Budget superannuation changes a ‘slippery slope’, says Coalition Senator

Nest egg, superannuaiton, SMSF, retirement
Share this article:

Budget 2016 superannuation changes, $500,000 lifetime non-concessional contributions cap, Senator Abetz, slippery slope, cross floorLiberal Senator for Tasmania Eric Abetz says the superannuation changes included in the 2016 Budget represent a slippery slope leading to the Government increasing taxes on more superannuants in the future.

Michelle Grattan, from The Conversation, asked the Senator why he had taken such a strong stand on superannuation, given Tasmania would have fewer people affected by the changes.

Senator Abetz responded: “Can I tell you, in Tasmania, yes it is an issue. Does it affect as many people directly, no. But one of those issues that hasn’t been considered in this total discussion is if these changes are only going to affect 4% of superannuants, and that is how it has been sold, well next time the Government wants some more money, will it move to 5% or 10% of the superannuant population?”

“And that is why it has created uncertainty. And that is why I personally am so concerned about the retrospectivity, because the feedback I got in Tasmania, and from around Australia was, well if you’re willing to target 4%, next time you want a bit more money to redistribute the wealth in the country, why wouldn’t you got for 5, 10 or 20% of the superannuation population?”

Asked if he meant that the superannuation changes were a slippery slope.

“Yes, slippery slope, fundamental principal. And that is why I would hope that the retrospective aspect of these changes, as a minimum…can be grandfathered.”

“The superannuation sector requires certainty, and any hint or whiff that a Government might deal with things retrospectively creates a climate of uncertainty that I think will have ramifications for some time. And that is why, for myself at least, I see the retrospectivity aspect as the most concerning.”

However Senator Abetz refused to say if he would cross the floor over the changes, saying: “As a backbencher, I have crossed the floor in the past, and I assume once or twice in the future I might do so again. Specifically in relation to superannuation, I am not going to say publicly, and try to blackmail the Treasurer and Government into a policy situation on the basis of myself or others threatening to cross the floor. Those sort of discussions should be held behind closed doors.”

Queensland LNP MP George Christensen has threatened to cross the floor over the changes.

Want to be kept up-to-date with SMSF and Superannuation changes, why not subscribe to our Newsletter?

This article, as with all content on this site, is for informational purposes only, and is not legal, financial, tax or other advice. Please read our Terms and Conditions of Use.

Share this article:

1 comment

  1. We should be pretty sure, there are many more than just 4% of the superannuants Mr. Morris has calculated, would be affected by the new impending super rules. That at least some Liberal Senators hold the ground on the retrospectivity issue of the superannuation might re-establish a little bid of face into the Liberals. Everyone who was planning for their future, was doing so under existing laws and incentives to provide for retirement. Any changes from now on have to be grandfathered in order to maintain trust in the super system. Well, it is agreed there was a generosity factor, but it was also a consideration for the elderly, who were already middle aged by the time the superannuation system was introduced in the early ninetieth. This issue almost cost the Liberals the election, and if Labor had expressed their objection to the retrospectivity more clearly prior to the election, they would have slipped into government.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *