Speaking to media, Ms Hume said that while the increase to 10 per cent – currently set for July of this year – has been legislated, “don’t for a second think that doesn’t come with a trade-off”.
“Money doesn’t grow on trees and there is a good chance that if there is an additional cost to employers when they pay that extra 0.5 per cent that it will come at the expense of potentially wage rises in the future,” Ms Hume said.
“Everything this government is doing is about increasing the number of jobs and increasing wages. So this – while it’s already been legislated and has been legislated for some time – comes at a cost.”
Ms Hume said that Prime Minister Scott Morrison would assess the situation closer to the budget but that the increase couldn’t “come at a worse time”, echoing recent comments from Treasurer Josh Frydenberg that government must “rightfully and carefully consider the implications” of the SG increase before moving ahead.
“It is simply not true, as some would have us believe, that there is virtually no limit to how high the superannuation guarantee can be increased in the name of delivering ever higher retirement incomes. Indeed, for some, there isn’t a problem that cannot be solved through a higher rate of compulsory superannuation,” Mr Frydenberg said,
The government’s failure to commit to a course of action has frustrated its critics, including Industry Super Australia (ISA), which on Friday launched a new ‘Fox and Henhouse’ style campaign to force its hand on the matter.
“Some federal politicians want to break an election promise and cut super, forcing Australians to work longer or retire with less. It’s time for the government to stop messing with super and deliver their promise to workers,” said ISA chief Bernie Dean.
“Australians may have to choose between a financially secure retirement or selling their family home – that’s an unfair choice no one should have to make.”
Sadly the answer is simple – place employees on a package inclusive of super. Any increase comes from the base salary of the employee so total remuneration cost remains the same, their take home pay diminishes. My wife’s contract with a large dealer group has this in it, it’s a crap clause but so be it.
Most employers already use super inclusive total remuneration packages. Either explicitly in the employment contract, or implicitly by diverting remuneration to SG increases that might otherwise have been given as a pay rise.
The exceptions are the legislated award system and union imposed enterprise agreements. But employers subject to these are likely to get rid of staff in response to increased costs. It has been one of the big drivers of the switch from permanent employees to self employed contractors in recent years. The SG rate for self employed sole traders is 0% and there are no legislated increases to that rate.
so you will let backpackers give financial advice in call centers but you will fight an increase