In a statement on Thursday, the Minister for Financial Services Stephen Jones confirmed that the government has officially introduced to Parliament the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023, which defines the objective of super as “to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way”.
“An agreed objective of super will serve as a guide for future governments, regulators, industry, and the wider community, instilling greater confidence in the system,” the minister said.
“The last decade saw the former government raid the superannuation system for its own purposes with a devastating impact on the savings of millions of Australians. Legislating an objective of super will help prevent this happening again.”
According to Mr Jones, the objective will also help ensure super delivers on its foundational promise of providing a dignified retirement for more Australians.
“In the future, any proposed changes to super legislation will be judged against the objective. This will make policymakers more accountable when considering changes that affect Australians’ retirement savings,” the minister said.
He stressed that the objective “will not alter superannuation trustees’ existing obligations or provisions around the early access to super on compassionate grounds”.
“Superannuation is a significant source of capital, contributes to the strength of our financial markets, and there are opportunities to leverage superannuation investment in areas of national economic priority where it aligns with the best financial interests of members,” the minister said.
“Having a clear, legislated objective of super will help ensure these broader benefits can be maximised”.
More to come.
I’m confused – isn’t the sole purpose of a superannuation fund set in Section 62 of the SIS Act? Will the new legislation cancel out/double up on the current SIS Act?
So, Minister Jones states “there are opportunities to leverage superannuation investment in areas of national economic priority!”. Surely the housing crisis qualifies! Australian governments local, state and federal continue to ignore an obvious and simple way to provide housing which successfully provides affordable and practical housing in the USA. They call them “mobile homes” but they are not caravans they are “relocatable homes”, yet they are very rarely relocated. Tracts of land are established as housing sites. The relocatable home is placed on a site and the house is purchased as a chattel and the site (the land) is rented to the owner of the house. Such Relocatable Home Parks would be an excellent investment for superannuation funds. In the USA you can purchase a “mobile home” for around A$75,000 (second hand) to A$150,000 brand new. The houses are efficiently manufactured “off-site” on assembly lines, just like motor cars. Wake up Australia!!!
What an absolute waste of time. Superannuation has been one of the most regulated investments ever. The amount you can contribute, the investments held, the prohibition on certain types of investments have all been within the Government’s purview for many years and now a statutory legislated objective is going to ensure that benefits are maximised? What rubbish!!!
So, the Minister for Financial Services, Stephan Jones, states, “The last decade saw the former government raid the superannuation system for its own purposes with a devastating impact on the savings of millions of Australians. Legislating an objective of super will help prevent this happening again.”
Isn’t this precisely what this government now wants to do with their Division 296? The only difference is that instead of the funds going to the owners of the funds, as with the last government, in times of need, albeit before retirement, this government wants to take the funds for themselves! How do they not see the irony of this?
Oh, I forgot, its the same situation as with NALE – they do only what suits them with little to no deference to fund members and SMSFs in general. Talk about pure greed and self-indulgence.
So the Minister is inferring that the proposed Division 296 tax is not a tax raid?