Female workers and super:

Vincent Mahon writes: Female workers are more disadvantaged by the changes made to superannuation contributions in the 2009 Budget. The Rudd Government placed caps on concessional contributions employees could make to their superannuation. The government co-contributions was reduced from $1500 to $1000 for this financial year.

Many women have disrupted paid working lives and broken career paths usually due to child rearing. Not until women are in their 50s are they in better paid jobs and a better financial position when they can then increase concessional contributions. For those 50 and over, the concessional contribution limit was cut from $100,000 to $50,000 which will be reduced in 2012 to $25,000.

This means women in particular who were unable to salary sacrifice in earlier years are now limited in what they can salary sacrifice to increase their superannuation for a comfortable retirement.

Even more discriminatory is the reduction in the government co-contribution. This scheme is intended to help low and middle income individuals save for their retirement. The income for which the full benefit is payable this year is $31,920. If you earn less than that and can contribute $1000, you will have your co-contribution matched by the federal government. The benefit cuts out, on a sliding scale, once you reach $61,920.

According to ATO statistics for 2008-09, the number of co-contribution entitlements determined and paid was to over 1.2 million taxpayers. Nearly 720,000 or 60 per cent are female. Almost 460,000 or 63 per cent of those women who received the co-contribution are between the ages of 41-70.More female taxpayers than male taxpayers are adversely affected by the reduction in the government co-contribution.

These government policies not only reduce incentives to put more into superannuation but especially make it harder for women to have adequate superannuation for retirement.

Why attack Brumby?:

Martin Gordon writes: Re. “Ted Baillieu doing nicely from the health debate” (yesterday, item 2). I was astonished by the attack on John Brumby in Crikey, and I am not one of his fans. The pooled funding option which Brumby and Abbott broadly support makes more sense (from my health economics background) than this election year stunt of Rudd’s.

The critics of this election year stunt have included a collection of ‘mates’ former NSW and Victorian ALP Premiers Department head Ken Baxter, Medicare architect Dr John Deeble and Australian of the year Professor Patrick McGorry. Brumby has asked the embarrassing questions and Rudd’s plan of stealing state money is cynical, as is the referendum threat, which is legally unnecessary.

At least Brumby sticks up for his state’s people, credit to him.

NT Public Hospitals:

Chris Johnson writes: Re.”Growing sense of despair over payroll admin in NT public hospitals” (Wednesday, item 4). Stunning quote from the Territory’s Health Minister’s not very media savvy media advisor, Ursula Raymond, responding to Crikey in Bob Gosford’s article: “the Northern Territory Government does not respond to random electronic gossip sites.”

Perhaps it well explains why there’s a void of crap advice being offered too many MPs and Ministers around Oz and why the Northern Territory now has joined the growing list of Labor-run basket cases that can’t deliver the most basic services to Australians.

NSW is having another break-down this week over the massive traffic jam that trapped thousands of motorists on the F3 for up to 12-hours because someone forgot to flick the contra-flow switch. Up in Queensland it’s also a fracked pay system but unlike the Northern Territory this one’s so new and sophisticated no one can fly it.

Perhaps the NT inherited what Queensland flogged off? Who’d know. And yes, it’s all Monty Python stuff with the only comfort being that all Australians are in this together — sharing the pain of state politics.

Correction:

Jim O’Brien writes: Re. “Canberra contest heats up over abortion claims” (yesterday, item 9). I believe the ex-footballer referred to in the article about the ACT Labor pre-selection is Paul Osborne not Michael Osborne.