REPORT
Origin of the inquiry
1. On 20 August 1996, the Government announced the removal of the means
test exemption on superannuation assets and rollover funds for people
aged 55 and over. In announcing this measure, the Government stated that:
...people aged 55 and over who have retired, or who have poor
prospects of returning to work, should use all the assets at their disposal,
including superannuation assets, to provide for themselves before turning
to the community for support through the social security system.(1)
2. On 31 October 1996, the Senate referred the provisions of the Social
Security Legislation Amendment (Further Budget and Other Measures) Bill
1996 (Schedule 1) to the Committee for examination and report by 18 November
1996. The Committee subsequently sought two extensions of time to report
on this matter, to 21 November and finally, to 26 November 1996.
3. Schedule 1 proposes from 20 September 1997 to remove, in certain circumstances,
the exemption of superannuation and rollover funds from the means test
for social security purposes. Those circumstances are when people are
between 55 years and age pension age and have accumulated 39 weeks of
income support payment since turning 55.
4. For those people affected, superannuation and rollover assets will
be added to other financial assets for means test purposes. Annuities
and pensions including allocated pensions will be not be affected.(2)
5. In its reasons for recommending this inquiry, the Senate Selection
of Bills Committee cited the impact of the removal of the exemption on:
- future age pension outlays;
- people's decisions to take on caring responsibilities;
- national savings; and
- people's ability to self-provide in retirement.(3)
6. The Committee received 41 submissions (listed in Appendix A) and held
a public hearing in Melbourne on 11 November 1996 (witnesses listed in
Appendix B). It also received copies of a number of representations that
have been made to Parliamentarians on this issue.
Background to the Schedule 1 proposals
7. Under the Social Security Act 1991, superannuation assets held
by people below age pension age are currently exempt under the pension
and allowance income and assets tests. However, at age pension age, amounts
held are assessed under the extended deeming rules for the purposes of
the income test, and are assessed as assets under the assets test.(4)
8. Prior to March 1993, compulsorily preserved superannuation assets
were exempt from social security income and assets tests until age pension
age. As from March 1993, all superannuation benefits held in superannuation
or rollover funds have been exempted from social security tests until
age pension age. "This initiative involved estimated additional outlays
of $4.1m in 1992-93, increasing to $17.1m in 1995-96."(5)
9. This policy was consistent with the principle that superannuation
savings should be used in retirement, and will alleviate the pressure
on the age pension as the community ages. In addition, there is the compulsory
nature of employer superannuation contributions, which means that employees
effectively have no options about this form of saving.
10. The Government now considers that, as with other savings, a person's
superannuation savings should be included with other financial assets
for the purposes of assessment for income support. The second reading
speech states:
Given that superannuation savings are generally not subject to compulsory
preservation after a person reaches the age of 55 and retires, people
in those circumstances (including people who may not wish to retire
but who have poor prospects of returning to work) can access their superannuation
savings if they choose to do so.(6)
11. The Committee has difficulties with the final phrase. If the provisions
of Schedule 1 apply, it is not a question of choice for the people affected.
They are required to access their superannuation savings if they are to
maintain a similar cash income flow.
12. The date of effect of the Schedule 1 proposals is 20 September 1997
and the anticipated financial impact is:
1996-97 $ 1.333m (costs)
1997-98 $92.646m (savings)
1998-99 $67.474m (savings)
Details of Schedule 1
13. Under the social security means test, superannuation and rollover
investments now will be counted as assets and included with other assessable
assets, which exclude the principal place of residence. Then, under the
income test, the superannuation assets will be treated as financial investments
and added to the value of other financial investments to which the extended
deeming rules apply. The income so derived is then added to income from
other sources to determine the person's total income.
14. Although not a specific matter for its inquiry, the Committee does
have concerns about the operation of the deeming provisions. In particular,
there does appear to be an undue delay in adjusting to lower interest
rates. The majority members are concerned that the current operation of
the deeming provisions may further disadvantage people aged 55 who will
be affected by Schedule 1 of the Social Security Legislation Amendment
(Further Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1996.
15. Social Security customers with small amounts of superannuation will
not be affected and the current means test arrangements will continue.
A single pensioner is permitted to have up to $45,000 in total financial
investments including superannuation assets and still receive the maximum
payment rate.(7)
16. Persons who may now be denied a social security payment by exceeding
the assets limit "may requalify for payment if they decide to draw
on their assets to the extent that the total value of their assets falls
below the means test limit":
For example, a single homeowner Newstart customer with $130,000 in
total assets would not receive any payment, because this amount is over
the assets test cut off point of $124, 000. However, a reduction in
the customer's assets of more than $6,000 may enable them to requalify
for payment.(8)
17. For this proposal to work in practice, those persons affected need
to be able to access their superannuation savings. In this respect there
is a potential conflict with the Superannuation Industry (Supervision)
Regulations (SIS regulations). Before a trustee can release preserved
and restricted non preserved benefits under the retirement provision,
one of the following two requirements has to be satisfied:
- for a person of age 55 or more, their gainful employment has ceased
and the trustee is reasonably satisfied that the person intends
never again to be gainfully employed on a full or part time basis; or
- where the person is age 60 or more, their gainful employment has come
to an end.(9)
18. The Committee notes the views of Ms Roslyn Shirlaw who stated:
This leaves the individual in an impossible situation. Imagine a 56
year old person in September 1997 who has been actively seeking work
as part of their NSA requirement for the past 12 months. This person
has benefits in a superfund which are classified as either preserved
or restricted non preserved benefits. Under the proposed rules however
NSA will be stopped in September 1997 as the super benefits combined
with other assets exceed the Assets test limit.(10)
She went on to say:
These Amendments will place honest Australians in such a financial
position that they are compelled to lie on Statutory Declarations so
that their superannuation benefits can be accessed under the retirement
definition.(11)
19. Alternatively, superannuation entitlements may be withdrawn "if
the person can convince the Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner
that they are suffering severe financial hardship and the rules of the
fund provide for early access to entitlements in such circumstances"
(12)Section 1084 of the Social Security Act 1991 provides for the Minister
to allow those superannuation assets which cannot be genuinely accessed
because of superannuation regulations to be exempt from the income test.
However, if a person is above the assets test it would seem this exemption
would not apply.
The context and recent history of superannuation
20. Australia's retirement incomes policy, although a Labor initiative,
was developed with bi-partisan support and sought to address problems
arising from an aging population caused by the post war "baby boom"
generation moving toward age pension age over the next couple of decades.
A major objective of the policy was "to ensure an adequate income
for retired Australians, both now and in the future".(13)
21. The then Government considered that improving superannuation benefits
for both employees and the self-employed was of major importance, and
this could be achieved by:
- extending superannuation coverage across the work force;
- increasing the levels of contributions;
- ensuring that superannuation benefits are not lost when people change
jobs;
- making superannuation more responsive to the working patterns of women;
and
- ensuring that superannuation is not wasted before or at retirement.(14)
22. Until the advent of award superannuation in the mid-1980's, Australia's
retirement incomes policy was largely confined to an age pension regime
and voluntary superannuation. Only a minority of workers had superannuation
coverage, with most of those being highly paid white collar workers or
public sector employees.
23. Between 1983 and 1986, a number of policy initiatives were introduced
to address perceived problems with superannuation. They included:
- changing the taxation treatment of the post June 1983 component of
lump sums;
- creating rollover vehicles to encourage preservation of benefits;
- encouraging the spread of superannuation throughout the work force,
beginning with award superannuation in 1985-86; and
- introducing vesting and portability to make superannuation a more
effective vehicle of providing retirement income.
24. In 1987, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission (ISC) was established
to administer guidelines under which superannuation schemes were to operate
in order to attract taxation concessions. These guidelines or standards
were codified in the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987
(OSSA) and its associated regulations.
25. In August 1991, the then Government announced its intention to introduce
widespread compulsory superannuation. The Superannuation Guarantee
Charge Act 1992 and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration)
Act 1992 took effect from 1 July 1992. Consequently, Australia's retirement
incomes policy now had three key components which remain in position today:
- compulsory superannuation;
- voluntary superannuation arrangements; and
- age pension and other social security benefits.
26. The supervisory regime of OSSA was then seen to be ineffective because
its sanctions were derived mainly from the Commonwealth's taxation head
of power under the Constitution. This Committee reported that:
Any breach of standards by trustees could only be punished by withdrawing
a fund's complying status and its associated eligibility for tax concessions.
Such a sanction was seen to be both draconian and ineffective as it
generally penalised the members a second time without affecting the
trustees.(15)
27. This was seen as inadequate in protecting the superannuation assets
of the work force. As a result, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision)
Act 1993 (SIS) and associated legislation came into force, generally
for a complying fund's 1994-95 year of income.
28. It is against this background that the Committee reports on its inquiry
into the provisions of Schedule 1.
Retrospectivity and confidence
29. Provisions of Schedule 1 will retrospectively impact on a number
of Australians. Many individuals have made financial decisions, in good
faith, that a policy would continue as articulated. As a result of Schedule
1, many Australians who have previously sacrificed income so that they
could contribute to superannuation will now be required to change their
financial arrangements.
30. The retrospective complaint was best expressed by Mr Noel Cook, a
person of 59 years in receipt of a job search allowance and who would
be affected by the proposals. Mr Cook said:
I thought, if I can get rid of the rollover they can have that, I will
take the super pension, which I should have taken four years ago and
I would be right now. I would be on about $23, 020 a year if I had taken
that. But I judged things the way they were and it is all you can do.
I asked a lot of questions. I went to financial planner after financial
planner. I did all this sort of thing and then I decided to do what
I did - take half as a lump sum and half as a pension and I have made
the wrong decision if you people change this legislation.(16)
31. The retrospectivity is primarily in relation to the effect it will
have on those who had made retirement decisions. The Committee especially
noted the views of Ms Roslyn Shirlaw of RetireInvest Pty Ltd, who said:
This legislation does not just affect people who are seeking jobsearch
allowance. It also affects partner allowance, disability support pensions,
carers pensions and everything else ... someone has made a decision
and has made their investments around that decision based on the laws
as they existed at the time. It would not be right to detrimentally
affect those people because of the decisions they have made. We believe
those people should be protected.(17)
32. The Committee is also concerned at the fees and charges that individuals
may have to bear in order to change their financial decisions to access
their superannuation. The RetireInvest Pty Ltd submission noted:
Another example that will affect some investors is withdrawal fees
on investments. In recent years "nil entry fee" investment
products have become popular. Many of these products have withdrawal
penalties for up to five years. Income support recipients will therefore
be adversely affected if they withdraw money prematurely.(18)
33. The Committee is concerned that a threat of damage to the confidence
of the public in superannuation may occur as a result of the changes proposed
by Schedule 1. There have been many changes to Australia's superannuation
regime over the past decade, most of which have been related to improving
the equity and efficient operation of what is a rapidly growing and successful
industry.
34. There is, however, a risk in making changes for reasons not consistent
with the integrity of the established superannuation system. As Mr Ross
Clare, Principal Research Officer, ASFA Research Centre, Association of
Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), said:
Superannuation is something which is desirable for individuals. It
is desirable for the country, and ... its attractiveness has been diminished
by a number of changes and we have to beware for the future. There would
come a point where the incremental chipping away would render it a very
unsatisfactory product for some people, and we do not want it to get
to that stage.(19)
35. Threats of the potential to undermine public confidence in superannuation
were further highlighted in evidence given by witnesses Mr Trevor Yaxley,
a 55 year old former bank employee, and Mr Noel Cook. Mr Yaxley said:
I have spent 37 years in the banking industry and I was made redundant
last year. Over all those years, I have taken note of consecutive governments
and have put the highest percentage permitted by the bank into superannuation
so that when I got to age 60 I could retire and live a reasonably comfortable
life and have nothing more to do with governments.(20)
Mr Cook said:
I am aged 59. I joined the teaching service and the Superannuation
Board back in the sixties. When I joined them they used to advertise
things like, "Come and work for the state government. We offer
superannuation.."
When I joined the education ministry or education department, as it
was then called, this superannuation was a big thing - that was one
of the carrots they used to get you into that position and I went for
it. It was quite a good incentive. During the time I was teaching, it
cost me with interest, over $80, 000. I had four children, brought them
up; my wife did not work full-time; we lived on my income mainly and
she supplemented now again with housework and what-not that she could
do for others. Most people paid nothing into superannuation in my day.
As you realise, it is only just recently that everybody has gone onto
superannuation because we are in a bit of strife. I can understand that.
Whereas in my day when I was working most people paid nothing. And
the people that paid nothing [into superannuation] are allowed to get
the full benefit. Admittedly, they possibly could not get super and
maybe they did not plan like I did. But my plans will all go out the
window if this goes through. All the money I have put aside for our
future, when we turn 65, most likely will not be there.(21)
36. Apart from the need to maintain superannuation in as stable an environment
as possible, the Committee also considers it inappropriate to be requiring
vulnerable people to deal with complex changes which effectively penalise
them and have little to do with improving the superannuation system.
37. There is also the very real question of financial penalties attached
to early withdrawal of superannuation entitlements from some superannuation
policies. That is in addition to the income foregone from those superannuation
savings which have been prematurely withdrawn.
38. The Department of Social Security advised the Committee that, as
only 67,000 people might be affected, they "do not necessarily see
that this initiative of itself is going to impact on the confidence of
people".(22) The Department's view notwithstanding, the Committee
considers that the provisions of Schedule 1 have already had the effect
of reducing confidence in superannuation.
Creating a new category of beneficiary and superannuant
39. The Committee considers that the 67,000 people to be affected by
the provisions of Schedule 1 are at the very least treated differently
to all other people in regard to their superannuation, if not directly
discriminated against. No other group is required by legislation to access
their superannuation entitlements as a condition for the receipt of social
security entitlements prior to age pension age. Furthermore, the Committee
knows of no other group who would have had their planning so disturbed
by changes to superannuation entitlement access requirements.
40. From the carers to the disability pensioners and the older unemployed,
the Committee found a unanimity in the written submissions and telephone
inquiries: that plans had been disrupted, hardship anticipated and hopes
disappointed by the prospect of the Schedule 1 provisions. Another aspect,
that of early compulsory retirement, is discussed below.
What about the rorting?
41. Savings from the Schedule 1 proposal are claimed to be "much
greater" than the costs of the 1993 initiative which put the original
exemption in place. The Government cites a significant reason for the
difference:
...is because of the extent to which customers who are effectively
retired, invested in superannuation and rollover funds as a means of
avoiding the operation of the assets and income tests.(23)
42. The Committee notes that the only witness who agreed that there was
rorting in the current system was Mr Daryl Dixon. Mr Dixon was in favour
of Schedule 1 and indicated that is quite possible for millionaires and
half millionaires to get social security at the moment.(24) However, the
Committee also notes Mr Dixon's point:
Why people with half a million dollars or with large amounts of money
would want to claim the dole anyway is beyond me.(25)
43. The Committee noted with interest that Mr Dixon advocated a relaxation
of the assets test for everyone, whether they had money inside or outside
of superannuation.(26)
44. The Department of Social Security stated that only about seven per
cent of the people affected by Schedule 1 have over $200,000 in superannuation.(27)
The Committee is therefore unconvinced, on all the evidence presented
to it, that the proposals would have as a major consequence the prevention
of rorting of the social security system. Certainly the major proportion
of the projected savings to the budget would not be coming from the wealthy.
45. If rorting is also alleged in relation to persons not equitably entitled
to the benefits they are receiving, then the Committee finds that to be
a problem for the respective qualifying tests associated with each benefit.
Those people the Committee has encountered during its inquiry could fairly
be classed as genuine "battlers" who are currently not part
of the work force through no personal fault or discreditation, or are
sick or disabled.
46. The Committee is, however, of the view that the Department should
pursue those persons who could be perceived to be taking an unfair advantage
of the current provisions. It therefore suggests that the Department undertake
an investigation of such cases to assess the degree of rorting that is
taking place, and to propose appropriate measures to overcome the practice.
Compulsory early retirement
47. Are these persons retired? The Committee considers the provisions
of Schedule 1 have the effect of placing many of the affected individuals
in an invidious position with regard to their position in society. On
the one hand, the social security system is seen to be offering them income
support in recognition of their non-working situation, whatever the cause.
However, that offer is effectively (and strangely) conditional on the
affected persons not having provided significantly for their own retirement.
48. The message these people are receiving is really that you are retired,
the retirement decision has been taken out of your hands and your own
retirement and superannuation plans are as nothing.
49. The Committee noted Mr Cushway's evidence:
Up until now, they have been able to retain the psychological advantage
of knowing that they have got their retirement partly planned by preserving
their superannuation assets. They now face the situation where they
are being asked to have them incorporated into their assessment for
social security so that their thinking for their retirement or their
older years has been seriously impeded. Depending again on the assessments
applied, these funds could disadvantage them from having any income
at all. Also, our understanding is that with superannuation if you indicate
you are willing to work rather than retire, it is really difficult for
you to access your superannuation. I think it is important for people
to be able to retain some self esteem and this is the sort of thing
that superannuation and the preservation of assets, while they are still
willing to work, does for them.(28)
50. The Committee recognises that persons whose benefits are reduced
or withdrawn by Schedule 1 could requalify for income support by drawing
down their superannuation assets to the limit allowed. However, the Committee
sees an unfair and potentially damaging lack of logic in such a scenario.
Not only are such persons regarded as effectively retired against their
wishes, but are impliedly being encouraged to dissipate their retirement
savings in order to become effectively "unretired".
51. While effectively treated as retired, the affected persons are not
however accorded the same rights as persons who have attained age pension
age. Instead, they are still assessed in respect of their eligibility
for benefits such as Jobsearch and Newstart (JSA/NSA). The proposed changes
particularly disadvantage JSA/NSA recipients who subjected to a considerably
more stringent means test than that applied to age pension applicants.
In common with other affected persons such as disability pensioners, they
are required to draw upon their superannuation benefits to replace the
income support payments for which they would otherwise have been eligible.
Essentially, their superannuation savings are diverted towards their pre-retirement
income support.
52. The Committee detects an element of danger to the integrity of the
superannuation system inherent in such provisions.
53. Due to the requirement to report quickly, the Committee was not able
to fully assess some of the social and moral issues which emerged from
the evidence presented to it. Considerable anger and frustration has been
expressed in written and oral submissions and other representations made
to the Committee. The Committee is unable to regard 67,000 people affected
as insignificant, nor is it able to ignore the message of uncertainty
that Schedule 1 is sending to those who would plan for their retirement.
Nor is the Committee able to ignore the distress that these proposals
have caused to many people so long before their planned date of introduction.
54. The Committee also notes that due to both demographic changes and
the increasing Superannuation Guarantee contributions, the number of people
affected by this measure will rapidly increase beyond the current 67,000
persons immediately affected. The Committee notes that in 1983 less than
40 per cent of the workforce had any superannuation savings. In 1996 more
than 92 per cent of the workforce have superannuation coverage.
55. In 1983, white collar and public sector employees fortunate to have
superannuation savings had an average amount of $13 000 in superannuation.
These benefits were predominantly accrued in defined benefit corporate
funds, or public sector schemes.
56. Between 1983 and 1996, the average amount in a member's superannuation
account grew at a rate of 9 per cent per annum. The 92 per cent of the
work force that currently have superannuation largely as a result of award
superannuation and the introduction of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge,
have an average superannuation equity per member of $38 000.(29)
57. The Committee notes that should the 3 per cent employee and 3 per
cent government contribution proceed, an increasing number of Australians
will be affected by the provisions of Schedule 1.
58. The Committee also notes that in 1995, 805 383 Australians were aged
between 55 and 60; 972 552 aged between 50 and 54 and 1 256 733 between
45 and 50.(30) The Committee also notes that people aged between 45 and
65 constitute 21 per cent of the total unemployment figure.(31)
Disability Support Pensioners
59. Of the 67 000 people whose payments will be reduced as a result of
this policy change, around 48 000 will be in receipt of a Disability Support
Pension (DSP).
60. It should be noted that, in addition to the Bill under consideration,
the Government has also introduced into the Parliament the Social Security
Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1996. Schedule
13 of that Bill seeks to introduce revised impairment tables for use in
assessment of disability support pensions.
61. When combined with the increased medical reviews to be undertaken
of Disability Support Pensioners announced in the Budget, the introduction
of these new tables will see some 34 000 people lose their DSP and 5 000
fewer people will qualify for the DSP in 1997-98 alone.(32)
62. Many of these people are expected to transfer to Newstart allowance.
As previously noted in paragraph 51, those receiving Newstart are subject
to considerably more stringent income and assets tests than those in receipt
of a pension.
63. Thus, there will be a significant group of Disability Support Pensioners
who, due to the introduction of the new impairment tables, will not only
lose their pensions but, due to the tighter income and assets tests on
the income support payment to which most will transfer, will also be forced
to more rapidly erode their superannuation savings.
64. To date, the Department of Social Security has not been able to provide
further details of the impact of the interaction of these two policy changes.
National savings and budgetary concerns
65. Australia's relatively low national savings have been of concern
to successive governments. In the time made available for the conducting
of the inquiry, the Committee has been unable to obtain any information
on the longer term effect of the Schedule 1 provisions. However, the Committee
finds it difficult to imagine how these proposals could possible advantage
the cause of higher national savings.
66. In the time made available for the inquiry, the Committee was unable
to examine any modelling of the long term impact on the budget as a result
of the Schedule 1 provisions. The Committee notes its concern of the apparent
lack of modelling that has been undertaken on this critical aspect, and
strongly recommends that such research and analysis be undertaken.
67. The Committee notes the following dialogue between the Deputy Chairman
of the Committee, Senator the Hon. Nick Sherry, and Ms Kerry Flanagan,
Assistant Secretary, Retirement Programs Branch, Department of Social
Security:
Senator Sherry: But there is no doubt that for a certain number
of people there would be a greater demand on the part or whole pension
later in life because they have drawn on their superannuation?
Ms Flanagan: - Very much so...(33)
68. The Committee is concerned that many of those who will now be required
to prematurely eat into their superannuation savings will correspondingly
have a greater call in later years on the age pension than otherwise would
be the case. In addition, if there is an erosion of confidence in the
superannuation system, a resulting lowering in voluntary contributions
would also have a negative impact on future budgets.
69. Accordingly, the Committee is not persuaded that the estimated savings
to the budget as a result of these proposals are sustainable, and it may
well be the longer term overall effect is a cost burden. The relationship
between superannuation and the social security system is a delicate one.
It may be that this Committee needs to examine that relationship in greater
detail at some stage.
Conclusion
70. The Committee emphasises that superannuation is not just another
form of saving and investment. It has a specific purpose - to provide
for people's income in their retirement years. It is not designed to underpin
income support policies legitimately designed for other reasons.
71. Australia has a world class superannuation system, with an unique
mix of voluntary and compulsory contributions all underpinned by a means
tested age pension.
72. It is critical that the structures and the degree of confidence in
the system are maintained and enhanced. Individuals must be allowed sufficient
time to watch their superannuation grow and must be able to rest assured
that the whims of government or supposed budget necessity will not cause
the erosion of their retirement income.
73. Superannuation ensures a level of intergenerational equity. The Committee
notes with concern that the Schedule 1 provisions fail to account for
intergenerational equity and therefore the Committee recommends the following:
Recommendations
The Committee recommends that the government consider the following:
(a) Schedule 1 be passed only with an amendment to establish a threshold
amount for superannuation and rollover products of $250 000, indexed
to the CPI, before persons may be affected by the provisions of Schedule
1 and all those affected, whether receiving a pension or an allowance,
would be subject to the incomes and assets test;
(b) Schedule 1 be passed with effect only in regard to those superannuation
assets accrued after 20 August 1996;
(c) The government investigate the incidence of so-called rorting of
superannuation provisions for social security income support purposes;
and
(d) The Government undertake to conduct research and modelling on the
long term impact of the Schedule 1 provisions on the Budget and on national
savings, and to investigate whether exit fees and restrictions on access
to funds might disadvantage persons affected by the provisions.
(SIGNED)
Senator the Hon. Nick Sherry, Deputy Chair
Senator Lyn Allison
Senator Stephen Conroy
Senator Chris Evans
[Go to Government Senators' Report]
Endnotes
- 1996 Budget Paper, "Recognising Older Australians", page
7.
- Second Reading Speech, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further
Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1996.
- Selection of Bills Committee Report No. 13 of 1996, Appendix
4.
- Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Budget and Other Measures)
Bill 1996, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
- Second Reading Speech.
- Second Reading Speech.
- Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3.
- Department of Social Security Information Paper of 18 October, p.
5.
- SIS regulation 6.01(7).
- Evidence, S1.
- Evidence, S1.
- Parliamentary Research Services Bills Digest on this Bill, p. 2.
- Statement by the Hon Brian Howe, MP, Minister for Social Security,
Better Incomes: Retirement Income Policy into the Next Century,
August 1989, p2.
- Statement by the Hon Brian Howe, MP, Minister for Social Security,
Better Incomes: Retirement Income Policy into the Next Century,
August 1989, pp35-36.
- Super Guarantee-Its Track Record, 15th Report , Senate Select
Committee on Superannuation, p.11.
- Evidence, S47.
- Evidence, S25.
- Submission 1, p. 3.
- Evidence, S10.
- Evidence, S32.
- Evidence, S44-45.
- Evidence (Ms Flanagan), S52.
- Second Reading Speech.
- Evidence, S27.
- Evidence, S28.
- Evidence, S29.
- Evidence (Ms Flanagan), S62.
- Evidence, S36.
- Information provided to the Committee by Mr Alex Dunnin, Insurance
and Superannuation Commission.
- ABS, Demographic Statistics 3101.0, March Quarter 1996.
- ABS, Labour force 6203.0, September 1996, Table 24.
- Portfolio Budget Statements 1996-97, Social Security Portfolio, pp.
77-8, p. 81.
- Evidence, S59.
Top
|