Time the government gets superannuation right

Retrospectivity, and other consequences of the government’s rushed superannuation changes continue to dominate conversations around the country with stakeholders and the community, says shadow financial services and superannuation minister Jim Chalmers.

Labor is seeking an independent review — a “proper look” says Chalmers — of superannuation changes dropped on the table on the eve of a federal election.

“The Australian people expect us to take the time…they don’t want us to do what the government has done which is to rush to judgement on these changes which have big impacts on retirement incomes,” Chalmers said in a radio interview today.

“It is that retrospectivity that people are most concerned about.

“The government should take the time…to get it right.”

“We committed to have a proper look at these pretty dramatic and drastic changes,” he said.

Interpretations of some of the consequences of the changes — its retrospectivity, for example — are unambiguous for Labor. While the shadow minister said he had a lot of respect for John Daley, he said it was “pretty hard to cop a view” that so markedly differed from conventional wisdom.

“That $500,000 cap which is back-dated to 2007 is the very definition of retrospectivity,” Chalmers said “because something that is back-dated and calculated from 2007 but not announced until 2016 is [not] anything other than retrospective.

“We’ve said all along one of our big concerns is the retrospective nature, particularly about that $500,000 non-concessional cap.

“All we’re asking for is the time, and the government should take the time given they’ve got this very serious internal dissent over this issue, to get it right.

“It is that retrospectivity that people are most concerned about.”

“People’s retirement incomes shouldn’t be messed with on a whim.

“You need to make sure people are consulted, and any changes are made really carefully.

“One of the defining failures of the government when it comes to superannuation is they asked the Australian people and the Labor Party to sign up to a series of changes the Government itself couldn’t explain, couldn’t defend and couldn’t guarantee would be in place, even if they won the election.

“And as I have conversations around the country about these super measures with stakeholders and with the community, it is that retrospectivity that people are most concerned about,” he said.

The case for further analysis of the government’s superannuation changes was clearly made during the election campaign; many voters listed it high on their reasons to put the Liberals last.

“We’ve said during the election campaign if it turns out that when you look at all of these changes in their totality, in isolation and the way that they interact with each other, that they’re workable and fair, then we will support them,” Chalmers said.

“The tax concessions are poorly targeted, particularly at the top end.”

“If there are improvements that could be made, for example, if you could make that $500,000 cap prospective rather than retrospective, that’s worth looking at.

“We do think that the tax concessions are poorly targeted, particularly at the top end.

“But we’ll do what we’ve always said we’ll do when it comes to super.

“We will agree where we can with the government, but we will disagree where we must.

“We’ve said we would support anything which turns out to be workable and fair,” Chalmers added.

This article originally appeared in the Labor Herald.