Australia’s $4.4 trillion superannuation system is becoming the next major political fault line, with the Albanese government accusing One Nation and the Coalition of threatening retirement savings while Pauline Hanson says Labor is the party Australians should fear around their super.
The dispute has moved quickly from an argument about whether people should be allowed greater access to their own savings into a much larger contest over what compulsory superannuation is for, how much control workers should have over it and how far governments should go in encouraging the funds to finance national priorities.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers escalated the fight on Tuesday, accusing the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation of abandoning the principle of universal superannuation after senior opposition figures showed interest in allowing greater access before retirement.
“The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation in the course of the last week have made it abundantly clear that they no longer support universal super,” Chalmers told Sunrise. “So, they pose the biggest threat to superannuation in the 40 years or so that we’ve had compulsory superannuation.”
That charge goes further than the policies so far put forward by either One Nation or the Coalition. Hanson has not called for compulsory employer superannuation to be abolished. Her argument is that Australians should have more freedom to withdraw their money when facing serious financial pressure. The Coalition has also stopped short of opposing compulsory super and is considering its position on early access, having previously campaigned on allowing first-home buyers to use up to $50,000 of super towards a deposit.
“The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation in the course of the last week have made it abundantly clear that they no longer support universal super” – Treasurer Jim Chalmers
Hanson responded to Chalmers by turning the argument back on Labor, pointing to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s comments last month about the investment power contained in Australia’s super funds.
“Jim Chalmers cannot stop spending, and now he has his eyes on Australians’ superannuation to fund more of Labor’s bad ideas,” Hanson said. “When the Prime Minister calls your super a ‘national asset’ that can be ‘used more appropriately’, alarm bells should ring.”
Albanese had raised the potential of the super pool as a national asset during a productivity discussion in July, arguing that investment could produce returns for members while also serving Australian economic priorities. His comments prompted concerns about political influence over investment decisions, although they did not amount to a proposal for government to take control of members’ savings.
“Jim Chalmers cannot stop spending, and now he has his eyes on Australians’ superannuation to fund more of Labor’s bad ideas”
– Pauline Hanson
Hanson said the distinction was crucial. “Your super is not Labor’s piggy bank. It is your money, earned through your work and put aside for your retirement,” she said. “One Nation believes Australians should have more control over their own super, including being able to access it when they genuinely need it. Jim Chalmers should keep his hands off your super.”
The political argument comes at a point when superannuation has become too large to be treated solely as an individual retirement product. APRA reported total assets of $4.4379 trillion at March 2026, up 7.9 per cent over the year. A July study by The Balance Sheet, estimated the pool at about 155 per cent of GDP, compared with about a third of GDP when compulsory super began in 1992.
The study found that the system collected $226.1 billion in contributions in the year to March and paid $143.5 billion in benefits. Its central finding was that super has succeeded in accumulating retirement wealth and national savings, while becoming a financial system with consequences extending well beyond retirement policy.
That helps explain why the present argument is more complicated than the competing claims that governments should simply keep out of super or that early access would destroy it.
There is already limited access before retirement. Australians can apply for early release in circumstances including severe financial hardship, specified medical expenses and preventing foreclosure or the forced sale of a home. What One Nation is contemplating would loosen those boundaries, although details such as withdrawal limits and eligibility have not been settled.
The strongest evidence for Chalmers’ warning comes from what happened during the pandemic. Under the temporary COVID early-release scheme, 3.05 million Australians made 4.55 million approved applications seeking $37.8 billion from their super accounts. The long-term cost remains contested because it depends on investment returns and the age of the person withdrawing, but taking money out early removes the compounding that preservation is designed to provide.
Chalmers said wider access would “absolutely decimate the retirement incomes of millions of Australian workers”, arguing that preservation was at the heart of the system.
“One of the most important features of our superannuation system is this idea of preservation, this idea that with compounding investments over time, Australian workers can access the decent retirement incomes that they need and deserve after a lifetime of work,” he said.
Preservation is now written into the legislated objective of superannuation, which requires savings to be preserved to provide income in retirement alongside government support. But Hanson’s ownership argument is not easily dismissed either. Research examined by The Balance Sheet found that between 71 and 100 per cent of increases in compulsory super contributions are ultimately borne by workers through wages. It also cited RBA estimates suggesting each compulsory dollar reduces other household saving by about 30 cents.
In practical terms, compulsory super appears to create additional saving, but workers give up some capacity to consume or save the money elsewhere during their working lives.
The evidence on retirement outcomes also complicates both sides’ case. The Balance Sheet found median super balances among people aged 60 to 64 were about $236,000 for men and $175,000 for women. At the same time, the proportion of 65-to-69-year-olds receiving the Age Pension has fallen from about 60 per cent to 26 per cent since 2012, although changes to pension rules, asset tests and workforce participation have also played a role.
That suggests compulsory super is reducing pension dependence, but many Australians still reach retirement with balances for which large early withdrawals could matter considerably.
The system also presents Labor with a political vulnerability of its own.
The government has been looking at changes to super fund performance benchmarks so funds are not discouraged from investing in areas such as housing and energy. Treasury says any changes must continue to protect returns and require investment to be made in members’ best financial interests. But coupled with Albanese’s remarks about the national value of the super pool, the discussion has given Hanson an opening to argue that governments are increasingly looking at compulsory savings as a source of capital for their policy priorities.
The Balance Sheet study identified the same tension before the latest political fight erupted. It found that roughly half of Australian super assets are now invested overseas and that large funds expect much of their future investment growth to follow, limiting the idea that compulsory super can simply be treated as a domestic pool of capital.
It also found that only an estimated $17 billion of the system’s annual net inflows reaches Australian listed shares at current allocations, about 1 per cent of annual ASX cash turnover. Yet total net inflows are large compared with new equity issuance and commercial property transactions, giving major funds considerable influence when competing for scarce infrastructure and unlisted assets.
There is another unresolved issue in the economics of the system. Treasury’s benchmark puts the annual cost of superannuation tax concessions at $60.7 billion, close to the cost of the Age Pension, with about two-thirds of those concessions flowing to the highest-earning fifth of Australians. The study cautions that the total cost changes sharply under an alternative tax benchmark, although the unequal distribution of the concessions remains.
The argument developing in Canberra is therefore unlikely to remain confined to whether someone struggling with a mortgage should be allowed to withdraw $10,000 or $20,000.
Chalmers is trying to make preservation itself an election issue, telling voters Labor will defend compulsory retirement saving while portraying its opponents as willing to dismantle it. Hanson is framing the same dispute around ownership, arguing that compulsory savings remain the property of the worker and should not become either inaccessible during genuine need or a pool governments seek to steer.
Neither description captures the system on its own. Australia’s super pool is private money held for members, but it exists because Parliament compels employers to contribute to it, gives it large tax concessions, restricts when members can withdraw it and regulates how trustees invest it. Its size means decisions about those rules now have consequences for retirement incomes, the budget, financial markets and investment across the economy.
That is why the latest argument has the potential to last. The political fight is no longer simply about how much super Australians accumulate. It is increasingly about who decides what $4.4 trillion of compulsory savings can be used for, and when the people whose names are on the accounts should be allowed to use it themselves.
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
