Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 588

Taxpayers betrayed by Future Fund debacle

The machinations that have now led to changes to the originally declared purpose of the Future Fund (Fund), treat the Australian taxpayer with utter disdain.

The Government and the Parliament of 2006 entered into a clear ‘agreement’ with Australian citizens that is not being honoured. The conduct by successive governments in overseeing the Fund exemplifies why there is widespread distrust in politicians.

In 2006 the Fund was created and seeded with approximately $60 billion of Australian citizens capital. It was created with a clear purpose as declared by the public statements of the Howard Government that was notably omitted in the legislation. That declared purpose was to create a financial mechanism to meet the burgeoning unfunded liabilities of the defined benefit schemes of politicians, bureaucrats (including judges), and defence personnel.

The Future Fund was established as part of a broader strategy to improve the long-term financial position of future Australian taxpayers. The Fund aimed to cover the largest liability on the government’s balance sheet that existed in 2006.

Readers may recall that in 2006, the Commonwealth had no net debt whilst the Commonwealth Defined Benefit Scheme was an actuarial assessed superannuation liability. The table below — published by the Australian Treasury in 2006 — disclosed the position and the projected outlook at that time.

By 2006, the government had taken a number of decisions to reduce the burgeoning cost of the unfunded superannuation liability. These included:

  • Closing the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme to new members of Parliament from 9 October 2004;
  • Closing the defined benefit Public Sector Superannuation Scheme to new members from 1 July 2005; and
  • Making one-off payments totalling $5 billion to extinguish fully the government’s liabilities relating to the Telstra and Australia Post Superannuation Schemes and various state rail employees.

Shifting public service employees from defined benefit to accumulation schemes reduced the fiscal risks to the taxpayer and checked the growth of the superannuation liability arising from civilian public sector employees. The sole remaining defined benefit scheme of any significance still open to new members was (in 2006) the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme.

In a report to the Parliament in 2017 the former Fund’s chair Peter Costello, noted that the liabilities lay in defined benefit schemes that had been closed, but which continued to accumulate liabilities from public servants still working under the scheme. He noted that paying out those liabilities could run until 2085 — depending on the lifespan of eligible members and (presumably) their surviving partners!

The original actuarial assessment

In 2006, the Commonwealth actuaries estimated (and documented) that the Commonwealth (i.e. taxpayers) liability for unfunded defined benefits was approximately $100 billion, or 10% of Australia’s 2006 GDP.

Therefore, a strategy had to be urgently developed to secure the servicing of these liabilities. More so because demographic research indicated that fiscal stress would be created by the ageing Australian population that would progressively retire from the tax paying workforce from 2010.

The next chart shows the 2006 actuarial forecasts of the ballooning liability, as more public servants moved into retirement with defined benefit pensions. Of note is that in 2006, when the Fund was set up, it was forecast that the liability would be about $140 billion (in 2020). The target set by the parliament for the Fund’s size was to aim for this amount. To achieve this targeted value, the targeted return (portfolio return target) was set at an average of 5 per cent above inflation. The target was set for 2020, and it was achieved!

However, the bad news, that was kept away from the taxpaying public, was that the Commonwealth actuary had grossly underestimated the liability as at 2020. The mistake has never been fully investigated or publicly scrutinised. What assumptions were made that were hopelessly flawed? The $60 billion actuarial error passed by the financial and political press, with no commentary or assessment. There was no “jumping up and down” by the Labor Opposition - as some were and remain beneficiaries of the Fund.

By 2020 the estimated liability was increased to over $200 billion, and the Morrison government (with Parliamentary approval) had already declared that the Fund would have another six years (till FY27) to accumulate enough capital to meet the new assessed liability.

Thus, in 2020, the budget continued to pay out about $8 billion to beneficiaries of Commonwealth defined benefit pensions – whilst the Fund was left untouched. In the latest budget (FY24) these annual pensions appear to have ballooned to over $15 billion – some 2.5% of total budget outlays - whilst the Fund has grown to $230 billion.

After 18 years of accumulation from that initial ceding of $60 billion of taxpayer funds (some 6% of 2006 GDP), the laudable intention of the Fund — to free budgets from 2020 of the burden of making superannuation related payments — has not yet been activated.

(In passing I note that the $15 billion cash pension payment in FY24 is an estimate because it is hidden in the budget papers. No one in Parliament is concerned to question the actual defined benefit liability or how much pensions are paid each year. Meanwhile the national press seems challenged by the concept of unfunded public liabilities, assets and cashflows.)

Another delay in the payment of pensions by the Future Fund

Last week the Government announced that it will further delay Fund pension payments until 2033 when the fund (it is estimated) will expand to about $380 billion. This is $240 billion above what the actuaries originally forecast as to what was needed in 2006. It will be $180 billion above the forecast of 2020.

It begs the obvious question - what is the real liability for hard working taxpayers?

This week, the current Chairman of the Future Fund, Greg Combet declared that the current value of the Fund ($230 billion) covers 79% of the “estimated” superannuation liabilities. That would suggest the liability has now become $290 billion!

This declaration begs the further questions – Are Australian taxpayers being 'legged over' with the true hidden liability of nondisclosed defined benefits creating a liability that may never be fully met by the Future Fund? Are current and will future taxpayers pay for a superannuation scheme that benefits a few and is simply unaffordable?

Let's be clear - low income but essential workers - like aged care, childcare, cleaners, and nurses etc - pay their tax with little or no understanding that a part of that tax is constantly being allocated to pay the indexed lifetime defined benefit pensions.

Those taxpayers and particularly the latest working generation, can only dream of such a pension benefit. New taxpayers entering the workforce will surely object to their taxes being used to pay these indexed pensions as they struggle with cost-of-living pressures.

Time to come clean and fix this mess

The practical solutions for the Future Fund, that is for the benefit of the majority of Australians, are simple.

The Parliament needs to direct the Future Fund to either immediately begin to pay the pensions that it was set up to do, or to make capital payments to each beneficiary to extinguish the individual liabilities.

By the Fund paying the pensions then the annual cash savings to the budget could be redistributed as tax cuts to low-income earners. Also, for example, an allocation to the building of social housing - build to rent – could be undertaken. In that way the asset base of the Australian public can be replenished.

Through redirected budget outlays, essential assets would be owned by the public and not by a pension fund that is solely for benefit of retired politicians, retired judges and bureaucrats.

The payment of pensions could be made from the cash flows of the Fund as it is redirected to become the pension fund it was originally set up to do.

Alternatively, a mandatory capital payment to beneficiaries, would transfer the liability to their individual superannuation accounts. This is exactly what the overwhelming majority of Australians are required to do for their superannuation.

If the $230 billion sitting in the Fund is not enough to undertake either of the two options outlined above, then the public needs to know why?

The agreement and undertaking of 2006 needs to be honoured.

The public declarations of retired politicians, who continue to passionately argue for the Future Fund to be left alone, need to be factually examined with proper disclosures. What are their defined benefits? What superannuation or salaries do they or can they receive with those defined benefits? What benefits will accrue to their partners?

Also, what is the current highest annual defined benefit pension paid to any beneficiary? That would make an interesting disclosure given the current proposal to tax unrealised gains on $3 million pension funds.

 

John Abernethy is Founder and Chairman of Clime Investment Management Limited, a sponsor of Firstlinks. The information contained in this article is of a general nature only. The author has not taken into account the goals, objectives, or personal circumstances of any person (and is current as at the date of publishing).

For more articles and papers from Clime, click here.

 

54 Comments
Boomer Bob
December 05, 2024

As at 30 June 2023 there are 56,203 current contributors to these schemes and 142,628 primary pensioners and 26,240 dependents. Average annual pension is $50,989 which isn’t a big number. Source: PSS and CSS Long Term Cost Report 2023

CSS members (contributors and pensioners) would all be 60 plus. PSS 40+. Contrary to what is reported many people don’t live to see 70.

Many members wouldn’t have worked the 30+ years in the public service needed to take home the full benefits.

Given the number of members, their advanced age and low average annual pension how are you getting such enormous figures for the liability?

Not saying you're wrong just curious.


Paul
December 05, 2024

Judges, pollies and mostly the military.

Vicky
December 12, 2024

Judges and Pollies earn high wages, so their superannuation pension is and should be higher than average, and commensurate with the income they have earned. People on higher incomes are also paying higher tax. So, what is the problem? The Future Fund is merely a buffer to help the government pay for those super pensions, so the entire amount doesn't come out of current consolidated revenue. The Government does have to pay super pensions to the people they employ. They also pay pensions (old age, unemployment, etc) to people who have never worked in their lives. Thankfully, their pensions are not as high and usually not enough to pay tax. So Paul, are you suggesting that Judges and Pollies should only receive the same amount of pension as those who have never worked or only worked some of the time, or do you believe that the old age pension and unemployment pension should be increased to what the judges and pollies are now receiving?

I can see how defined benefit pensions can be extremely expensive and why they have all been dismantled. I am on one. But, how do you expect our elderly citizens, who no longer have the capacity to work, to survive in this world? I think we need to have a solution that takes care of everyone, regardless of what they did in their life. But, all of that, still has to be paid for.

Anyway, I think AI will take a lot of jobs in an era that will be much worse than the Industrial Revolution. So it will also be the young who will also become affected. So governments around the world, will need to start having a plan to deal with this. Maybe by gradually reducing working hours/days so there are enough jobs for most people, while ensuring that everyone can still live comfort and dignity, throughout all of our life stages. Eventually, most of us will have even more leisure time to spend with our families, because most of the work will be done by robots.

Brian
December 04, 2024

A very powerful informative article, thanks for outlining the situation with the FF.
When the name Greg Combet appeared I groaned for the final time.
Whats happened to transparency, truth and accountability?
Mug payg taxpayers always get the sh*t end of the stick.

Peeyush Gupta
December 04, 2024

The alternative to having the full cost of a separate Future Fund entity would (have been at outset and even now) to simply pay the corpus into the CSS super scheme, whose investment returns have been slightly better than the Future Fund’s since the FF’s inception. This would be consistent with the original intent of the FF, would remove the temptation to politically interfere/direct how the assets of the FF should be invested, and remove an extra layer of expertise/management cost.

Darmah
December 03, 2024

In the late 1970’s, I listened to a Radio National program about exactly this problem of un-funded DB schemes in the CSS.
The interviewer was talking to a superannuation accountant, who had written a “paper” on this topic and was worried the public was unaware of the looming drain on taxpayers.
Towards the end of the program, the interviewer asked his guest if he happen to know the name of a person who had been in a DB scheme the longest with the largest balance?
Yes, said the accountant, it’s on public record, the then Federal Treasurer, John Howard.

And just to add, I know some one who was retrenched from CPS in the late 1990’s, his financial advisor was at pains to point out the advantages of taking his DB payment as an indexed pension for life, that was more than twenty years ago, and to the best of my knowledge he’s still working and been receiving the pension ever since.
More power to his arm, but as someone who’s been a self-employed tradesman all my life, I could only dream of such largesse.

Boomer Bob
December 05, 2024

According to the PSS and CSS Long Term Cost Report 2023 191 Males remain pensioners on the 1922 scheme. I shudder to think what the average age is since the 1922 scheme CLOSED in 1976. If your story is true Howard would have to have been on that scheme. And he is part of a very small cohort.

Tony
December 02, 2024

The Australian Fund should be "The Australian Pension Fund". As it is Australian's money, all Australians should benefit.

RobK
December 02, 2024

John, you have followed and written on this worsening debacle of growing unfunded pension liabilities and lack of full and proper disclosure , for many years. I commend you for that, given the investigative time to do that.
If this situation had arisen in a listed public company, the Directors through mandatory disclosure requirements, would have been forced to disclose the unfunded liability and to put forward a solution to shareholders after negotiating with the company pension fund members - ie top up the fund out of company profits/raise capital!! or borrow!!, cash out / convert all members to accumulation fund. Failure by the Directors to resolve the problem, would surely lead to a spill of the Board by shareholders (plus CEO/CFO), with suitable replacements to rectify the problem.
It's time for Treasury and Combet to be required to make full disclosure at Senate Estimates ( no sitting member to be a Defined Benefit Scheme member), with recommendations for a solution while honouring the agreement/undertaking on the Future Fund made in 2006.
Taxpayers and the Electorate, should demand no less.
Question is : how to achieve this ? A discussion with your local member certainly won't.

Former Treasury policy maker
December 02, 2024

OK, this highlights my point. How is the manager of the funds that the government has allocated responsible for any failures of the ultimate investor to manage their net liabilities? The Future Fund was set up to manage money, to grow their portfolio over the long term for the benefit of Australians.

It happens that some of that money - and it is only some - is, in the mind of the investor who's given it the money, designated for paying defined benefit superannuation liabilities to the employees of the investor. But the Future Fund does not manage the defined benefit scheme and is not responsible if the liabilities of that scheme grow for fiscal reasons faster than their portfolio grows.

Read the Future Fund's website. Their purpose is to be our sovereign wealth fund, generating growth in their portfolio for the benefit of Australia into the future. And, as I said before, they don't just manage the funds allocated against the public sector defined benefit scheme, along with several other pools of money allocated for different purposes. This is what they say:

"We invest the assets of the Future Fund, the Medical Research Future Fund, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund, the Future Drought Fund, the Disaster Ready Fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund.
"We operate independently from Government and tailor the management of each fund to its unique investment mandate."

This article argues that the Future Fund is a debacle. That tone has duped people like you, Rob K, into arguing that it's Chair to 'make full disclosure'. About what? That the Fund he chairs has invested appropriately according to the mandates its been given and generated the very good returns that it has? They do that already in their annual report.

I've got no problem with the debate about whether the government has handled its unfunded liabilities properly; whether there's a big shortfall; whether they should perhaps have redeemed funds from the Future Fund to pay out some liabilities. But that is not what the heading leads us to believe and clearly it's got a lot of others riled up that the Future Fund is somehow misbehaving. It isn't.

And btw, to those who've commented here as if I'm a retired public servant, sucking on the teat, that's not true. Yes, I worked for Treasury in the past. A long time ago (decades) and when I left I got a small super payout that rolled into my own fund. I'm not trying to defend the scheme. I'm defending the Future Fund against unwarranted and unfounded criticism. It's doing a really good job for all Australians. Do you seriously think we'd be better off without it?

John Abernethy
December 02, 2024

Thank you again for your view.

We would be better off paying the pensions from the Fund and not from the budget and taxing the working community.

You have twisted my comments in my article.

My article has nothing to do with how the capital is invested or the returns generated.

My article was totally focussed on the utilisation of Australian citizens capital to deal with a huge pension liability.

The Fund was set up to deal with the unfunded pension liability no matter what twist that Peter Costello wants to now claim!

Yes - that liability was grossly miscalculated and continues to grow whilst the portfolio has returned its target.

However, we now ( going forward) need to assume that the Fund will not be affected by diseconomies of scale ( lower return on greater assets) or is affected by the growing “default investing” towards illiquid and offshore assets.

Think about the current cashflows in simple terms.

If the taxpayer through the FY25 budget pays in excess of $15 billion ( 0.5% of GDP) of these pensions then that will add to the cash deficit ( already forecast at 1% of GDP) and result in the issuance of bonds ( more government debt). That debt will accrue more interest every year. Interest added to deficits will compound debt in following years.

The increasing debt, more interest costs through the budget - and now set for another 9 years - means adding at least $170 billion to Commonwealth debt over the same period.

Simply stated the - the Commonwealth ( the taxpayer) will borrow to pay these pensions at a greater rate than the Future can generate a return which is highly dependant on the maintenance of inflated asset markets - even Peter Costello suggests that.

So lets deal with the problem today because it hasn’t and it won’t get better.

lyn
December 03, 2024

John A, agree. Future Fund (not to be confused with others similar) has performed, time for The Fund to release with pride to General Revenue at least some toward pension liability, re your 2/12 comments-- debt interest etc. Followed Fund Bal. sheet a few yrs for how compares as interesting reading. Fund is tax exempt but for some tax paid in other jurisdictions if not recoverable. It is refunded Franking credits so don't agree Mr Combet's (Chair) part of 2024 report which states growing 'without additional contribution from Government' as Fr credits will be from general tax revenue, Yr 23/24 'refunded' $436,610,000. Not suggesting disagree with Fr credits but seems wrong for The Fund to receive and still not yet partially fund pension liability which after all is what can happen in Super funds paying super pension, and yes know not classed as super fund but that's a play on words. Perhaps payment back to General Revenue by The Fund equal to annual Fr Credits would appease some. Drop in ocean but a start to show taxpayers it's meeting part of inception idea. Know simplistic approach but The Fund has in a way received 'contribution' other than initial capital, albeit indirectly.

Shelley
December 01, 2024

I love how an article like this brings all the retired public servants out of the woodwork so don’t talk about the vested interests of the author. You were the ones who made/continue to make the mess in this country, then disappear to keep sucking on the public teat in retirement. You DO NOT understand the needs or struggles of the average Australian so don’t take the moral high ground.

Linda
December 01, 2024

Well said Shelley!!!

And they seemingly support the pension entitlements that flow to both retired and “soon to be retired” politicians.

It would be good if these benefits were actually on the public record - especially when they debate changes to superannuation rules for the majority of Australians.

Dudley
December 01, 2024

Before ~1970 life expectancy at retirement was a handful of years, now ~20 years.

Defined benefit pensions were more like longevity insurance - some pensioners benefitting but most losing relative to a defined contribution pension system.

Public servants were paid less in hand but had more security of employment than the privately employed.

With increased life expectancy, more defined benefit pensioners are winning and fewer losing.

Phasing out defined benefit pensions occurred ~10 years later than optimal for cost reduction.

Peter Care
December 15, 2024

What a load of rubbish!
What a lot of people forget is that at the time the funds were set up life expectancies were significantly lower.
A public servant would have been better taking a lump sum and investing it in the then equivalent of a super fund, because there would have been amounts left over for their estate. So a public servant would retire at 55 and live to 71 when they would die and the pension would die with them.
Today, that same public servant still retiring at 55 (the rules of the various schemes) it's living to 81 (men) and 86 (women). This is the major reason why the budget has blown out. It is also why, other than Victorian firefighters, I don’t know of any other defined benefits schemes. The unexpected significant increase in life expectancy. (and it is still increasing) is what has blown the budget, and turned defined benefits to be seen as generous.
By the way there were some defined benefits schemes in the private sector in the 1960’s and 1970’s but these were not universal, only available to the select few.

Robert G
December 01, 2024

When the cupboard is getting bare, never let a government get their hands on a pool of money to which they are not entitled.

Jim
December 01, 2024

I support the need for transparency in government finances however do not support the view that workers entitled to the defined benefit scheme should now have them taken away / cashed out. These were conditions of employment entered into in good faith and should therefore remain.
Applying the same logic then the unfunded aged pension liabilities should also be cashed out or abolished. If the author is concerned about the largesse of costs to taxpayers of defined benefits schemes then he should
also be more strongly advocating for abolishing tax incentives that the very rich receive through their generous avoidance of taxation through superannuation and family trust arrangements. Not to mention the foregone revenue from multinational profit shifting of mining and other industries.

This article is just another sad example of punching down on people who made career choices in good faith that included defined benefits schemes superannuation. And, of course, who could benefit from cashing out such superannuation, the investment advisory industry. Always follow the vested interests for your answer.

John Abernethy
December 01, 2024

Hi Jim

You haven’t read my article carefully and the clearly stated alternative solutions I presented.

I gave 2 possible solutions.

One was to continue to pay the defined pensions - BUT from the Future Fund which has $230 billion of capital. That relieves the continuous drawdown on taxpayers and is consistent with the agreement/policy as designed 18 years ago.

There is clearly enough capital in the Fund to do this assuming a 5% per annum return on liquid investment assets.

Pensions could be paid for from both earnings and drawing down capital - just like all account based pensions do.

Also, I do have views on a whole range of tax breaks but my article was specifically on the Future Fund.

Regards

Ronald
December 01, 2024

The words ‘unfair’ and ‘excessive’ are used with little context in the article. According to who?
The author seems to care little that many beneficiaries of federal DB funds made significant life and career decisions based on the total employment proposition, including the relevant superannuation entitlements. Often public sector workers forgo higher incomes (and sometimes better work environments) in favour of a public sector role that includes a DB.
But hey, too bad for them… it’s not fair taxpayers (including the DB beneficiaries) have to make good on what was offered and accepted.
Does the FF need scrutiny? Sure. Is every federal DB beneficiary unfairly and excessively sucking on the public teet? Hardly… but you wouldn’t know it reading this article.

John
December 01, 2024

Well said

John
December 01, 2024

Public sector workers have foregone higher incomes and better work environments in favour of public service roles??? Don't make me laugh. The defined pensions schemes that operated for decades (thankfully all closed now) is a great example of the pampering handed to Public Servants. Few outside of the public service have had such a generous benefit.

John Abernethy
December 01, 2024

Hi Ronald,

I have outlined numerous facts (in the opinion piece) and responded ( below in comments) to some good direction by readers to other government reports.

There are comments that suggest that some beneficiaries are receiving non indexed pensions (their decision) and are poorly served by the schemes. Others ( probably a silent minority) are doing very well from indexing.

Lets not role continue with a Fund whose original purpose will be lost in political diatribe if it remains untouched for another 9 years and grows to $380 billion - that would be both unfair and excessive.

Jeremy Dawson
December 09, 2024

Agreed. When I was in the public service i had a boss who was planning to leave because he would get 1/4 or 1/3 more in the private sector. I had to tell him not to forget the benefit of being in the super scheme.

I agree it should have been funded. In fact some CSS employers other than the public service were required to pay the gov't for their employees' membership of the scheme.

Graeme
November 30, 2024

Some information on defined benefit schemes for Defence personnel. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) is a fully defined benefit (relating to both member contributions and notional employer contributions) scheme that closed to new members on 30/09/1991. The Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) referenced in this article is a hybrid fund, providing Accumulation Benefits relating to member contributions and Defined Benefits relating to notional employer contributions. MSBS was closed to new members on 30/06/2016.

Former Treasury policy maker
November 29, 2024

All of these figurines may well be right, but aren't you overstating the issue? Surely the public sector net position is far better having the Future Fund than not. That point should be stressed, especially since it's put in place an exemplary long term investment strategy and process that's growing the portfolio nicely.
Taxpayers would be far worse off without it.

Maybe the article shouldn't have sounded so pejorative and instead simply called for a top up to the Fund to cover the shortfall (if there is one)?

The long run reality is that taxpayers are obliged to pay the entitlements of public servants when they're due. How disastrous is it, really, if the predictions of what those obligations will be in the future is not predicted with full accuracy?

John Abernethy
November 29, 2024

Interesting points from an a retired bureaucrat - but

1. There is a short fall - why would you dispute that? $230 billion of diverted public capital is not a trivial amount. $270 billion of claimed liability is not insignificant.
2. There is a need for facts and honesty in the liability, the spending of taxpayer money and diversion of public assets. That is sadly lacking in every discussion regarding the unfunded liability. Notably by ex Treasurers -Costello and Swan.
3. There is unfairness inherit in the public service schemes - some claim low payments whilst others hide excessive benefits. Lets get the facts.
4. Tax payers are “not obliged” to pay for unfair and poorly structured historic schemes. That is a flawed argument for no change on any basis. The basic premise of a democratically elected Parliament is to make changes for the greater good of society and to unburden future generations. There is a need to be both fair and reasonable.
5. The FF was an attempt to solve a bureaucratic created problem based on deeply flawed assumptions and understated liabilities. Now it is being manipulated into something that it is not. It is not a Fund for all Australian citizens - current and future.

Former Treasury policy maker
November 29, 2024

Not disputing the figures at all. But the article comes across as if we'd be better off without the investments held in the Future Fund. It goes too far in its tone on my view. Ask the questions, challenge the assumptions, but don't throw babies out with bathwater.

John Abernethy
November 29, 2024

Thank you to everyone that has contributed to a lively discussion and added inputs to the nuances of the many defined benefit schemes in Australia.

On reading and looking at the reference materials I make these observations which may be reviewed further by others.

1. The declared unfunded liability of the CSS and PSS defined benefit funds is circa $170 billion - but it is still based on actuarial forecasts that have been grossly wrong in the past.
2. Based on Combet’s recent comments of a $270 billion ( total ) shortfall then Ivpresume a $100 billion shortfall in Defence funds and maybe Judges Funds. But I note that Combet and Treasury don’t adequately disclose the shortfall baskets.
3. There are historic state based schemes that are confusing the discussion with many. The benefits and funding of these are not transparent.
3. There are many older beneficiaries drawing pensions from the CSS that are not receiving large sums. Maybe these older schemes were unfair to many workers but there is not enough public disclosure to factually comment.
4. There are transfers from consolidated revenue to the CSS and PSS of large sums and growing. The transfers to retired Defence personnel funds ( and Judges) must be added to this figure to derive the figure which I estimated exceeds $15 billion per annum - and growing.
5. My final point is that there are many beneficiaries who these schemes don’t greatly or excessively benefit and thus a capital payout may be appropriate. However, there are clearly a few who greatly benefit with excessive indexed payments. These need to be made public so that a proper understanding of what the taxpayer is actually paying for is understood. From this a scheme to wind up these funds with appropriate payouts made. From this a true National Future Fund can be reset and I have ideas on how this could be achieved.

Lynn
November 29, 2024

I’m interested in how the calculations to pay a lump sum would work? These are not accumulation accounts with accurate balances. Defined Benefit Pensions are calculated using a formula of average final salary x years of service. Members paid into the funds with after tax dollars. The actuarial value using factor 16 held by the ATO for CSS/PSS provides a lump sum figure. It’s not necessarily accurate. Would you pay this amount out to each individual ? If you are long lived the lifetime pension paid out will likely be more than the actuarial value, if you die young it will be a lot less. Would you deduct Pension amounts already paid? Would there be a large increase in people seeking the Old Age Pension ?

Peter Care
November 28, 2024

I am not surprised the liability has gone up but it is likely not for the reasons one thinks. Anecdotally there are 3 reasons why the liability has gone up.
1) Former public servants and their spouses are just living longer, partially because of better healthcare and the plummeting smoking rates. The longer they live, the higher the liability.

2) Current and former public servants are making better decisions from the case in 2006.
The CSS has 2 components an indexed pension and a lump sum. There is an option to convert the lump sum to a non indexed pension. In 2006 over 90% of retirees took the lump sum option. The last figures I saw in 2018 is that amount is below 70% and falling.
A similar issue happened with the PSS where you had the option of a lump sum or indexed pension for life. A surprising amount of retirees (and resignations) took the lump sum option prior to 1999. After 1999 money in the super funds was compulsorily preserved. On retirement the proportion of retirees who choose the pension option has noticeably increased over the years. The assumption in 2006 may have been accurate but the behaviour of public service retirees has changed since then with more choosing the full pension option on retirement (or resignation for CSS who took the 54/11 option).
3) Younger public servants who entered the defined benefits schemes contributed to the schemes at a higher rate for longer. Because of the matching system this means that the lifetime pension is higher than in previous generations. Thanks to the internet, later and younger public servants are better educated and made better decisions. Also with many more graduates as opposed to base grade clerks being employed over the years, both starting and average salary and thus finishing pension was higher than previous generation of public service.

These changes in rules and behaviour has likely resulted in the 2006 assumptions turning out to be incorrect, although at the time they were probably reasonable.

Dave Roberts
November 28, 2024

Not sure of the year, I think around 1998 the NSW government offered lump sums to opt out of the defined benefits scheme. They made one mistake. They gave us a free visit to a financial advisor. Ours was Bridges. The advisors said anyone opting out would be crazy so most stayed. The only group that opted out were gays as at the time they could not pass on the pension to their partners. When legislation changed on this a lot were allowed to rejoin. By the way after 35 years teaching I receive a pension of $48000. No age pension supplement. Am I in fact saving the Commonwealth money. Remember of course that over those 35 years all my fortnightly contributions to the fund were pre tax. No salary sacrifice allowed for defined benefit.

Patrick Kissane
November 28, 2024

"Let's be clear - low income but essential workers - like aged care, childcare, cleaners, and nurses etc - pay their tax with little or no understanding that a part of that tax is constantly being allocated to pay the indexed lifetime defined benefit pensions."
Nurses are lowly paid? Most nurses rake in in excess of $100 K per year

Linda
November 28, 2024

Hi Patrick

A fairly extraordinary comment about nurses.

I guess that if they worked 60 hours a week and loaded up on night duty they may get to $100k. As for their super balances - if they are female - it is well reported that they are generally grossly underfunded.

Is your suggestion that $100k salary should trigger a tax surcharge for unfunded defined benefits?

Peter B
November 30, 2024

Yes nurses are lowly paid. My daughter is one and unless you are working on shift with loadings, you do not get much more than the basic wage, but you do get plenty of stress, exposure to illnesses and dangerous patients.

Craig
November 28, 2024

When the Public service works out that The Treasurer is dipping his hand in their cookie jar-taht might sort a few thoughts out re who manages our purse strings ....

Douglas
December 01, 2024

You misunderstand. The Future Fund has one beneficiary which is the Commonwealth Government. The Government has liabilities to public servants. The Future Fund funds those liabilities. The public servants don't have any claim or entitlement to any of the Future Fund assets.

OldbutSane
November 28, 2024

An incomplete article. I would suggest that the vast majority of, at least former CSS and PSS members are probably not receiving much more from their pension than they would receive in age pension (and added benefits like home care packages) especially if only one person in a partnership is receiving the super pension. No mention is made of this offset to the cost of funding the CSS and PSS. In addition, those receiving these pensions pay some tax as they only get a 10% tax rebate.The cost figures provided make no mention of these reductions in the total cost.

In any case as long as the government refuses to include the family home in the assets test for the age pension, then why should one group be singled out as costing the Government (and hence the taxpayer) money. As a former government employee (but not one who receives a government scheme pension or any government pension at all), I know several former government employees who do receive pensions, live in modest houses and, if not for their super pensions would be on full age pensions.

Linda
November 28, 2024

Dear Oldbutsane

Your point has no supporting factual evidence. Just mere speculation based on a belief.

To clear the air - can Treasury actually produce a report that documents the number of beneficiaries, their ages, those still to retire and the benefits currently or projected to be made to members split into cohorts or bands?

How hard is that to produce? Surely the Commonwealth Actuary has those details.

OldbutSane
November 29, 2024

Linda

The best figures I can find suggest that the average CSS pension is about the same as the couples age pension.

DAVID
November 29, 2024

I agree with oldbutsane that back in 1980, when I joined a semi-government organization, the superannuation was compulsorily deducted at 6% of wages. To meet the government scheme pension requirement, you paid 6% for 40 years from your wages. On an average wage base, the government scheme pension you would receive was equal to the old age pension. At the time of retirement, you had the option of taking the pension or the lump sum. Without considering inflation, the lump sum was equal to 10 years of the pension, which exceeded any interest on the investment. The challenge in making this choice was that you could not predict future inflation rates or how long you would live.

Denzil
November 28, 2024

Re the comment above that "Paying out lifetime pensions in a lump sum will never work".
Not so!
Almost 30 years ago, the Victorian Government (with Jeff Kennet as Premier and Alan Stockdale as Treasurer) allocated over $2B from the Budget surplus (yes - remember those?) to a Beneficiary Choice Program to buy out defined benefit pensions with the aim of reducing the level of unfunded liabilities.
The Program was very well received by pensioners - the allocation was taken up and unfunded liabilities were reduced.
A very successful initiative!

Michael
December 01, 2024

A cashing option would be taken up by a noticeable amount of people. Most have other funds to support their lifestyle. A major concern of recipients is those wanting to help their children with housing affordability - another issue, but it removes the pressure on defined benefit issues. There should be a continuous lump sum cashing option for these pensions.

Ross
November 28, 2024

For those who like some light reading there is a detailed and recent actuarial report on CSS and PSS liabilities and pension expenditures by year. Actual expenditure in 2024 appears to be much lower than $15 billion. https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-10/CSS-PSS-2023-LTCR.pdf

Linda
November 28, 2024

Hi Ross

Page 8 of that Report states that the net appropriation from consolidated revenue into the funds ( PSS and CSS) was $17.6 billion in FY23.

Is that what you are referencing?

Ross
November 29, 2024

Page 62 of the report refers to the pension payments, $7.3 billion in 2024.
Appropriation into the funds is a different thing.

Linda
November 29, 2024

Hi Ross

Page 62 is a projection - not actual

Page 8 is actual and refers to a cash transfer from consolidated revenue into the funds.

That is a transfer through the budget.

You are quoting from the last page of a bloated and convoluted report.

Jim
November 29, 2024

Hi Linda,
I think you need to reread the table on page 6 of the report.
While I agree $17.6 billion was transferred into the funds, the transfers took place over a 3 year period - 30 June 2020 to 30 June 2023.

Mike
November 28, 2024

While I agree that recent discussions on the Future Fund have tended to neglect its original, and legislated purpose, this article is somewhat alarmist. Although the total liability of the now-closed funds will continue to grow for a while as a percentage of GDP, it will begin to decline as pensions no longer need to be paid (each liability extinguishes with the death of the pensioner or their surviving spouse and there are no new members - in the case of the CSS, for nearly 35 years).
The issue in relation to drawing down on the Fund has always been about when it should be used to the Government’s annual (defined benefit) pension commitment, which will be about $10 billion in 2024-25. If future Governments want the Future Fund to be Australia’s sovereign wealth fund, which was certainly Mr Costello’s goal, then they can continue to meet these annual liabilities from consolidated revenue, as has been the case since the schemes were set up.

Cam
November 28, 2024

Could they change formulas or indexation, like has happened with HECS debt? Or have a cap on annual pension payments?
Is there a reason why Military defined benefit schemes still exist? Or other schemes that are less significant for taxpayers, but no doubt equally as generous to beneficiaries?
Paying out a lump sum and closing the Future Fund would save all the costs of the future fund and reduce the amount taxpayers are paying each year.
I'd like the savings to flow through to addressing budget deficits we're facing, which taxpayers at some stage would have to pay.

Jeff
November 28, 2024

Military DB scheme still exists because members that were put into the scheme are still alive. New defence members can’t access the DB scheme, it’s been that way for a number of years

Peter
November 28, 2024

Hmmm. Vested interest rears its ugly head. Heres an alternative view. https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/the-fierce-reaction-to-australias Radio National had a discussion https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-drive/future-fund-s-investment-mandate-to-be-overhauled-/104631706
A sovereign wealth fund funded by stupidity when Howard and Costello sold Telstra along with the communications infrastructure we paid for. The cost of NBN installation and upgrades added to that stupidity particularly Abbott’s decision to buy defective cable infrastructure from vendors and use it in mixed mode.
So Super should be taxed heavily for those using it as a means of accumulating their wealth without paying the tax amount that is due.

Darryl D Middleton
November 28, 2024

Paying out lifetime pensions in a lump sum will never work. The reason is asymmetry of information. Those with poor health will welcome a lump sum payment as it will likely be more than the lifetime pension, those with good health will opt for the lifetime pension.

Sean
November 28, 2024

An original and valuable contribution. Thank you.

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Vale Graham Hand

It’s with heavy hearts that we announce Firstlinks’ co-founder and former Managing Editor, Graham Hand, has died aged 66. Graham was a legendary figure in the finance industry and here are three tributes to him.

Australian stocks will crush housing over the next decade, one year on

Last year, I wrote an article suggesting returns from ASX stocks would trample those from housing over the next decade. One year later, this is an update on how that forecast is going and what's changed since.

Taxpayers betrayed by Future Fund debacle

The Future Fund's original purpose was to meet the unfunded liabilities of Commonwealth defined benefit schemes. These liabilities have ballooned to an estimated $290 billion and taxpayers continue to be treated like fools.

Australia’s shameful super gap

ASFA provides a key guide for how much you will need to live on in retirement. Unfortunately it has many deficiencies, and the averages don't tell the full story of the growing gender superannuation gap.

Looking beyond banks for dividend income

The Big Four banks have had an extraordinary run and it’s left income investors with a conundrum: to stick with them even though they now offer relatively low dividend yields and limited growth prospects or to look elsewhere.

AFIC on its record discount, passive investing and pricey stocks

A triple headwind has seen Australia's biggest LIC swing to a 10% discount and scuppered its relative performance. Management was bullish in an interview with Firstlinks, but is the discount ever likely to close?

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

9 lessons from 2024

Key lessons include expensive stocks can always get more expensive, Bitcoin is our tulip mania, follow the smart money, the young are coming with pitchforks on housing, and the importance of staying invested.

Investment strategies

Time to announce the X-factor for 2024

What is the X-factor - the largely unexpected influence that wasn’t thought about when the year began but came from left field to have powerful effects on investment returns - for 2024? It's time to select the winner.

Shares

Australian shares struggle as 2020s reach halfway point

It’s halfway through the 2020s decade and time to get a scorecheck on the Australian stock market. The picture isn't pretty as Aussie shares are having a below-average decade so far, though history shows that all is not lost.

Shares

Is FOMO overruling investment basics?

Four years ago, we introduced our 'bubbles' chart to show how the market had become concentrated in one type of stock and one view of the future. This looks at what, if anything, has changed, and what it means for investors.

Shares

Is Medibank Private a bargain?

Regulatory tensions have weighed on Medibank's share price though it's unlikely that the government will step in and prop up private hospitals. This creates an opportunity to invest in Australia’s largest health insurer.

Shares

Negative correlations, positive allocations

A nascent theme today is that the inverse correlation between bonds and stocks has returned as inflation and economic growth moderate. This broadens the potential for risk-adjusted returns in multi-asset portfolios.

Retirement

The secret to a good retirement

An Australian anthropologist studying Japanese seniors has come to a counter-intuitive conclusion to what makes for a great retirement: she suggests the seeds may be found in how we approach our working years.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2024 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.