Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 218

Treasurer: super reform was difficult but we had no choice

Scott Morrison, Australia’s Treasurer, was interviewed at a conference on 1 September 2017 hosted by The Economist, called “Innovation as Competition: Australia’s Asian Future Summit 2017”. As it was not a prepared speech, there is no official record of his comments, although he gave a talk the previous day at Bloomberg, when some of the issues were similar.

After the interview, I asked him a question on superannuation engagement.

GH: Treasurer, one word we have not heard today at this Innovation Forum is a subject where Australia could claim to be a global leader and that is superannuation. Around the world, our superannuation system is the envy of everyone. Yet we still have an expectation that 80% of Australians by 2040 will draw some form of the age pension, and 90% of people don’t put extra money into super above the Superannuation Guarantee.

My first question, is the Government concerned by the lack of active engagement with superannuation and that people do not realise what their future outcomes are likely to be?

The second part is, even with those people who are engaged, when you reflect on the changes from 1 July, which you argue were driven by the desire to have a more equitable system, they were widely criticised by large parts of the industry and many people.”

Treasurer: “Well, first of all, that 80% figure. That’s true at a gross level, but the componentry changes in the Intergenerational Report show it basically inverts. The proportion we expect to be on the full pension and on the part pension after that period of time flips. The degree that people will rely on the age pension dramatically changes. We will have the same proportion of people on welfare, but the degree of reliance dramatically changes. That is an outcome of the scheme put in place 25 years ago.

There’s nothing wrong with making sure this scheme remains on track. The changes that I introduced this year were all about making the system definitely fairer, but sustainable. Australia has an aging population, and those in retirement age will become larger and larger as a proportion. We all know about the tax paid by those who have paid it all their lives, I acknowledge that, but the proportion of tax they pay after age 65 versus the working age population is obviously a lot, lot, lot less. So, if more and more people are going into a lower tax environment, and going into receiving payments on welfare, then the retirement income changes we made over two budgets were about getting that on a more sustainable footing. Whether it’s changes to the assets test for the pension or changes to the upper limits of our superannuation. That’s why we did it, and I think those changes were sensible.

I realise that for those who were impacted, it wasn’t something they liked, but with the fiscal environment we had and the demographic changes we were facing, I’m not sure what other choice we had. So that was a significant and difficult reform.

In terms of engagement with superannuation, I make these comments in terms of people’s ability to make additional contributions to super. When we went through the super changes, what was quite clear was that the caps and the potential balances people achieve and the limits we put on those were very high. For most income-earning Australians, those caps are stratospheric for them, they are not going to go close. When people are 50 to 55, they become a bit more focussed, that’s why we made some changes post the budget which better reflected giving some flexibility, particularly in those last 10 years before people go into retirement.

It does remain important in our economic system in Australia. I want there to be more choice, more accountability, better governance and my colleague Kelly O’Dwyer has been doing a lot of work in that area as well.

Greater choice. I keep coming back to this point. The strongest markets are those where the customer is the strongest, and that doesn’t matter whether it’s superannuation, telecommunications, utilities, electricity, gas, banking. All of those markets, we want to see the customer liberated. One of the biggest changes we can make which goes into the broader point about technology in this space is consumer data rights. For the Productivity Commission, that is one of the big blocks in productivity over the coming years. That is, giving customers control of their information. That is the building block every fintech, every technology and every company needs to be able to deliver a better service. That will change our economy, and it’s going to change the global economy.”

 

Graham Hand is Managing Editor of Cuffelinks. This article is paraphrased from a recording.

  •   6 September 2017
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

The investing rule that explains the next market crash

What if investment success depends less on picking the right assets and more on understanding the decisions of other investors? A principle borrowed from game theory offers a different perspective on markets.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 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.