawyers’ Admit a Conditional Member offering.

Moreover, some SMSF members will also consider whether having a pension in retirement phase is worthwhile if the fund is ‘burning’ excess franking credits. The example below shows that an SMSF with two members each with $1.6 million are no worse off converting to accumulation phase (ie, commuting their account-based pensions) as they substantially reduce their wastage of franking credits that would no longer result in a cash refund under Labor’s proposal to stop cash refunds. The SMSF also accumulates greater assets for the longer-term in the concessionally taxed superannuation environment by not having to pay out annual pension payments to its members.

In particular, the Dividend Wasted SMSF (see below example) where the two members are both in pension phase (ie, in retirement phase) with 45% of the fund’s investments in Australian franked share investments, has a $24,686 wastage of franking credits under Labor. Under current law, this fund would receive a $24,686 cash refund.

In contrast, the Dividend Offset SMSF (see below example) has the same share portfolio as the Dividend Wasted SMSF but is fully in accumulation mode. This fund only wastes $5,486 of franking credits. Under current law, this fund could also obtain a $24,686 cash refund if both members received a pension in retirement phase.

Example – SMSF converting to accumulation to reduce franking credit wastage

Dividend Wasted SMSF

Dad 1600000 ABP – ECPI
Mum 1600000 ABP – ECPI
Total funds 3200000
Sundry income 70400
Dividends 57600
Total income 128000
Tax thereon 0 ECPI
Franking offsets 24686 wasted

Dividend Offset SMSF

Dad 1600000 Accumulation mode
Mum 1600000 Accumulation mode
Total funds 3200000
Sundry income 70400
Dividends 57600
Total income 128000
Tax thereon 19200
Franking offsets 24686
Franking offsets 5486 wasted


Australian franked share investments 45% 1440000
Yield (excl franking credits) 4% 128000
Company tax rate 30%
100% franking applies 30/70

Account-based pension (‘ABP’)
Exempt current pension income (‘ECPI’)

Naturally, if a refund is available to individuals or SMSFs prior to 30 June 2019 (but not afterwards), then a greater distribution prior to this proposal being introduced may be more attractive. Thus, there are many companies carefully examining what their optimal dividend distribution policy is prior to 30 June 2019.

There has also been considerable press coverage of Labor’s franking credit proposal since it was announced.

Taxation of trusts

Bill Shorten in his ‘A Fairer Tax System For All Australians’ Media Release dated 30 July 2017 announced that:

  • Labor will introduce a standard minimum 30% tax rate for discretionary trust distributions to mature beneficiaries (people over the age of 18).
  • Under Labor, individuals and businesses can continue to make use of trusts – and trusts will not be taxed liked companies.
  • Labor’s proposal will not apply to certain trusts such as:
    • special disability trusts;
    • testamentary trusts;
    • fixed trusts or fixed unit trusts;
    • charitable and philanthropic trusts;
    • farm trusts (query what these are); and
    • public unit trusts (listed and unlisted).

Broadly, under the current law:

  • Unit trusts do not pay any tax provided the trustee distributes its net income to unitholders prior to each 30 June.
  • Where an SMSF is a unitholder of a unit trust, the SMSF trustee pays a maximum of 15% tax on unit trust distributions.
  • An SMSF will typically only pay 10% tax on unit trust distributions of net capital gains (after allowing for the one third CGT discount) on the disposal of assets held for more than 12 months.
  • An SMSF in pension (retirement) phase does not pay any tax on unit trust distributions subject to each member’s transfer balance cap (‘TBC’) limit.

While the Labor proposal is aimed at levying a minimum 30% tax rate for discretionary trust distributions to adult beneficiaries, this proposal is not supposed to apply to fixed trusts. This is technically a very limited category of unit trust, with the vast majority of SMSFs investing in nonfixed trusts. It is important to consider what is meant by ‘fixed’ and what definition will apply.

Broadly, trusts are divided for tax purposes into fixed and non-fixed trusts for trust loss purposes under schedule 2F of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (‘ITAA 1936’). There are strict criteria on what is a fixed trust under this test. Most other trusts fall into the broad category of nonfixed trusts and these trusts are broadly treated as discretionary trusts for tax purposes.

In relation to superannuation funds investing in unit trusts, the ATO currently do not administer the law in this strict manner but without clarity on Labor’s proposal, it is expected that the test that will be adopted by Labor would be the test in schedule 2F of the ITAA 1936, or a similar test.

Labor could therefore, unless SMSFs investing in non-fixed unit trusts are carved out, tax SMSFs at a minimum of 30% on trust distributions received from many unit trusts. This would have a significant impact on the net after tax returns that these trusts derive after the new trust’s tax regime proposed by Labor is introduced.

To explain by way of a brief example:

Non-fixed unit trust distribution to SMSF

A unit trust distributes $10,000 of net income to an SMSF unitholder.

Under current law:

The SMSF will generally pay $1,500 in tax (assuming no net capital gain is included).

Under Labor’s proposal:

The SMSF will pay $3,000 tax (assuming no net capital gain is included).

However, if the unit trust qualifies as a fixed trust, the tax should be $1,500 (ie, as under current law).

It is noted that if the unit trust is non-fixed, the ATO currently administer the law in a more practical manner as outlined in TR 2006/7. Broadly, provided distributions by the unit trust are made proportionately based on unitholding proportions, rather than based on a discretion, the ATO will typically not apply a 45% tax rate under the non-arm’s length income rule in s 295-550 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth).

Chris Bowen as quoted in the Financial Review on 11 August 2017 stated:

The claim that self-managed super funds could be hit by Labor’s trust proposal (‘SMSFs could be hit by Labor Trust proposal, August 9) is simply wrong…

…Labor’s policy to apply a minimum rate of tax on certain distributions targets income splitting and will not have any impact on fixed unit trusts, including non-geared unit trusts owned by superannuation funds. Technical legal classifications between fixed versus non-fixed trusts are longstanding issues readily resolved within the taxation system and completely distinct from Labor’s announcement to curb income splitting through discretionary trusts.

For guidance on how the ATO currently administers this area, refer to TR2006/7 and PCG 2016/16. Unless an appropriately drafted unit trust is obtained upfront, there can be considerable downstream hurdles with seeking to change a non-fixed trust to a fixed trust, including duty, land tax and other potential implications, especially if the ATO change its current administrative practice.

Broadly, for large public offer managed investment trusts, less stringent tests apply in determining whether such a trust qualifies as a fixed trust.

The Tax Institute’s Senior Tax Counsel, Bob Deutsch, has also noted that it is still uncertain how Labor’s policy on how it proposes to tax trust distributions will apply in practice. For example, will the general CGT discount apply, will any tax offset apply like a franking offset in respect of a dividend from a company, and what types of trusts will be considered fixed and non-fixed?

Moreover, Labor’s policy has created considerable uncertainty for investors and business people seeking to undertake investments or enter into new business structures given this broad brush proposal. A discretionary trust has been a popular ‘structure’ to accumulate assets and to operate a business in but in view of Labor’s proposal many may now want the greater certainty offered by a company given the future outlook for trusts is so uncertain.

Labor should therefore urgently provide clearer guidance on its trust’s tax proposal especially on what trusts will be carved out of its proposal.

Superannuation guarantee

Labor propose to increase the current superannuation guarantee charge rate from 9.5% to 12% as soon as practicable instead of the current gradual increase – which is already current law to 12% from 1 July 2025 – see table below. Should this be achieved, Labor then proposes to achieve its original objective of increasing the minimum rate to 15%.

Period Rate
1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 9.5%
1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 9.5%
1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 9.5%
1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 10.0%
1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 10.5%
1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 11.0%
1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 11.5%
1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 and onwards 12.0%

Labor will also pursue policies that seek to reduce the extent of unpaid superannuation in Australia, and seek to improve the ability of workers to recover their unpaid superannuation as an industrial right.

Non-concessional contributions cap

Labor will lower the annual non-concessional contributions (‘NCC’) cap from $100,000 to $75,000.

Naturally, this impacts the bring-forward cap which will reduce from $300,000 to $225,000 (ie, 3 x $75,000).

Naturally, NCCs are subject to the $1.6 million total superannuation balance limit.

Division 293 threshold

The threshold at which high income earners pay additional contributions tax will be lowered by Labor from $250,000 to $200,000.

Rolling 5 year catch-up concessional contribution cap

Members with a total superannuation balance of less than $500,000 are currently permitted to make additional concessional contributions (‘CCs’) where they have not reached their CCs cap in the prior five FYs. This can effectively equate to a rolling five year average CC cap of up to $125,000 that can be made in one FY where the member in year 5 has made no CCs in the prior four FYs commencing after 1 July 2018.

For example, if a member and their employer only contributes $10,000 of CCS in FY2019, the member will effectively have an unused CC carry forward cap of $40,000 in FY2020 (ie, $15,000 unused CC cap in FY2019 plus a $25,000 CC cap in FY2020).

Tax deduction for personal superannuation contributions

From 1 July 2017 the Turnbull Liberal National Government abolished the 10% rule which provides greater flexibility for individuals to claim personal superannuation contributions.

Labor propose to reintroduce this 10% rule to again restrict personal contributions.

By way of background, under current law individuals can make CCs up to the CC cap following the removal of the 10% test on 30 June 2017 regardless of their employment circumstances.

As you may recall, broadly, the 10% test prior to 30 June 2017 precluded individuals from claiming personal superannuation contributions where they earned more than 10% of their overall earnings from employee type activities.

For example, under current law, if an employer makes superannuation contributions of $10,000 on behalf of an employee, the employee may make an additional $15,000 of personal CCs to superannuation, and claim a deduction for this amount despite having 100% of their earnings from being an employee (subject to having sufficient taxable income to offset the deduction).

Note that the $1.6 million total superannuation balance test does not restrict CCs but does limit NCCs when the member’s total superannuation balance exceeds the $1.6 million threshold.

For more information on personal deductions, refer to:

Low income superannuation tax offset

The ALP’s 2018 National Platform, ‘A Fair Go for Australia,’ states that Labor will maintain a low income superannuation tax concession (currently called the low income superannuation tax offset, ie, ‘LISTO’) and will develop policies that will further support low income earners to save for their retirement. Further, Labor will review the interaction between the age pension and superannuation.

Low income earners may receive a tax offset of up to $500 per FY on their CCs to help them save for their retirement. Broadly, to be eligible for this payment, the member’s adjusted taxable income must not exceed $37,000 and 10% or more of the member’s total income must have been derived from business or employment.

Ban new LRBAs

Labor is committed to banning SMSFs entering into new limited recourse borrowing arrangements (‘LRBAs’). As part of Labor’s housing affordability policy, in April 2017, it announced that it would ‘restore the general ban on direct borrowing by superannuation funds, as recommended by the 2014 Financial Systems Inquiry’. A media release by Bill Shorten at this time claimed this would ‘help cool an overheated housing market, partly driven by wealthy SMSFs’.

Pension exemption limit of $75,000 p.a.

Mr Chris Bowen in his ‘Positive Plan to Help Housing Affordability’ media release on 18 January 2019 stated that Labor has already acted to reduce the generosity of tax concessions for high income superannuants – to moderate concessions for Australians with superannuation balances in excess of $1.5 million. This item was published in SMSF Adviser’s news on 23 January 2019 which noted that Labor first announced this $1.5 million limit in April 2014.

If elected, it would appear that there is the prospect that Labor will further limit the tax exemption for earnings on superannuation balances in pension phase that exceed $1.5 million. While it has never been clear how this proposal would actually operate in practice, it is broadly understood that earnings on assets supporting income streams in retirement phase will be tax-free up to $75,000 p.a. for each member (note that a 5% p.a. yield on $1.5 million of pension assets equates to $75,000). However, earnings above $75,000 would be taxed at 15%.

It is also expected, based on a prior Labor announcement, that assets acquired prior to the start of this new regime will be grandfathered for capital gains tax (‘CGT’) purposes. Broadly, under this announcement it would appear that net capital gains on assets acquired after this new regime commences would be added to the income earned subject to the $75,000 exempt earnings threshold in respect of each financial year (‘FY’).

An example from a prior Labor Fairer Super Plan noted that a 63 year old retired lady called Susie with $1.8 million invested in super who received a $90,000 pension (reflecting a 5% yield), would pay 15% tax on $15,000 of her pension amount above the first $75,000 tax free amount, excluding applicable levies.

While there has been recent media coverage of this proposal, I am not convinced this proposal will be introduced as initially outlined. Given the $1.6 million transfer balance cap (‘TBC’) is now firmly implemented with all its associated machinery and appears to be largely working as planned, I suspect that Labor may not want to introduce a whole new system that may prove very difficult in practice to implement and operate. If any further limit on the pension exemption is introduced, I suspect it will be to reduce the $1.6 million TBC amount or to freeze any future indexation of the general $1.6 million TBC threshold. Recall that the $1.6 million TBC amount will be indexed in $100,000 increments in line with CPI.

Limit negative gearing

Labor stated in its ‘Positive plan to help housing affordability’ that it will limit negative gearing to new housing from a yet-to-be-determined date after the next election (which is expected to be 1 July 2019). All investments made before this date are not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered.

This will mean that taxpayers will continue to be able to deduct net rental losses against their wage income, providing the losses come from newly constructed housing.

From a yet-to-be-determined date after the next election (which is expected to be 1 July 2019) losses from new investments in shares and existing properties can still be used to offset investment income tax liabilities. These losses can also continue to be carried forward to offset the final capital gain on the investment.

Bob Deutsch, CTA and Senior Tax Counsel of The Tax Institute, confirmed in The Tax Institute’s blog ‘Labor’s negative gearing restrictions – how might they work?’ (23 November 2018) that the Labor Party’s proposed changes to negative gearing would apply across the board to all investments. Previously it was thought that Labor’s negative gearing restrictions might only apply to property investment.

Bob Deutsch’s article states:

So, to the proposals themselves – after some interrogation of the Labor party, I have been able to confirm that Labor’s restrictions on negative gearing will apply (after a yet-to-be announced commencement date) to all investments and it will apply on a global basis to every taxpayer. In other words, it will apply to property and shares alike (and any other relevant asset classes) and it will apply by looking at a taxpayer and assessing their overall investment income as measured against their overall investment interest expenses.

Both these points are critical to an understanding of what is proposed, and while Labor has previously hinted at both outcomes, I can now confirm that the policy design will be precisely along these lines.

After examining three different practical examples, Bob Deutsch’s article states:

…, the key to dealing with the proposed fallout from Labor’s restrictions on negative gearing – management of portfolios in order to have regard to the restrictions on negative gearing, will become crucial.

In addition, purchasing properties in the name of the family member best able to manage any negative gearing restrictions will also be vital.

Naturally, this proposal may encourage taxpayers to enter into negative gearing strategies before Labor’s negative gearing restrictions are introduced.

CGT discount

Labor proposes to reduce the 50% general CGT discount available to individuals on asset disposals where the asset has been held for more than 12 months under div 115 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) to 25% from 1 July 2019.

Labor has stated in its ‘Positive plan to help housing affordability’ that:

  • All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered.
  • This policy change will also not affect investments made by superannuation funds.
  • The CGT discount will not change for small business assets. This will ensure that no small businesses are worse off under these changes.
  • Labor will consult with industry, relevant stakeholders and State governments on further design and implementation details ahead of the start date for both these proposals.

Bob Deutsch’s article states:

The practical effects of these housing affordability policies are not yet clear. For example, investors might sell properties in the basis that, due to these incoming laws, property investment may be less attractive in the future leading to lower prices. Conversely, investors may decide to hold on to grandfathered assets to enjoy the expected capital gains on that asset rather than sell, which could lead to less properties for sale.

As you would be aware, superannuation funds are only entitled to a one third CGT discount on assets held for more than 12 months (broadly to the extent the pension exemption does not apply). Labor has noted that the CGT discount applicable to superannuation funds would not be reduced.

Deductions for tax advice

Labor propose to limit deductions for tax advice to $3,000 a year. Individuals, SMSFs, trusts and partnerships are to be subject to the cap while companies would not be.

We query if this limit will apply on a per entity basis or whether it might apply on an aggregated ‘associated’ entities basis. It can often be difficult, for example, to determine where advice for an individual ends and advice for their ‘associated’ entities begins.

Paul Drum, CPA Australia, head of policy, believes:

… this proposal needs a lot more work as many Australians go through significant one-off life events such as a divorce, inheritance or retirement, when they require specialist advice that could cost well over $3,000. Simply carrying out proper planning for large life events such as commencing a business or working overseas could easily exceed this cap. This sort of planning is necessary to ensure tax laws are properly followed and taxpayers don’t fall foul of the ATO.

In an article available via the Financial Review, the Institute of Public Accountants president Andrew Conway, is said to be ‘vowing to mobilise the large accounting workforce to oppose the measure in the lead up to the next election’ (‘Accountants vow to campaign against $3000 cap on managing tax affairs’, 13 January 2019).

It is yet to be determined if this limit will include litigation costs, ATO audit costs and ATO interest payment costs. There have also been calls for a small business concession to be applied.

With so many other proposed changes to tax laws likely to require advice, many would readily exceed this proposed cap simply trying to understand these changes and manage their affairs accordingly. In Australia, there is one certainty in superannuation and tax law –– constant change.

Invariably the devil is also in the detail. We understand from a number of leading tax academics that Australia has a reputation for being one of the most complex tax systems in the world and probably ranks second to the USA. The constant ongoing complex changes to superannuation and tax rules will keep Australia as a leader in complexity.

In particular, responding to a relatively straight forward ATO review or audit can easily exceed a $3,000 threshold which is becoming increasingly likely for many.

Further policy proposals

Labor also has planned policy releases leading up to the election which are not yet publically available. Namely, as outlined in ALP’s 2018 National Platform, ‘A Fair Go for Australia,’ Labor proposes to:

  • Ensure that the superannuation guarantee is legislated to become part of the national minimum employment standard (NES) so that it is enforceable as an industrial entitlement. Broadly, this will, among other things, give employees access to the Fair Work Commission and pursue other industrial remedies for unpaid contributions.
  • Maintain a low income superannuation tax concession (currently called the LISTO) and will further support low income earners to save for their retirement.
  • Review the interaction between the age pension and superannuation.
  • Implement policies that work towards closing the significant gender gap in superannuation savings, including eliminating the $450 minimum threshold for compulsory employer contributions.
  • Initiate within the first 6 months of taking office an expert review to examine the adequacy of mechanisms to strengthen the superannuation balances of women, including options for government contributions to account balances where the account balance is very low.
  • Legislate to provide superannuation contributions on the Federal Government paid parental leave scheme.

General observations

A number of Labor policies are proposed to commence by 1 July 2019 or when an announcement is made after the election. However, in view of the election being likely to take place in May this year, it may prove difficult for Labor to introduce changes with a 1 July 2019 commencement date.

Naturally, until a proposal or change becomes law, it should not be relied on as law. History has also shown that there is considerable uncertainty with relying on legislation by media release. For example, one of the worst policy blunders that comes to mind here was the lifetime non-concessional contributions (‘NCC’) cap of $500,000 that was proposed to apply from the 3 May 2016 Federal Budget by the Turnbull Liberal National Government with effect from the announcement of the 2016-17 Federal Budget on 3 May 2016. This proposal was scrapped and a $1.6 million total superannuation balance cap was introduced in September 2016 following substantial adverse feedback.


If Labor are elected, there will be considerable superannuation and tax changes that are likely to have wide ranging impact.

Like the last round of major changes to the superannuation system in mid-2017, these proposed changes may take years to finalise and properly implement.

It was only a few years ago that both major political parties promised stability within the superannuation system, as the $2.7 billion plus of superannuation investments are a major part of Australia’s financial system.

Constant changes to the superannuation rules undermines investor confidence.

DBA Lawyers is continually reviewing developments as they unfold and refining its services to keep on top of ongoing changes. We also offer an extensive range of education (aka CPD) training to keep you ahead of the changes.

Related articles

For further reading, please see the below articles:

* * * * * *

Note: DBA Lawyers hold SMSF CPD training at venues all around. For more details or to register, visit or call 03 9092 9400.

For more information regarding how DBA Lawyers can assist in your SMSF practice, visit


15 February 2019

The 2016-2017 adverse superannuation changes; a Grattan Institute/Turnbull Government recipe for loss of trust and increased uncertainty?

Address by Jack Hammond QC, founder of Save Our Super.

Tuesday, 18 September 2018 at La Trobe University Law School, City Campus, 360 Collins Street, Melbourne, lunch-time seminar, “Australian Superannuation: Fixing the Problems”.


In 2016-17, the Turnbull Government made a number of superannuation policy and legislative changes which adversely affected many Australians. Those changes were made without appropriate ‘grandfathering’ provisions even though they amounted to ‘effective retrospectivity’ (a term coined in February 2016 by the then Treasurer, Scott Morrison). ‘Grandfathering’ provisions continue to apply an old rule to certain existing situations, while a new rule will apply to all future cases.

I am a retired barrister and am adversely affected by those 2016-17 superannuation changes. That, in turn, has led me to form the superannuation community action group, Save Our Super.

The Turnbull Government, assisted and encouraged by the Grattan Institute in Melbourne has, without notice and at a single stroke, changed the superannuation rules and the rules for making those rules. They have turned superannuation from a long-term, multi-decades, retirement income system into, at best, an annual federal budget-to-budget saving proposition. That is a contradiction in terms . It is unsustainable.

Further, it is a recipe for a loss of trust and increased uncertainty for all those already in the superannuation system and those yet to start.

Save Our Super has three proposals which we believe will redress the 2016-17 superannuation policy and legislative changes and prevent a recurrence.

But first, how did we get here and in particular, without appropriate ‘grandfathering ‘ provisions? Those type of provisions have accompanied all significant adverse superannuation changes over the past 40 years.1


29 November 2012 Lucy Turnbull appointed a director of the Grattan Institute, Melbourne.2
May to June  2015 Scott Morrison, whilst Minister for Social Services in Abbott Government, makes 12 ‘tax-free superannuation’ promises.3
2014 to 2015 Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull donate funds to Grattan Institute.4
15 September 2015 Malcolm Turnbull replaced Abbott as Prime Minister. Scott Morrison becomes Treasurer.5
24 November 2015 Grattan Institute publishes Report ”Super Tax Targeting” by Grattan Institute CEO John Daley and others. Dismisses need for ‘grandfathering’ provisions6 and observes ‘…that taxing earnings for those in the benefits stage may raise concerns about the government retrospectively changing the rules’. 7

No mention of the possible consequential of loss of trust and uncertainty that retrospective changes may bring.

Note that the Grattan Institute material shows, on its front page, an image of three of the bronze pigs on display in the Rundle Street Mall, Adelaide.8

We, and other self-funded superannuants, believe that the Grattan Institute’s prominent use of that image of those bronze pigs was not merely a juvenile attempt at humour.

It was a none-to-subtle insulting implication that Australians whom had faithfully conformed with successive governments’ superannuation rules and had substantial superannuation savings were, nonetheless, greedy pigs with their ‘snouts in the trough’.

See also 9 November 2016 entry below.

2015-2016 Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull donate further funds to Grattan Institute.9
18 February 2016 Scott Morrison, as Treasurer, gave an address to the Self Managed Superannuation Funds 2016 National Conference in Adelaide.

Draws attention to ‘effective retrospectivity’ and its ‘great risk’ in relation to super changes.

“Our opponents stated policy is to tax superannuation earnings in the retirement phase. I just want to make a reference less about our opponents on this I suppose but more to highlight the Government’s own  view, about our great sensitivity to changing arrangements in the retirement phase.

One of our key drivers when contemplating potential superannuation reforms is stability and certainty, especially in the retirement phase. That is good for people who are looking 30 years down the track and saying is superannuation a good idea for me? If they are going to change the rules at the other end when you are going to be living off it then it is understandable that they might get spooked out of that as an appropriate channel for their investment.

That is why I fear that the approach of taxing in that retirement phase penalises Australians who have put money into superannuation under the current rules – under the deal that they thought was there. It may not be technical retrospectivity but it certainly feels that way.

It is effective retrospectivity, the tax technicians and superannuation tax technicians may say differently. But when you just look at it that is the great risk.”10

3 May 2016 Scott Morrison, as Treasurer, announces in his Budget 2016-17 Speech to Parliament a number of adverse ‘changes to better target superannuation tax concessions’ .

No ‘grandfathering’ provisions announced.11

See also, Budget Measures, Budget Paper No 2, 2016-17, 3 May 2016, Part 1, Revenue Measures, pp 24-30.12

5 September 2016 John Daley, CEO Grattan Institute, said:
“Winding back superannuation tax breaks will be an acid test of our political system. If we cannot get reform in this situation, then there is little hope for either budget repair or economic reform” (AFR 5/9/16)13
9 November 2016 To give effect to the Budget 2016-17 superannuation changes, Scott Morrison presented the Turnbull Government’s package of 3 superannuation Bills to Parliament.

To publicly explain and justify those superannuation changes to Parliament, Scott Morrison and Kelly O’Dwyer circulated and relied in Parliament upon a 364 page “Explanatory Memorandum”.

The Explanatory Memorandum states on its front page “Circulated by the authority of the Treasurer, the Hon Scott Morrison MP and Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP.

In turn, the Explanatory Memorandum expressly refers to, and provides links to, the Grattan Institute’s 24 November 2015 Media Release and Report (see 24 November 2015 entry, above).

As noted above, that Grattan Institute material shows, on its cover, an image of three of the bronze pigs on display in the Rundle Street Mall, Adelaide.14

Bronze pigs in Rundle Street Mall, Adelaide 

23 November 2016 The Turnbull Government, with the support of Labor, rushed through Parliament two of its three superannuation Bills.
29 November 2016 Those two Bills were assented to on 29 November 2016 and are now law:

Superannuation ( Excess Transfer Balance Tax) Imposition Act 2016 (C’th) (No 80 of 2016);15

Treasury Laws  Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Act 2016 ) (C’th) (No 81 of 2016)16

The third superannuation Bill, the Superannuation (Objective) Bill, remains stalled in the Senate.17

1 December 2016 Lucy Turnbull retired as a director of the Grattan Institute.18
24  August 2018 Malcolm Turnbull resigns as Prime Minister.19
Scott Morrison becomes Prime Minister.20

Save Our Super has three proposals which we believe could redress the 2016-17 superannuation policy and legislative changes and prevent a recurrence.

First,  Scott Morrison, in his new capacity as Prime Minister, should request the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg and/or through him, the Assistant Treasurer, Stuart Robert, to revisit the Turnbull Government’s 2016-17 superannuation changes.

A discussion paper and advice from Treasury should be requested. It should include the effect of the Turnbull Government’s 2016-17 superannuation changes on superannuation fund taxes in 2017-18 and over the forward estimates.

To restore trust and reduce uncertainty in the superannuation system, the Morrison Government should introduce into Parliament legislation which will retrospectively provide appropriate ‘grandfathering’ provisions in relation to the Turnbull Government’s 2016-17 adverse superannuation changes.

Those ‘grandfathering’ provisions to be available to those significantly adversely affected and whom wish to claim that relief. 

Secondly, Save Our Super proposes to create a Superannuation and Retirement Income  Policy Institute, independent of government , funded, at least initially, by private donations/subscriptions.

Its role will be to advocate on behalf of those millions of superannuants and retirees whose collective voice needs to be heard.

Thirdly, Save Our Super will advocate for an amendment to the Australian Constitution, to have a similar effect in relation to superannuation and other retirement income, as does section 51 (xxxi) has in relation to the compulsory acquisition of property.

That section empowers the federal Parliament to make laws with respect to the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws (emphasis added).

Thus Parliament’s power to make laws in relation to superannuation and other retirement income should not be affected. However, any significant adverse change to existing situations will need to be on just terms, for example, by providing appropriate ‘grandfathering’ provisions as part of that federal law.

1. []
2. [ (pp 2-3)]
3. []
4. [ (p 19)]
5. []
6. [ (p 7)]
7. [ (pp 68-9, para 6.5)]
8. [ (front page)]
9. [ (p 24)]
10. [Scott Morrison, Address to the SMSF 2016 National Conference, Adelaide]
11. []
12. []
13. [ (p 6)]
14. [The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the Grattan Institute’s 24 November 2015 report “Super tax targeting” by John Daley and Brendan Coates: (see page 275, paragraph 14.12, footnote 2). Click on the link on footnote 2, 2 Grattan Institute, media release, ‘For fairness and a stronger Budget, it is time to target super tax breaks’, 24 November 2015,”.
Click on the link at foot of that page Read the report“. That link will take you to the Grattan Institute report “Super tax targeting “ dated 24 November 2015 by John Daley and others. The report’s front page shows the image of those bronze pigs in the Rundle Street Mall, Adelaide. Note: The Grattan Institute’s website has been updated since the publication of that document. However, the article itself and the image of the 3 pigs remain.]

15. [Superannuation ( Excess Transfer Balance Tax) Imposition Act 2016 (C’th) (No 80 of 2016)]
16. [Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Act 2016 ) (C’th) (No 81 of 2016)]
17. [Superannuation (Objective) Bill]
18. [ (p 3)]
19. []
20. []

Response to Treasury Discussion Paper: Three-yearly audit cycle for some self-managed superannuation funds

Copyright © Jim Bonham 2018

1 Summary

As an SMSF trustee, I am concerned about the proposal to introduce three-year audits for some SMSFs, primarily for the following reasons:

  • None of the three benefits claimed for the proposal (reduction of compliance burden, reduction in audit cost, and rewarding the timely submission of SARs) withstands examination.
  • Audit management will become more complex for the trustee, increasing the risk of inadvertent rule breaches.

I would not opt for a three year audit of my SMSF if this proposal becomes law.

2 Introduction

My wife and I have an SMSF under a corporate trustee structure. The fund was started in 2003 and has been totally in pension mode for several years. The SMSF and some investments outside superannuation will be our only sources of income for the rest of our lives, and this does tend to focus the mind.

Each year, we provide the fund’s financial and share-trading data to our accountant who prepares the tax return etc, sends us a draft for checking and then forwards everything to the auditor. Following satisfactory audit (we have never had a problem), the SAR is then forwarded to the ATO without further intervention by us.

Given the complexity and instability of superannuation rules, we feel the multiple checkpoints in this process provide good protection against unintentional infringements which could see us in trouble with the ATO – a potentially costly and stressful outcome we are very keen to avoid. They can also help protect us against unwittingly increasing our investment risks.

The proposal to introduce an optional three year audit cycle for some SMSFs (which would include our fund) is therefore of considerable concern to us. We see heightened risk with no material compensatory benefit. Given the choice, we would not opt for three-yearly audits.

Below I provide more detailed comments in response to the specific Consultation Questions raised in the Discussion Paper

On 26 July, I had the opportunity to participate in a Treasury round-table discussion about this proposal, which I appreciated very much. I was there to present a trustee’s view point, not that of any organisation, and I made some of the following comments at that meeting.

3 Consultation questions

3.1 How are audit costs and fees expected to change for SMSF trustees that move to three-year cycles?

This is a critical question, there being no point going ahead with the proposal if costs are to rise, so I would like to discuss it in detail with reference to each of the three benefits claimed and the two concerns mentioned on Page 3 of the Discussion Paper.

3.1.1 Benefit 1: “A reduction in the compliance burden …”

I cannot see the basis for this claim, given the following comments from other parts of the discussion paper:

  • “It is proposed that eligibility … will be based on self-assessment” (Page 4)
  • “If the ATO becomes aware that a SMSF trustee has incorrectly assessed their eligibility for a three-yearly audit cycle, … the ATO will notify the trustee that an audit is required and consider further action if necessary” (Page 4)
  • “ .. a number of events can represent a material change to the situation of the fund and may increase the risk of a breach …” (Page 5)
  • “If a key event falls in a year when an SMSF is not otherwise to be audited, the SMSF will be required to obtain an audit … required to cover all financial years since the SMSF’s last audit” (Page 5)
  • Eight “possible key events” are listed on Page 5, with a request for suggestions.

It is crystal clear that moving some SMSFs to a three-year audit cycle will create a more complex compliance landscape.

This must increase the risk of inadvertent breaches. Trustees who opt for three-yearly audits will have to become aware of a greater number of rules, and be vigilant that they do not inadvertently fail to report a key event.

Both these aspects of three-year audits increase the compliance burden, rather than decreasing it.

In addition, the appalling instability of superannuation legislation suggests there is a very high likelihood that, if three-year audits are introduced, the list of key events will change and be extended over time – further exacerbating compliance worry and risk.

It is unlikely that the trustee or accountant will be spared any administrative effort by moving to a three-year audit cycle, because exactly the same set of transactions will eventually have to be presented for audit as with annual audits.

The second part of the first claimed benefit “… while maintaining appropriate visibility of errors in financial statements and regulatory breaches” just does not make sense. How can visibility be maintained if a transaction is not audited for two or three years?

3.1.2 Benefit 2: “A potential reduction in administrative costs due to less frequent audits…”

It is very hard to see where significant savings could come from:

  • Auditing 3 years’ data at once requires examining exactly the same set of transactions as for three one-year audits. The fact that the audit frequency has changed just means that SMSFs will receive one bill instead of three, but the total cost over three years must be at least as high.
  • Audit fees are themselves not a major cost for most SMSFs. Even if some cost saving were to be achieved, its magnitude could only be trivial.
  • There are some obvious ways in which audit costs must increase under this proposal:
    • Both accountants and auditors will find it more difficult to manage a mixture of clients on 1-year, 2-year and 3-year audits, rather than having everyone on a 1-year cycle. This must push costs up for all clients, not just those who opt for three-year audits.
    • Resolving errors, or even simple ambiguities, in data which is 2 or 3 years old will be more difficult, and therefore more costly, than when all data is no more than a year old and issues are still top-of-mind.

3.1.3 Benefit 3: “An incentive for SMSF trustees to submit SARs in a timelier manner”

The only benefit offered is the unsubstantiated hope that some cost savings will result, but even if that turns out to be true the savings will be small.

Such a nebulous offer is most unlikely to influence the trustee who has already indicated a disdain for fulfilling obligations on time and an indifference to potential penalties.

Late submission is really an administrative issue for the ATO, and it is something the ATO must face with every function it supervises. Complicating the audit cycle for SMSFs is not the way to deal with it.

3.1.4 Concern 1: “… increased non-compliance …”

Certainly the risk of inadvertent non-compliance is increased as discussed above.

The risk of deliberate non-compliance may also increase, because a more complex operating environment creates opportunities.

3.1.5 Concern 2: “… alter the workflow of the SMSF audit industry … lead[ing] to a reduction in the number of businesses specialising in SMSF audits”

That certainly seems likely, and if it occurs the reduced competitive forces will probably push audit costs up further across the market.

3.1.6 Mitigation: “… concerns will be mitigated by appropriate eligibility criteria and, if necessary, transitional arrangements”

I doubt that either eligibility criteria or transitional arrangements will address concerns about cost increases and complexity.

3.2 Do you consider an alternative definition of ‘clear audit reports’ should be adopted? Why?

Clear audits and timeliness are proposed as the criteria by which SMSFs would qualify for a three-year audit cycle.

There is an implied assumption here that SMSFs with a history of clear audit reports and timely submissions are more likely than not to continue that behaviour. Intuitively that seems likely, until one considers the very high number (40%) of SMSFs that the ATO says reported late in a three year period. The assumption ought to be tested, and I assume that ATO has the data to do so.

If one were approaching this problem for the first time, without preconceptions, one might expect that the simplicity of an SMSF’s structure and its transaction history would be a far better predictor of whether or not it routinely submits on time and receives clear audits.

However, simple SMSFs are cheaper to audit, reducing the potential (if any) for cost savings.


3.3 What is the most appropriate definition of timely submission of a SAR? Why?

I think it is consistent with the spirit of this proposal to require “timely submission” to mean three consecutive years without a late submission.

3.4 What should be considered a key event for a SMSF that would trigger the need for an audit report in that year? Which events present the most significant compliance risk?

I don’t have a view on what should constitute key events, as I think that requires a professional opinion, but the following principles are critical from a trustee’s point of view:

  • The list of key events should be confined to items which, if not audited promptly, may cause serious problems later.
  • Procedures should be put in place to ensure that the list of key events is kept as stable as possible, and is not allowed to grow unnecessarily.
  • If trustees are to be responsible for self-assessment of their eligibility for 3-year audits, then it is essential that
    • key events do not include events which are outside the trustee’s control
    • key events do not include events of which the trustee may be unaware
    • key events are easily understood by trustees
    • it is easy for trustees to keep up to date with the list of key events

3.5 Should arrangements be put in place to manage transition to three-yearly audits for some SMSFs? If so, what metric should be used to stagger the introduction to the measure?

Although I do not support the proposal, if it does become law then the method of introduction of the process should be a business decision for accountants and auditors.

Trying to impose some system (like odd and even number plates in a fuel shortage?) seems likely to make a complex issue even more so.

3.6 Are there any other issues that should be considered in policy development?

The superannuation regulatory environment is excessively complicated and has become severely unstable: grandfathering has been virtually abandoned and frequent changes have become the order of the day, in an area that is supposed to guide investment and income provision on a generational timescale. Such instability is not in the national interest.

In this environment the only way to avoid serious unintended consequences of proposed changes is to engage in a thorough process of socialization before they are introduced. To that end, discussion papers such as the present one are very valuable, and I appreciate having had the opportunity to contribute.

The rider I would add to that, though, is that it would have been far better – from both a political and a process point of view – to have had this public discussion before the Budget announcement, rather than after it.

4 About the author

Jim Bonham is a retired scientist and manager. He is deeply concerned about the way retirement funding has developed in recent years, particularly with respect to frequent changes in superannuation legislation made with inadequate consultation and no respect for grandfathering.

An open letter to Kelly O’Dwyer, MP – the Member for Hypocrisy

22 April 2018

Dear Kelly,

It is with sorrow rather than anger that John McMurrick and I write this open letter to you.

On 4 April 2018 you circulated to “higginsliberals” an email regarding superannuation. It was headed “The choice could not be clearer”.

That email included a link to a speech about superannuation, which you said you gave on that day to the Australian Financial Review’s Banking and Wealth Summit (see attached copy [at bottom of this page]; addressee redacted).

When John and I read your email we were gobsmacked! What you now say sits in marked contrast to your past acts.

In our opinion, for the reasons that follow and for so long as you remain in Parliament, you no longer deserve to be known as the Member for Higgins; you should be known as the Member for Hypocrisy.

Your email and our response

Your email begins: “Fundamentally, the Liberal Party stands for those Australians who work hard to build a better future for themselves and their families. Our superannuation system must reward those who save for their future….”.

Later you say: “ [In my speech] I spoke about the Turnbull Government’s plans to make sure our superannuation system… delivers certainty and stability so Australians can plan for their retirement in confidence”.

However, as you are well aware, in May 2016, by the Turnbull/Morrison Budget, many Australians who had worked hard to build a better future for themselves and their families and who had saved in accordance with successive governments’ superannuation rules (including those made by Coalition governments) were not to be rewarded but were to be punished by the Liberal Party.

You were instrumental in effecting those changes to the superannuation system.

Those changes delivered uncertainty and instability.

Australians can no longer plan for their retirement in confidence.

You have turned superannuation from a long-term, multi-decades, retirement income system into, at best, an annual Federal Budget-to-Budget saving proposition.

That is a contradiction in terms.

It is unsustainable.

Background to Turnbull/Morrison Budget 2016

In February 2016, Scott Morrison rightly cautioned against what he called the ‘effective retrospectivity’ of raising taxes or restrictions on the pension phase of superannuation after attracting and trapping savings in superannuation for some 40 years under the earlier legislated tax rules.

Then, in May 2016, Scott Morrison and you did just that.

Both of you failed to include in the Turnbull/Morrison Budget 2016 appropriate ‘grandfathering’ provisions which have accompanied every major adverse change in pensions and superannuation tax for the last 40 years.

Scott Morrison and you, with the support of the Coalition, destroyed many Australians’ confidence and trust in the superannuation system.

But that’s not all.

By what follows, Scott Morrison and you gratuitously insulted every Australian that had faithfully conformed with the previous superannuation rules and had, in the process, lawfully saved a substantial amount for their retirement.

Explanatory Memorandum for 3 Superannuation Bills, November 2016

On 9 November 2016, to give effect to those superannuation changes, Scott Morrison presented the Coalition’s superannuation package to Parliament. The changes wrought by that package came into practical operation on 1 July 2017.

To publicly explain and justify those superannuation changes to Parliament, Scott Morrison and you circulated and relied in Parliament upon a 364 page “Explanatory Memorandum”.

The Explanatory Memorandum states on its cover page “Circulated by the authority of the Treasurer, the Hon Scott Morrison MP and Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP”.

In turn, the Explanatory Memorandum expressly refers to, and provides links to, a Grattan Institute media release and report (see attached extract [at bottom of this page]).

That Grattan Institute material shows, on its cover, an image of three of the bronze pigs on display in the Rundle Street Mall, Adelaide [1].

Bronze pigs in Rundle Street Mall, Adelaide

We, and other self-funded superannuants, believe that The Grattan Institute’s prominent use of that image of those bronze pigs was not merely a juvenile attempt at humour.

It was a none-to-subtle insulting implication that Australians that had faithfully conformed with successive governments’ superannuation rules and had substantial superannuation savings were, nonetheless,  greedy pigs with their ‘snouts in the trough’.

Yet there it is in Scott Morrison’s and your Explanatory Memorandum to Parliament which you used to justify and explain your superannuation changes.

Your comment in your email regarding Labor’s proposed changes and our response

In your email you say: “In contrast, Labor plans to make changes that will make it harder for people to be self-reliant in their retirement,….”(emphasis in original).

In our opinion, it is Scott Morrison and you, supported by the Coalition who have made it harder for people to be self-reliant in their retirement, principally by the adverse superannuation changes announced in the Turnbull/Morrison Budget 2016 and its subsequent legislation.

Labor gratefully supported that legislation in which you failed to include appropriate ‘grandfathering’ provisions.

Labor could not believe its luck!

True it is, that Labor plans to make it even harder, than the Coalition has, for people to be self-reliant in their retirement. But surely it is hypocritical to draw attention to Labor’s proposed adverse superannuation changes whilst studiously ignoring those in which you played a major part.

The choice could not be clearer

Finally, the heading of your email, namely “The choice could not be clearer”, may well prove to be true.  But, because of your past actions and that of Scott Morrison and the Coalition, not in a way that you and many of the recipient “higginsliberals” would prefer to see happen.


Jack Hammond and John McMurrick

On behalf of themselves and Save Our Super (

Attachments to the open letter:
The choice could not be clearer

Explanatory memo superannuation bills 2016 extract – p 275

Footnote to the open letter:
[1] The Explanatory Memorandum refers to The Grattan Institute’s 24 November 2015 report, “Super tax targeting” by John Daley and Brendan Coates: see page 275, paragraph 14.12, footnote 2.
Click on the link on footnote 2, “2 Grattan Institute, media release, ‘For fairness and a stronger Budget, it is time to target super tax breaks’, 24 November 2015,”
Click on the link at foot of that page “Read the report“.
That link will take you to The Grattan Institute report “Super tax targeting “ dated 24 November 2015 by John Daley and Brendan Coates.
The report’s cover page shows the image of those bronze pigs in the Rundle Street Mall, Adelaide.
Note: The Grattan Institute’s website has been updated since the publication of that document. However, the article itself and the image of the 3 pigs remain.

Labor’s Pensioner Guarantee for dividend imputation credits

27 March 2018

Sourced from:
– (no longer available)

High taxes, more regulation? Sounds like Turnbull’s Coalition

The Australian

26 August 2017

Judith Sloan

Picture the scene. It was this year’s budget lockup and I was trying to keep my head down. I made the mistake of reading the speech that would be delivered in a few hours. Now these speeches are generally vacuous drivel, but this year’s really set the bar at a new low. Scott Morrison would be speaking as if he were a Labor politician.

“We must choose to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. We cannot underestimate just how important these services are to people. We must tackle cost-of-living pressures for Australians and their families. We cannot agree with those who say there is nothing that the government can do.”

My god, I thought; the Treasurer is our father in Canberra and he is here to look after us. His likely defence is that the focus groups made him say this.

If that weren’t bad enough, the next instalment came after the entrance of the Treasurer to our room in the lockup. When confronted by some awkward questions about the case for the major bank levy, he quoted the title of the song: Cry Me a River.

In other words, he simply didn’t care that the new impost was ill-considered and economically damaging. He couldn’t even outline a sensible rationale for seeking to rake in more than $6 billion in four years from the four big banks and the Macquarie Group. That the burden of the tax would be borne by customers, shareholders and workers was but a passing consideration for our caring father. But his flock — again thanks to those focus groups — was telling him they didn’t like the banks. The logic is that if you don’t like them, he will impose a whopping new tax on them.

The only way I could get the Treasurer’s preferred song out of my head was to impose another one. And it went like this: you’ve lost that liberal feeling / bring back that liberal feeling.

To my mind, this aptly sums up what has happened to the Turnbull government. It has abandoned support for liberal ideas; for the centrality of individual responsibility. Malcolm Turnbull and other senior ministers increasingly reject the importance of competition and choice as the means of ensuring consumers get the best deal. Instead, they (erroneously) think more government regulation, aggressive bully­ing of businesses and trammelling on legitimate commercial arrangements are the way forward.

There are many — too many — examples and I will go through some of them. But here’s an important general point: if the Liberal Party wants to turn its back on its principles — and I haven’t even mentioned its general embrace of higher taxes and its botched superannuation initiatives — then voters are likely to turn to the real deal when it comes to the rejection of free market economics and install Labor.

Labor’s embrace of big government, high taxes and more regulation is also a repudiation of the Hawke-Keating legacy. But, let’s face it, Labor can concoct a form of words that goes with its retreat from those halcyon days; think fairness, inequality, helping minority groups and the like.

These slogans play less well in the hands of members of the Coalition government even though some of them, including the Prime Minister, laughably think they can lay claim to that much-distorted adjective, fair.

So let’s go through some of the anti-Liberal policy initiatives the Turnbull government has implemented or is proposing to implement. Of course, the major bank levy is right up there as one of the most preposterous.

That the Treasurer could keep a straight face telling us that he was instructing the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission to ensure that the banks didn’t pass the levy on to their customers was a truly amazing sight. What does he thinks happen to taxes? Does he think that businesses absorb the GST?

And how does Morrison’s dub­ious intervention square with the Treasury’s modelling on the revenue that will be gained from the levy, firmly assuming it will be passed on to customers and therefore not affect the banks’ profits? Otherwise, the revenue from the normal company tax paid by the banks would be reduced, and we couldn’t have that.

It is almost impossible to list the new regulatory interventions affecting the banking sector, most of them simply costly and likely to prove ineffective. There are regulators falling over themselves to impose higher costs on the banks.

Arguably, the cost of all these new, ongoing intrusions — think, in particular, the absurd banking executive accountability regime — will be higher than the alternative of having a royal commission into banking, which for political reasons the Liberal Party has done everything to avoid.

Then we go to the energy space. Here the government makes the mistake of openly expressing its reservations for undertaking a series of extraordinary anti-market interventions but proceeding notwithstanding.

Consider the decision to restrict the export of gas for which there had been previous government approval. Or consider the government’s determination to remove the right of the transmission companies to appeal the decisions of the regulator, overriding the basis of good governance of regulated industries.

And then, willy-nilly, the government agreed to 49 of the 50 recommendations of the Finkel review on energy security, even though many of them are ill-conceived and add up to a new layer of costly regulation on a sector that is already overwhelmed by a labyrinth of complex and inconsistent rules and regulations.

And because we don’t have enough energy agencies — there are dozens if you add in the state-based ones — another will be added: the Energy Security Board.

There is also the truly bizarre decision of the Coalition government to support the entreaties of the Nationals to re-regulate the sugar industry in Queensland, turning its back on the previous difficult and expensive decision to remove the single desk selling arrangement in that industry.

And what about the Treasurer’s decision to refuse to lower the prohibitive tariff on imported second-hand cars even though there will be no local manufacturing in this country from the end of the year?

Evidently, regional car dealers and parts suppliers were able to pressure the government to reject this clearly pro-consumer decision. Note that the importation of relatively new second-hand cars is commonplace in New Zealand and other countries, and causes no problems at all. Instead, the Turnbull government’s motto is: rent-seekers, come on down.

During the week, a senior member of the Turnbull government texted me to ask why I was so angry about the government. I’m not angry; I’m just bitterly disappointed. If the Turnbull government ever had a chance of convincing the electorate that it could govern well, it needed to stick with the principles it inherited from the Howard years. And those principles involved commitment to individual responsibility, competition, choice, low taxation and getting government out of the way as much as possible. On all scores, this government has been a complete flop.

Let’s face it, telling the voters that the government is here to look after us will always end in tears. Disappointment, frustration, enfeeblement — these are the likeliest outcomes.

Emphasis added by Save Our Super

Most superannuation nest eggs won’t save you from a pension

The Australian

25 July 2017

Judith Sloan

It won’t surprise anyone that I don’t regard myself as a victim — never have, never will. Can I also point out that one of the greatest
joys of my life has been bringing up children? I was lucky to be able to drive a balance between family and work.

So when I read the latest treatise bemoaning the shabby treatment of women in the workforce, I am generally uninclined to accept
the message or the recommendations at face value.

The recent topic has been superannuation and women. A study was conducted by think tank Per Capita and was funded by the
Australian Services Union. Note that the motto of Per Capita is Fighting Inequality in Australia. You get the drift.

It turns out that women’s superannuation balances are systematically lower than men’s, that the gap increases across the course of
working lives and that, at the age of 65, the average difference between men’s and women’s superannuation accounts is $70,000.

The median women’s balance immediately before retirement is less than $80,000. Mind you, the median men’s balance is only
$150,000. Anyone with these sorts of balances, and assuming a lack of other substantial assets (apart perhaps from a home), will
qualify for the full age pension and its associated benefits.

The authors of the study incorrectly describe the state of women’s superannuation as a wicked problem. A wicked problem is one
with inconsistent objectives and a lack of agreed information. This is simply not the case when it comes to women and

If there is a problem, it is the broader one related to the real purpose of compulsory superannuation. And this applies to both women
and men. For anyone on relatively low wages, all superannuation does is force them to accept reduced wages during their working
lives in exchange for possibly knocking off their full entitlement to the age pension. It’s a very bad deal.

Year after year these workers must forgo current consumption, which may now include buying a house but also help with the costs
of rearing children, meeting daily expenses and the occasional holiday, to be slightly better off when they retire. It really is a diabolic
trade-off for these workers, but from which they cannot escape.

So let’s return to the study. The reasons for women’s lower superannuation balances are obvious: on average, they earn less during
their working lives and they work less. This doesn’t mean that all women have low superannuation balances, just as this doesn’t
mean that all men have high superannuation balances.

Let’s take the working less bit first. Women are much likelier to work part time than men. In the most recent figures, women make
up 47 per cent of the workforce, a historical high. But almost half of women work part time, defined as those working 35 hours a
week or less, while only 18 per cent of men work part time.

Note, however, that the proportion of men who work part time has also been rising.

On this basis, it is hardly surprising that women’s superannuation balances are lower. They work fewer hours than men and hence
the wage on which their superannuation contribution (currently 9.5 per cent) is based is also lower.

But we shouldn’t forget that most women who work part time are doing so to balance their family and work responsibilities. And
many of these women quite rightly regard earnings and superannuation as a joint family product with both partners contributing to
the common pool.

It also should be noted that in the event of divorce, superannuation is regarded as an asset of the marriage to be divided up as part of
the financial settlement.

So what is the impact of the gender pay gap, an issue that attracts a lot of attention, most of it ill-informed?

At present, the difference between male and female earnings is about 16 per cent. It has fallen slightly as the mining investment
boom has come off and men have lost their high-paid jobs in that sector.

But the gross pay gap doesn’t tell us much about the explanations. After controlling for the many variables that affect earnings, such
as occupation, education, training, job tenure and the like, the pay gap narrows significantly, although it doesn’t reduce to zero.

But here’s the rub, at least for the Per Capita study and its sponsor, the Australian Services Union: the gender pay gap for low-paid
workers is explained entirely by wage-related characteristics. Moreover, the impact of minimum wages is to increase women’s
earnings relative to men’s.

So what should you make of the recommendations of this dubious study? In a word, they are ridiculous.

Let’s take the last one first — that the superannuation contribution be lifted immediately to 12 per cent. What the authors are saying
is that all workers must immediately forgo an additional 2.5 percentage points of their wage to augment their final superannuation
balance in several decades.

Then there are all sorts of silly suggestions for fleecing taxpayers some more to top up the superannuation balances that the authors
regard as inadequate.

But this makes no sense at all. After all, these low super balance workers will qualify for the full age pension, which in turn is fully
funded by taxpayers.

Why ask taxpayers to pay now when they will be forced to pay later?

Then there is the typical recommendation of these types of reports — add another government agency to the very long list of existing
agencies. In this case, the re-establishment of the largely pointless Office of the Status of Women is the suggestion.

For heaven’s sake, we already have the efficiency-sapping and senseless Workplace Gender Equality Agency whose work is of such
a poor standard that no one takes it seriously. But it doesn’t stop the agency from imposing more demands for information on
businesses every year.

In point of fact, there is a big issue here: what really is the justification for the system of compulsory superannuation? The central
rationale for superannuation was that it would replace the Age Pension and give workers a more comfortable retirement than might
have been the case.

Given the forecasts of the proportion of workers who will break free from the Age Pension during the next 40 years — it hardly
budges — the debate we should be having is whether we should ditch compulsory superannuation altogether.

Transcript of the ABC’s 7.30 Report interview of Save Our Super’s Jack Hammond QC and John McMurrick on Kelly O’Dwyer

Click here to view the ABC’s 7.30 Report interview of Save Our Super’s Jack Hammond QC and John McMurrick on Kelly O’Dwyer.

Following is the transcript of the interview:

ANDREW PROBYN, REPORTER: A little over a week into maternity leave for her second child, Kelly O’Dwyer’s enemies have struck and they are not afraid to spell out what they want.

JACK HAMMOND QC, ‘SAVE OUR SUPER’ FOUNDER: Kelly O’Dwyer, in my view, doesn’t deserve to be our local member.

ANDREW PROBYN: One of Malcolm Turnbull’s five women Cabinet ministers, Ms O’Dwyer, is being targeted by a group of rich and powerful constituents, still furious at the use of the Government’s changes to superannuation. They say the timing of their intervention is incidental.

JACK HAMMOND QC: It’s a complete, if you pardon the pun, misconception. It has got nothing to do with her being on maternity leave or otherwise. They gave birth to an appalling policy which is affecting thousands of Australians and not only now but in the future.

They are the people who they should be thinking about.

ANDREW PROBYN: The Government argued that only the very rich were affected and with Labor support, the changes passed Parliament last November, including a 15 per cent tax on earnings for super nest eggs worth more than $1.6 million.

KELLY O’DWYER, FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTER: Superannuation isn’t simply a revenue grab. It is about making sure the system is sustainable. It is about making sure that it is fair and, above all, it is about making sure that it is flexible and it is about making sure that we look after all Australians, not just a few.

ANDREW PROBYN: One of those angered is Jack Hammond, a barrister who lives in Ms O’Dwyer’s leafy suburban seat of Higgins who quickly moved to set up the ‘Save our Super’ group. It held a rally during the election campaign that attracted a modest crowd but included some backers with deep pockets.

JACK HAMMOND QC: What may have been lacked in numbers, certainly made up in vehemence and anger.

JOHN MCMURRICK, FORMER LIBERAL MEMBER: No, it’s very unfair. It affects a lot of people. And they are crucifying not only those who made a bob, they’re crucifying hundreds of other people.

ANDREW PROBYN: John McMurrick, a former insurance broker, now property developer bristles at suggestions his opposition is out of self-interest.

JOHN MCMURRICK: We have got a campaign to try and help people who have planned for 30 and 40 and 50 years and their whole plans are thrown into complete confusion.

ANDREW PROBYN: Mr McMurrick a big party donor, quit as a Liberal Party member last year. But the push to unseat Ms O’Dwyer got new potency when Tony Abbott’s former Chief of Staff Peta Credlin, was mentioned in dispatches as a potential replacement.

JACK HAMMOND QC: She speaks very plainly. She is a very intelligent person and thus far she hasn’t broken any promises to this electorate and the Australian people.

ANDREW PROBYN: Ms Credlin, no ally of Ms O’Dwyer, was slow to dispel the story, saying at first she had not been formally approached to run in Higgins.

But by Sunday when the optics of moving on a Cabinet minister on maternity leave sunk in, she made it clear.

PETA CREDLIN, TONY ABBOTT’S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF: Regardless of whether it is Kelly O’Dwyer or anyone else, I don’t think challenging sitting members is a good look. It certainly is not something that is rewarded in the Liberal Party.

ANDREW PROBYN: As the minister with responsibility for superannuation, Kelly O’Dwyer is feeling the heat for a collective Cabinet decision made almost a year ago, but the undermining of her just days after giving birth is very ordinary indeed.

And that’s only half of it. Ms O’Dwyer is at the pinch-point in an increasingly toxic Victorian Liberal Party division.

She’s caught up in a factional war, involving state party president Michael Kroger. It’s a split that could have implications beyond Victoria.

STEPHEN MAYNE, FORMER LIBERAL STAFFER: Michael Kroger is a very controversial figure. He is the President. There was a failed coup against him recently involving Peter Reith as an alternative candidate, which was backed by all of the old Peter Costello supporters like Kelly O’Dwyer and was also backed by the Victorian state Liberal Leader Matthew Guy. And obviously there is a state election in Victoria next year. So, it is the Kroger versus the rest forces at work.

MICHAEL KROGER, VICTORIAN LIBERAL PRESIDENT: I don’t comment on Liberal Party preselections. That is a matter for branch members. We had this trouble recently in the Victorian party, where various MP’s were commenting on the presidency. And that goes down extremely badly with branch members.

ANDREW PROBYN: Former Howard government member Peter Reith suffered a stroke in late March, forcing his withdrawal from his challenge for the presidency. Kroger loyalists say that their man would have won anyway. Perhaps by as many as 150 out of 1150 votes. The Reith camp says that’s rubbish and Stephen Maine, a former Liberal staffer, agrees.

STEPHEN MAYNE: Matthew Guy, coming out publicly and endorsing Peter Reith was the decisive factor in that contest and many believe that Reith would have won because Kroger was on the nose.

ANDREW PROBYN: Liberal insiders say there is a real prospect of tit for tat preselection challenges between the Conservative and moderate wings of the Liberal Party and not just in Victoria.

Tony Abbott is facing a possible challenge in Warringah and his staunch ally Kevin Andrews will likely face a fight for his safe seat of Menzies. Ironically was once touted as a seat fit for Peta Credlin.

STEPHEN MAYNE: It might be a case of leave Tony Abbott alone or we will proceed with this challenge against Kelly O’Dwyer and it might be that the Abbott forces are looking for a bit of peace based on “you wouldn’t want a war, would you?”

ANDREW PROBYN: Not that any of this would particularly perturb any of those who have their own personal beef with the Liberals.

JACK HAMMOND QC: It is not rich people intervening to protect themselves. It’s people who have relied on promises of government over decades, who have done nothing more than obey the law and then on budget night without any forewarning, you are suddenly sprung with a completely changed policy.

The way in which it is framed is, this will only affect a few wealthy people. How puerile, really.

JOHN MCMURRICK: They will never raise any money until they get the trust of the people back. They have lost the trust of their constituents and they will find this out at the next election. Now we have heard from some politicians, the way it is looking, we will lose 20 seats at the next election. What a mess.

Government push for income retirement products mired in division

Australian Financial Review

14 July 2017

Alice Uribe

The idea behind it is simple: Australia needs a way to ensure retirees do not outlive their savings. The solution sounds simple too: Create a suite of products that can provide a minimal additional level of income or a guaranteed level of income, with the expectation that it will stay constant (in real terms) for life.

But the path to creating the federal government’s Comprehensive Income Products for Retirement regime (also known as MyRetirement) is proving anything but smooth. Many believe what the government has come up with is at best unworkable and ineffective, and at worst unnecessary .

The peak body for the superannuation industry, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, says in its 27-page submission to the inquiry into CIPRs that the framework “as currently designed … is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve its stated objectives”.

KMPG’s superannuation director Katrina Bacon is blunt. She doesn’t believe many retirees will embrace the annuity-style products the regime envisages.

“I believe the launch of retirement products will continue to be a slow burn. From the individual’s point
of view, the framework does little to address the impediments to members taking them up,” she says.

Private pension
With the majority of super funds’ memberships soon to stop working, a so-called private pension product could well become their most important product offering.

This move towards the CIPRS framework stems from people’s uncertainty over how to make their retirement funds last across an impossible-to -predict lifespan.

Statistics show that 50 per cent of males currently aged 65 will die before 85, while 50 per cent will live longer and many will hit the ripe old age of 100.

“Because of the uncertainty, many retirees scrimp and save, and live on the minimum drawdown from their superannuation assets, driven by the fear of running out. As a consequence their lifestyle in retirement is curtailed and bequests are high,” Bacon says.

Those who are well-off can draw down the minimum amount from their super pension, keeping it in a tax-free environment.

“But for the population in between – who have a reasonable amount of super savings that can usefully supplement the age-pension and non-super assets – the challenge is how to spread this amount over retirement,” she says.

Super funds began thinking about the particular issues faced by retirees as far back as 2009, with ING becoming the first to market with a product that provided a guaranteed income for life. But these products have received a mixed reaction because of their cost and the challenge of explaining them.

Default offering
“The importance of this issue has increased as the number of retirees has grown. The concept of a MySuper-style default offering in retirement was contemplated as part of the Stronger Super reforms but was not implemented,” says Bacon.

“It was raised again as a recommendation of the 2014 Financial System Inquiry, eventually leading to the government’s release of the CIPRs framework for industry consultation.”

Treasury manager, retirement income policy division, Darren Kennedy told a Financial Services Council forum in May that the CIPRs framework aims to balance flexibility and risk by combining products like an annuity and an account-based pension.

Kennedy says the CIPRs framework is not intended to compel retirees to take up a certain retirement income product, to encourage annuities, to eliminate bequests for super or replace the need for financial advice.

Load more