Former PM Paul Keating 'A bitchy performance by Coalition monkeys':, page-67

It's almost like there's a deliberate obscuration my various players to muddy the waters on the facts. I'm guessing that's not owned by one side of the equation.

We can pick and choose what variables we want to attribute to the effects super. For instance I could argue that as super as grown over the last ~30 years, manufacturing has decreased from ~30" GDP to ~5%. Is that because of ROI imperatives by super funds?

When panning out Keating, how many have actually delved in the data and facts rather than looking at headlines and abstracts. Is the current model what Keating envisioned or is it Frankenstein's Monster?

Insofar as part pension, well I'm sure the tax receipts have been analysed by treasury and finance who are charged with tweaking legacy trails for maximum cost benefit. It may well be that super concessions are more favourable than the cost of borrowing for pensions. There's always a retiree voter base that has to appeased, as Shorten found out.

Not everyone wants to have a self managed fund either. When I looked at the outgoings I didn't see how unions are being treated any different to other investors piggybacking the e.g. industry funds ventures; just the same as investors putting money into QIC.