A Super Bad Idea

The government’s recent backdown on the $3 million superannuation cap tax was as inevitable as it was overdue. From the start, the proposal to tax unrealised gains and to leave the $3 million threshold unindexed was unworkable, unfair, and destructive to investor confidence. Yet it still made it this far. That should concern everyone.

The idea of taxing unrealised gains is one of those concepts that makes sense to someone who has never built anything, but it falls apart in practice. It would have forced Australians to pay tax on increases in asset values they haven’t realised, money they don’t actually have. Imagine being forced to sell assets in a falling market just to fund a tax bill on a paper gain from the year before. It would have distorted investment behaviour, punished long-term savers, and turned a retirement vehicle into a speculative guessing game.

The failure to index the $3 million threshold compounded the problem. Inflation and compounding returns would have dragged more and more Australians into the net over time, not because they were super-rich, but because they had been prudent. The policy would have quietly shifted the goalposts every year, punishing success and eroding the principle of fairness on which the super system was built.

These were never minor oversights. They were red flags. Yet they were allowed to progress, right up until this week. Which raises a deeper issue. Increasingly, I see these extreme policy ideas being floated, almost as sacrificial pawns. Governments know the public will push back against overreach. By inserting unworkable elements, such as taxing unrealised gains, they create something to “give up” later, allowing the core legislation to pass with less resistance. There ends up being no opposition to the 15% additional tax because everyone has been distracted by smoke and mirrors.

This kind of political theatre might make sense in Canberra, but it undermines the integrity of the entire super system. Superannuation works because people can plan with confidence. Every time the rules change, that confidence is shaken. Investors begin to wonder not just what’s next, but whether they can trust the system at all. Constant tinkering turns a long-term savings framework into a short-term political tool.

It’s worth remembering that effective caps on super aren’t new. We’ve been here before. Back in the 1990s, the system had Reasonable Benefit Limits (RBLs) that capped how much individuals could hold in tax-advantaged super. The principle was clear. The limits were transparent, predictable, and indexed, so people could plan accordingly. The new proposals ignored that history and instead created confusion, inequity, and distrust.

The governments retreat is welcome, but the damage is done. The very act of proposing such measures sends a message that no rule is safe, no commitment permanent. It was a mean-spirited and opportunistic grab at retirement savings after years of government incentives to contribute to super. That’s a dangerous precedent for a system built on trust and time horizons that stretch decades into the future. Super is supposed to be the one part of the financial landscape Australians can count on. It deserves better than to be used as a bargaining chip.

General Disclaimer: This information is of a general nature only and may not be relevant to your particular circumstances. The circumstances of each investor are different, and you should seek advice from an investment adviser who can consider if the strategies and products are right for you. Historical performance is often not a reliable indicator of future performance. You should not rely solely on historical performance to make investment decisions.

Are Industry Funds a Trojan Horse?

With one announcement Prime Minster Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers have not only reignited the ‘super wars’ they have also signalled their willingness to compromise the integrity of the superannuation system for political gain. Their proposal to tax funds over a $3m cap at a 30% tax rate is a blatant tax grab and moves the goal posts on those who have invested in good faith. The government is now specifically targeting people with legacy funds that have been operating within the rules for decades. It highlights a very real and much bigger problem brewing within the superannuation system and the underlying control of these funds.

Most will understand the Labor Government’s links to the trade unions at a grass roots level and their influence behind the scenes within the political regime. Over the years it’s fair to say that both political parties have seen their traditional power base change somewhat. But while the Liberal Party’s struggles to redefine itself are well known; most Australians are probably not aware of the power shift within the political landscape as it pertains to the Australian Labor Party today. Regardless of your political leaning, most would agree that a balance in power is healthy for a strong democracy. So, it’s important that people understand how the new powerbrokers are influencing the change in the political system.

Industry superannuation funds have grown to become the dominant force in the superannuation industry. Their marketing has been excellent, and workers have been drawn to them. Low-fee funds run on behalf of members of particular industries. They sound great in theory but as with anything, when power is too concentrated, it’s potentially a problem. Today, in my opinion, the industry super funds have quietly become more powerful and influential than the trade union movement ever was. The big difference between the unions and industry funds is that the amount of capital controlled by these funds is now approaching $1 trillion dollars.

The industry funds history stems from being the default superannuation fund for various industry sectors such as Hostplus for hospitality workers, REST for retail workers and UniSuper for higher education workers. To this day, there remains requirements for “Equal Representation” governance which broadly means that the superannuation fund trustees must include an equal number of directors nominated by employers or representatives of employers, and members of the fund or representatives of members including trade unions.

The more I hear the current government talk about superannuation, the more it appears to me that a level of political ideology is increasingly becoming entrenched in the superannuation system. Superannuation was always for the purpose of investing for retirement. In fact, this aspect was considered so important that there was a piece of legislation that became a cornerstone of governing superannuation funds. The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act subsection 62 includes a test called the sole purpose test. It literally defined that superannuation was required to meet this definition, being that superannuation funds are for the sole purpose of providing for retirement and death benefits.

Fast forward a couple of decades and I see Industry Super Fund ads in the media not talking about superannuation investment but rather about the infrastructure projects and jobs being created for everyday Australians. Well, that is very noble, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of superannuation. The obligation on the trustees of all superannuation funds is on managing the money and generating returns for superannuants for their retirement. If there are better returns elsewhere jobs have no place in the discussion and should not even be a consideration.

Now the Labor Government is pushing for changes to redefine ‘the objective of super’. Why? There may be a few reasons. Various proposals push for superannuation to access impact investing in lower-cost social housing, infrastructure, clean energy, and aged care. Many of these are government and political objectives not based on the best investment decision. There should be no crossover, it’s a dangerous and slippery slope. While there are robust governance and rigour in place around these massive pools of money being used to fund projects and create jobs, it’s critical to ensure that there is never any room for the lines to be blurred and for problems to evolve in the future. Superannuation should never be a political weapon. It’s not the government’s money, it’s the retirement savings of hard-working Australians.

General Advice Disclaimer: This information is of a general nature only and may not be relevant to your particular circumstances. The circumstances of each investor are different, and you should seek advice from an investment adviser who can consider if the strategies and products are right for you. Historical performance is often not a reliable indicator of future performance. You should not rely solely on historical performance to make investment decisions.