Opinions were flying thick and fast during an Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) debate held this week on the topic of the most adequate level for the superannuation guarantee (SG).
Moderator Ali Moore from ABC TV's Lateline Business opened by posing the questions: "When we speak of adequacy, adequate for what and for who? And are we angling for the lowest common denominator or something better?"
No opinions were more controversial than that of well-known feminist and sociologist Eva Cox.
Cox said superannuation was devised for high-income earning males and in many ways the Australian superannuation system did not serve very many others, particularly women who had long been acknowledged to have broken work patterns due to pregnancy and other caring roles.
"The super system currently gives generous tax concessions and very little money has been put into raising pensions. It is creating a much more inequitable society," she said.
Unsurprisingly, she did not support an increase in the superannuation guarantee, if she supported compulsory super at all.
And unsurprisingly not all the debaters were on board with these views.
Australian Council of Trade Unions assistant secretary Tim Lyons said he would like to see the superannuation guarantee raised to 15 per cent.
"This is part of the unfinished business that started in the '70s," Lyons said.
He said there were important gaps that needed to be filled, such as for those who were working prior to the introduction of compulsory super and the self-employed.
Mercer Worldwide partner David Knox agreed and said 9 per cent was simply not enough and he would like to see the SG increased to 12 per cent.
"It's a tricky pitch, but to play a dead bat is not an appropriate response," Knox said.
It is well known ASFA is also supportive of an increase to 12 per cent.
ASFA director of policy and industry practice Melinda Howes said 15 per cent was too high, particularly for low-income earners as it could detract from their quality of life.
Watson Wyatt managing director Andrew Boal argued that the SG should not be increased above 9 per cent.
"Low income earners should not be foreced to save more money if it has an impact on their current standard of living," he said.
While the debate about what is an adequate retirement level for Australians continues to swirl around, perhaps the last word should go to Cox.
She questioned why superannuation savings were prioritised over other kinds of savings, such as saving for a home, and why there was so much planning for the future rather than valuing the possibilities of the present.
"Why should low-income earners be expected to put their money into superannuation rather than the security of a house. What about other types of savings? What about quality of life?" she said.
While these views may at first seem outlandish, they are good food for thought and ones the superannuation industry may want to take on board.
