Trust, certainty and grandfathering should be at the heart of the super debate not complexity and confusion
The debate about the government’s proposed superannuation changes has been mired in misunderstandings and mischief around technical definitions such as retrospectivity.
Throw in talk around concessional and non-concessional caps and lifetime limits and it’s no surprise even the pollies who make decisions around our savings get it wrong.
So it was refreshing to meet a man who has decided to stand up against the sectional interests and a treasurer who says he couldn’t look his kids in the face if he didn’t mess with super.
The activist behind the Save Our Super campaign cleverly decided to jettison the jargon which so confuses the public and focus on just two key and powerful arguments-- trust and certainty.
And his solution to bypass much of the bitterness and division around the changes is to ‘grandfather’ them meaning they would not apply to existing super accounts only new ones.
Jack Hammond QC is a Victorian barrister who has acted in large and complex cases and also worked in business and federal government. So he knows how things work.
Like many Jack was appalled at the policies Treasurer Morrison sprung on an unsuspecting public in The Budget without warning, consultation or it seems consideration.
But unlike many he determined to do something about it and formed Save Our Super , an apolitical community-based group, and a campaign website http://saveoursuper.org.au/
He speaks for many older Australians when he says: “Over many years, we did what the Government wanted and encouraged us to do with our superannuation savings. We accepted and complied with the superannuation rules which the Government made. We put our savings into superannuation in preference to many other choices which were open to us.
“Now the Government, without any notice or consultation with us, proposes to penalise us for the decisions we made at their behest. On any view, that is manifestly unfair and unreasonable. “
Being a successful barrister Jack is well-off and has a healthy super balance but he says any self-interest was overtaken by a feeling of anger and dismay as what he saw as a breach of trust by the Government.
He also notes the changes, which stand to impact more than just the richest ‘four percent’ as claimed by the Treasurer, will especially effect those who can’t get or afford financial advice.
He believes the argument needs to be framed around trust and certainty as the two pillars of principal for a sustainable super system.
He says no government should undermine the people’s trust in the superannuation system by breaking promises around policies such as the future tax treatment.
And secondly the government shouldn't undermine certainty by changing long-standing policies without notice or consultation.
You can read much more on the site and find out more about how grandfathering can protect existing superannuation from the proposed changes.
There’s going to be more fun and games around the super debate now federal parliament has returned meaning it might not be obvious who’s interests our political leaders are intent on protecting.
