
Workers' retirement nest eggs set for super boost
From July 1, employers' minimum required contribution to employees' superannuation accounts will rise from 11.5 per cent to 12 per cent.
It's the latest and last in a series of incremental increases from nine per cent over more than a decade since they were legislated by the Rudd-Gillard Labor government in 2012.
With the latest bump, a 30-year-old earning $60,000 would have an extra $20,000 in super by retirement, according to the Association of Superannuation Funds Australia.
It will add about $300 each year to the superannuation of a worker on a $60,000 salary, or $500 for someone on a $100,000 salary.
"The system foundations are cemented for young, working people to have a comfortable retirement," ASFA chief executive Mary Delahunty said.
"It's a moment all Australians should be proud of."
The association says the cost of a comfortable retirement increased 1.6 per cent in the past year, while the cost of a modest retirement rose 1.7 per cent.
A "comfortable" retirement includes top-level health insurance, a reasonable car and leisure activities.
The cost of either outcome was increasing slower than Australia's current 2.4 per cent headline inflation but retiree budgets remained under pressure from rising food, energy and health costs.
Couples on average need $73,900 annually for a comfortable retirement, while most singles needed $52,300 per year, ASFA says.
For a modest retirement covering the basics, couples needed $48,200 each year, singles $33,400, or for renting couples, $64,250, and $46,660 each year for singles who rent.
The figures underlined the importance of increasing Australia's housing stock, Ms Delahunty said.
"They also illustrate how super can be the difference between hardship and stability later in life, especially for renters."
For some workers, the extra contribution will come from their existing pay package, according to CPA Australia's superannuation lead Richard Webb.
"It's a good idea to check with your employer to see how they view the changes and what it means for you," he said.
Workers on contracts with a total remuneration package could see a slight drop in their take-home pay, while those on award or enterprise agreements would likely receive the contribution on-top of their current pay.
When compulsory superannuation was introduced in 1992 - in part to reduce government spending on the Age Pension - only one in 10 Australian retirees listed super as a source of income.
Nine in 10 people between 30 and 50 now have super.
Government spending on the Age Pension is projected to fall from 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product in 2020 to two per cent by 2062/63, despite a doubling of the over-65 population and a trebling of over-85s over the same period.
However the super guarantee increase wouldn't help those who missed out on paid work for extended periods, Super Consumer Australia chief executive Xavier O'Halloran said.
"(For) people who have caring responsibilities or who have been locked out of the unaffordable housing market ... increasing SG further won't address those inequalities," he told AAP.
Mr O'Halloran said there was more that could be done to support people struggling in retirement, when a significant portion of their autumnal years' savings were made.
"Right now, there are no minimum standards for retirement products like there are for MySuper," he said.
"There is also no performance testing of retirement products, so super funds can still sell poor products."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
39 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.

The Age
39 minutes ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.

AU Financial Review
2 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
Retro remote work rules no fix for Victoria's productivity plunge
Victorian Labor Premier Jacinta Allan's pledge to enshrine in law public servants' and private sector workers' right to work from home at least two days a week may be smart short-term politics. However, it's typically poor public policy from Australia's most far-left government, whose long-term rule has coincided with Victoria's economic and financial decline. This includes cellar-dwelling labour productivity, which has grown more slowly in Victoria over the past decade than in any other state or territory. Allan's proposed legislation is likely to be struck down by a constitutional challenge in the High Court, legal experts warn. Yet the retail political purpose is to wedge the Liberal opposition ahead of the next state election due in November next year. Victorian Labor is aligning itself with the female voters who led the backlash that, during the federal election campaign, forced the Coalition to ditch its plan to force Canberra-based bureaucrats to work from the office full-time.