O’Dwyer may face preselection challenge over superannuation policies

Kelly O’Dwyer, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, may face a preselection challenge as retribution for the Coalition’s superannuation policy.

Peta Credlin, formerly chief of staff to Tony Abbott when he was Prime Minister, is reportedly being encouraged to challenge O’Dwyer for the seat of Higgins. This is apparently motivated, at least in part, by the superannuation policies from the 2016 Budget which were legislated late last year.

Credlin labelled reports she had been approached to challenge Minister O’Dwyer as “ridiculous”. Though she was critical of how the superannuation policies were handled.

“Very few of the front bench could argue for them or even explain them,” she said.

O’Dywer has held the Victorian seat of Higgins since a by-election in 2009, following the retirement of Peter Costello. O’Dywer won 57.99% of the two party preferred vote at the 2016 election.

Minister O’Dwyer is currently on maternity leave.

The ABC is reporting that the campaign against Kelly O’Dywer is being led by Jack Hammond QC, who formed the Save Our Super following the announcement of the changes to super in 2016.

Michael Kroger, president of the Victorian Liberal party, refused to publicly support O’Dwyer, saying he doesn’t comment on party preselections.

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.

One Reply to “O’Dwyer may face preselection challenge over superannuation policies”

  1. My dear moderator Luke, thank you so much for your news.
    If I go to far with this post you may edit or delete it.
    Save our super? I fear the game is already lost; they have shown their colours and it is only a matter of time. Our young people must go through several changes of government before retirement, do you really think they can trust the system now?
    The end game of the legislation is: no access to super until age pension age (Treasury wants 67) and no lump sum withdrawals. So your money locked up, and guess what, now it can be taxed and nothing you can do.
    I understand the government needs to plug a budget hole. Some people think it doesn’t matter, but I think debt matters. But to plug it with money saved through the efforts of those who have done their utmost to stop the deficit is short-sighted indeed.
    Peter Costello introduced a simpler system. It is true that there are abuses of the system, but the price of this new complexity (added back after Costello) will be added costs for all super funds, with no actual productivity for this nation.
    Lower middle class people, if I may call them that with respect, I would describe as those on the age pension with some savings. This class is being destroyed and they attack their savings placing them in the same position as those that didn’t bother. I am aware that there are people solely on the age pension despite a lifetime of hard work.
    Upper middle class people I would describe as those who are self funded retirees and I think the changes proposed will eventually destroy that class. They are a minority who continue to work.
    The big 5 accounting firms actively seek high wealth individuals and place them in international tax structures where they cannot be touched. There are many of them e.g. Gibraltar has 3 000 residents and 30 000 companies, well, here in Aus I can’t even get my landline phone working. The Telcos pay a few bucks a month to their scripted OS workers; we pay first world prices; no real jobs for Aus kids; where’s the profit going?
    A society where only the very rich and the very poor exist is where we are headed; oh dear! It’s never worked well in history. The stuff revolutions are made of.
    Retirement requires a roof over your head and an income should you desire self-sufficiency, and shouldn’t we?
    Ideas about the use of super for home buying deserve consideration. Properly implemented I think the idea has merit. I know there are failed examples, but I understand it works well in Singapore but not Canada. Of course, a proper implementation would be required which is too much to hope for.
    I’d rather have roof over my head than super. I think most Aussies would feel the same. I predict it possible that if access to super for a home is denied to sensible people, it may be that workers will ask for super contribs to be paid to them in wages so they can get that roof over their heads. Gosh, maybe they will have to ask the trustee’s permission to pay off their home loan at (often forced) retirement. Want your first overseas holiday after a lifetime’s work, no, that’s too profligate of you.
    I don’t think people will be frightened by the idea of no age pension. There are simply too many people (95-99% is my guess) who need it (80% now)
    or may need it or have close relative who does need it. I think it will be the last form of welfare ever removed from this country.
    I note after looking at various super schemes that certain individuals remain well protected; other do not and there are real sleepers for some. Politicians’ pensions will be indexed in line with parliamentary wage rises. I expect little difficulty in having those changes passed.
    Poor fellow, my country.

Leave a Reply

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