Supplementary Submission to Senate Standing Economics Committee Inquiry into the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016

by John Daley and Brendan Coates

Aust_Perspectives_Piggybank webcopyIt’s an uncomfortable truth for many that superannuation is not the sole source of retirement savings. In our original submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016 we showed that many households have large non-super assets (not counting the family home). We demonstrated that many households are not saving only through superannuation for their retirement incomes, and so it is inappropriate to set a purpose for superannuation that it alone will provide an adequate, or ‘comfortable’ retirement income for all Australians.

Many in the superannuation industry found it hard to imagine that they might not be at the centre of the retirement universe. Industry Super Australia, in a briefing note provided to the Committee, accused us of ‘misleading’ analysis that committed ‘statistical sins’. Industry Super Australia claims that these ‘statistical sins’ lead us to overstate the importance of non-super savings, while not capturing the full diversity of household savings behaviour. But it is not our analysis that is misleading, as this supplementary submission to the Committee shows.

While we can debate the precise importance of non-super assets, and for whom, there is no way to deny that non-super savings are material for a significant number of Australians, even when excluding the family home and household effects. For many, superannuation will indeed be their dominant non-home asset, and the main contributor to a retirement income higher than the Age Pension. But for many others, non-super savings will make an important contribution to their retirement incomes.

Understanding how people really save for retirement matters. Given the differences in how households save, no policy will strike the optimal balance between working and retirement income for every household. The best that policymakers can hope for is a reasonable balance between the different situations of a diversity of households. To achieve this, any objective for superannuation must acknowledge the diversity of savings behaviour, and the substantial savings outside of super that exist to support the retirement of many Australian households.

Download the submission

Attachment A: Original submission to the Senate Economics Committee

Attachment B: How households save for retirement: a reply to Industry Super Australia

Related Articles


20 November 2016

Age of entitlement: age-based tax breaks

Why special tax breaks for seniors should go The Commonwealth Government could save about $1 billion a year by winding back three tax breaks for older Australians that are unduly generous and h…


10 March 2017

Stamp duty cuts won’t help house price affordability

Published by The Age, Friday 10 March For governments whose voters are worried about housing affordability, being seen to have a plan matters at least as much as actually fixing the problem. The V…


18 April 2017

Proposals and priorities: How to make housing more affordable

An interview with Australian Perspectives Fellow, Brendan Coates. There’s no denying it. Australia has a housing affordability problem. House prices have been rising rapidly for 3 decades and not su…