In an email update on Wednesday, Mr Abbott noted that the party needed 500 responses to its survey by the end of November to be registered with the Australian Electoral Commission, but was aiming for 600 “to be on the safe side” and was currently 200 responses short of that goal.
He noted there were a number of reasons for SMSF members and professionals to get organised politically in the current environment, one of which was the popular “OK Boomer” catchphrase which he believed signalled “the start of the intergenerational war on the wealth accumulated by Baby Boomers”.
“Neither the Coalition nor Labor will protect the wealth of Boomers into the future as well as Generation X after it,” Mr Abbott said.
He added that an SMSF Party was also important to prevent ongoing changes to taxation of SMSFs and self-funded retirees as well as to balance the political power of industry funds.
“It is no secret that the industry super funds are a law unto themselves and the profits of Industry Fund Services — the company that attends to industry super funds — go to unions who then underwrite the Labor Party,” Mr Abbott said.
“With $1 trillion in their sights and huge cash flows, the SMSF Party is needed for checks and balances in the superannuation sector.”
In addition, he outlined plans to potentially use the savings of SMSF members for positive economic policies, including long-dated infrastructure bonds and investment in regional Australia.
“The SMSF Party, who represents self-funded retirees and SMSF members, has promoted the rollout by government of infrastructure bonds which can be 10-, 15- or even up to 30-year duration, with a strong interest rate that can then be used by the government to fund infrastructure rather than rely on overseas borrowings,” Mr Abbott said.
“We have other policy possibilities that look after regions, home ownership and the effective use of retirement and pre-retirement savings, using money wisely for the benefit of all Australians rather than the current government option to simply ignore what is under their nose.”
The AEC required a new list of 500 which has to be prepared from scratch. If member details are not input exactly as they appear on the electoral role, including middle names and or middle initials, the member is rejected by the system. This is the same for current and previous addresses. As at this morning, the SMSF Party requires an additional 40 “matched” names. The survey ensures the data is captured exactly as a person appears on the role.
I think Grant seriously underestimates how much of a target this puts on the SMSF industry form those who aren’t inside it.
I live in the world of the “average punter” that doesn’t have self-managed super and the reaction I saw more than anything else was rage at the fact that SMSFs have a political party.
Both major parties are already tarring SMSF’s with the entitled brush, I think this only makes it worse.
I am confused. In April SMSF Adviser reported that Mr Abbotts party had over 5000 members. The article mentioned that due to some members not being on the electoral roll the first attempt had been rejected by the AEC.
The list was resubmitted but it was acknowledged that party would not be registered before the election cut off deadline.
So is the party registered?
Is this survey an additional step?
Why is response from the 5000 members low?
Perhaps the Liberal Party campaign against the Labor Party franking credit policy & the return of the Morrison government has resulted in apathy from the HNW SMSF Trustees