Superannuation is shaping up to become an election issue, and frankly, we think more Australians should be paying attention, talking about it and demanding action that serves everyday Aussies.
There is now more than $4 trillion sitting in Australia’s superannuation system. That’s an extraordinary amount of money accumulated for the retirement of Australian workers, so perhaps it shouldn’t surprise us that politicians have very different ideas about what should happen to it.
On one side, we’re hearing arguments for greater access and individual control. Pauline Hanson has suggested Australians should be able to access super for things such as mortgage stress and medical expenses, while Barnaby Joyce has questioned whether people facing genuine financial hardship should have more ability to use their own retirement savings.
There has also been criticism of compulsory super itself, including from Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg, who recently described the system as a major public policy failure. The Government, meanwhile, is defending compulsory super and arguing strongly for preserving retirement savings.
But there’s another part of this debate that deserves just as much attention: who ultimately gets to decide what happens to our super?
It’s your super, but everyone seems to have a plan for it
We recently wrote about Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s comments describing Australia’s enormous pool of superannuation savings in the context of a potential “national asset”.
That discussion included the role superannuation capital could play in supporting Australian businesses, corporate debt, infrastructure and other productive investment.
As we explained in our article, Is Super a “National Asset”? What Australians Need to Know, the Government does not own your super. But we think Australians should pay very close attention when governments start looking at our collective retirement savings through the lens of what that money could do for the country.
Because there is an important distinction here.
Your super exists to fund your retirement. It isn’t government revenue and it isn’t taxpayer money.
When the conversation shifts towards how Australia’s trillions of dollars in super could be deployed to achieve broader economic or national objectives, Australians are entitled to ask:
Who should ultimately decide where my retirement savings are invested?
Beneath all the politics, that’s the much bigger conversation about ownership, control and the purpose of superannuation.
So where do SMSFs fit into this debate?
Members of large industry and retail super funds generally have some choice about investment options. You might choose balanced, growth, conservative or Australian shares, but the underlying investment decisions are ultimately made by the fund’s trustees and investment managers.
An SMSF works differently. Generally, the members are also the trustees, or directors of the corporate trustee, and are responsible for the fund’s investment strategy and investment decisions within Australia’s superannuation and taxation laws.
That gives SMSF trustees greater direct involvement in investment decisions, but with that control comes responsibility for the fund’s investment strategy, compliance and ongoing obligations.
Importantly, an SMSF doesn’t make you government-proof. SMSFs remain subject to superannuation, tax and other laws, and those laws can change.
But when politicians are debating what Australians should be allowed to do with their super, understanding who makes the investment decisions — and the responsibilities that come with those decisions — becomes increasingly important.
We’ve seen how quickly the rug can be pulled
The last few months have shown just how quickly significant changes to super can move from political announcement to rules Australians have to deal with.
That’s particularly important because super isn’t a short-term investment. Australians make decisions today based on the rules in place while planning for a retirement that may be 10, 20 or 30 years away.
When governments change tax concessions, thresholds or investment rules, it isn’t simply another line in the Federal Budget. It can feel like the rug has been pulled out from under people who have spent years carefully planning their retirement around the rules of the day.
Division 296 is a good example of why Australians need to remain engaged. The new regime commenced from 1 July 2026 and reduces superannuation tax concessions for individuals with larger super balances, with thresholds of $3 million and $10 million applying for the 2026–27 income year.
There has also been political debate around limited recourse borrowing arrangements and SMSF investment in residential property.
These aren’t abstract policy discussions. Changes to tax, borrowing and investment rules can affect decisions Australians have spent years planning for.
That’s why the political fight over super is worth watching closely — and worth remembering when it comes time to vote.
There are really two debates happening
The first is about access.
Should Australians be able to use more of their super before retirement when they’re struggling with a mortgage, trying to buy a home or facing genuine financial hardship?
There are consequences to accessing super early. Money withdrawn today loses the opportunity for potentially decades of compounding investment returns. But someone struggling to keep a roof over their head might understandably question the logic of having substantial retirement savings they cannot touch while facing genuine financial distress.
The second debate is about control, and this could prove even more important.
Should governments and large super funds have greater influence over how Australia’s enormous retirement savings pool is invested in the “national interest”, or should individual Australians have more say over how their retirement savings are invested?
For SMSFs, that question is particularly relevant because trustees themselves are responsible for the fund’s investment strategy and decisions — along with all the responsibilities that come with running an SMSF.
Maybe this election debate is exactly what super needs
Superannuation affects virtually every working Australian, yet how many people could tell you where their super is actually invested, who makes those investment decisions or how much control they really have?
Perhaps all this political arguing will encourage more Australians to start asking those questions. We certainly hope so.
Whatever your view on early access, compulsory super, SMSFs or using Australia’s super pool to support national investment priorities, there is one principle we think should remain front and centre:
This is Australians’ retirement money.
Governments will change, policies will change and tax rules will change. But Australians should understand what is happening with their money, who is making the decisions and what choices they have.
And if superannuation is going to become an election battleground, Australians should make sure the people asking for their vote know exactly what they expect from them.
For some people, an industry or retail super fund will continue to make perfect sense. For others, understanding how an SMSF operates — including the additional control, costs, responsibilities and ongoing obligations involved — may help them better understand the choices available within Australia’s superannuation system.
An SMSF doesn’t make you government-proof and it isn’t suitable for everyone. But there is an important difference between choosing from an investment menu offered by a large super fund and being a trustee responsible for your own fund’s investment strategy.
And with more than $4 trillion of Australians’ retirement savings attracting political attention, now is a very good time to start paying attention to what our politicians are proposing.
Your super. Their plans. Your vote.
Want to understand how SMSFs work, including the control, responsibilities and ongoing obligations involved? Learn more with FreedomFFS.
***
Important information: This information is general in nature and is provided for educational purposes only. It does not take into account your objectives, financial situation or needs and should not be relied upon as personal financial advice. An SMSF may not be suitable for everyone and involves costs, risks and trustee responsibilities. SMSF trustees remain responsible for their fund’s compliance with applicable superannuation and taxation laws, even where they engage professionals to assist them. Consider obtaining appropriately licensed financial advice and relevant tax and legal advice before making decisions about your superannuation.