Never let ideologues near complex policy issues. The Australian had some good coverage today of the Productivity Commission’s superannuation report from Michael Roddan, who has long brought sense to the Oz’s coverage of super. James Kirby, too, had a useful take from a wealth management angle. But the editors also foolishly let “the nation’s most ponderous political commentator”, as Ross Gittins called him on Saturday, Paul Kelly, opine about the subject.

Big mistake.

According to Kelly, the entire super system is a disaster that needs “top-to-bottom reform” because the PC reveals rip-offs “far more damaging than malpractice in the banking system”. Far more damaging than what we’ve seen from the royal commission? Probably best not to talk about royal commissions, Paul, given you’ve never apologised for your disgusting attack on the child abuse royal commission. 

In fact, the PC report actually shows that the super system performs well for most members but it’s a minority that are missing out. Why? “While many funds have been delivering solid returns for members, there are also many underperforming products, particularly in retail funds.”

With retail funds identified as the particular source of under-performance, presumably Kelly addresses that given he thinks things are so terrible? But you have to wait until the bottom of Kelly’s lengthy article for him to even mention retail funds. “The report is not about industry versus retail funds,” he then insists, reluctantly acknowledging that it identifies industry funds as performing much better — though Kelly himself isn’t so sure. “Don’t think the industry sector doesn’t have serious problems,” he cautions.

In fact the entire report is about industry versus retail funds, and the extent to which the latter should be allowed access to the default super space mainly occupied by the former. Did Kelly even read it? Maybe he should stick to banal statements of the obvious about federal politics.