Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 671

Super was built for a very different Australia

This article was originally published in the print edition of Retirement Magazine Vol. 3 and is reproduced with permission.


A superannuation fund that does everything right in the final five years before a member retires but nothing beyond accumulation in the preceding 35 years is like a coach who only works with their client the week before a marathon.

The outcome is determined long before that final preparation begins.

Health, housing stability and social connection are just a few of the real determinants of wellbeing in retirement, and all of them are substantially shaped in the decades before the retirement date arrives.

When I wrote in Retirement Magazine late last year that the Government should relax the sole purpose test to allow super funds to play a more active role in members’ lives for this reason, it raised a few eyebrows. This doesn’t mean the sole purpose test isn’t important; it was critical at the time for a sector which was in its infancy of building wealth.

A system that has delivered extraordinary results for Australians over three decades – now managing more than $4.5 trillion on behalf of nearly 18 million people – doesn’t invite radical rethinking lightly.

The establishment of superannuation was pitched by Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1992 as a means to “materially improve the quality of life in retirement”.

A lot has changed since then and super should too if we’re going to ensure we continue to deliver on that objective.

The shift no one is fully prepared for

At CSC, we run financial literacy sessions for graduate members – young public servants and defence personnel at the very beginning of their careers.

For years, these sessions were, frankly, a hard sell. Attendance was modest and engagement was worse. Super felt abstract and distant to younger workers whose financial priorities sat elsewhere.

In the past two or three years, something has shifted. These sessions have become some of our most heavily attended member engagement events.

The questions from young members are sharper and the interest more urgent. We are seeing engagement from people in their mid-twenties that we would previously have expected only from members in their fifties.

What has changed? Many of these younger members have come to the realisation that superannuation will be their largest financial asset, sparking much earlier engagement.

When compulsory superannuation was introduced, most young Australians entering the workforce carried a reasonable expectation of eventually owning a home. That home would function, in parallel with super, as a retirement asset.

That expectation is now an exception rather than the rule.

Less than half (42%) of young people surveyed last year thought it likely or very likely that they will be able to buy a home in the future. Meanwhile, 79% of young Australians think they will be financially worse off than their parents.

In just five years, the share of household earnings going to monthly mortgage repayments has doubled.

For many people starting work today, home ownership may simply never happen. And these same people will live longer than any previous generation of retirees.

Since the inception of superannuation, the average life expectancy for a woman has increased by around five years; for men, it’s about seven years. We’re seeing this longevity in our CSC members, with around 280 of them becoming centenarians in 2025.

With ongoing advances in healthcare and technology, those numbers will extend further still for the generation now in their twenties.

They will spend more time in retirement, be active for more of it and do so without the housing security that underpinned every retirement generation before them.

The superannuation system was not designed for this cohort. The question is whether it can evolve to serve them.

The problem with waiting until retirement

Australia’s regulatory frameworks and industry attention have been almost entirely oriented toward the finish line. The Retirement Income Covenant, introduced in 2022, mandated that funds develop strategies for the decumulation phase.

The super industry has responded by investing heavily in products and services designed for people who are on the cusp of retiring. All of this matters but it only addresses part of the problem.

There is also a spending problem waiting on the other side of that effort. The Retirement Income Review found that most Australians die with the bulk of their retirement wealth intact. This is driven by many factors, including the fear of running out.

Treasury projects that by 2060, one in every three dollars paid out of the superannuation system will be a bequest. It’s currently one in every five dollars.

A renting retiree will feel that fear more acutely. Their super will need to work harder, the margin for error will be smaller, and the psychological freedom to spend will be narrower.

Super becoming a tax-friendly vehicle for intergenerational wealth transfer runs counter to its founding purpose. It doesn’t improve the quality of life of retirees; rather it forces them to live more frugally than necessary, something that has wider societal impacts.

In contrast, a financially confident retiree is more likely to be out in the community spending money, resulting in increased employment opportunities for younger people. While the societal benefits of this are clear, it could also be seen as a different way of moderating the tax impacts of a declining birth rate.

What an expanded mandate could look like

No other institution in Australia has the reach, the continuity of relationship, or the long-term financial scale to play a meaningful role in members’ lives across all of this.

What might genuine life-stage engagement look like in practice? Some starting points:

Housing: The major funds hold substantial commercial property assets while national vacancy rates are at record highs. There is a serious case for exploring how these assets could be repurposed to provide affordable, secure housing to address members’ most pressing unmet financial need. A member living in secure, affordable accommodation facilitated by their own fund would be better placed to save, better placed to plan, and better placed to retire.

Financial advice: Comprehensive financial advice remains too expensive and too inaccessible for most Australians at the moments they most need it. Funds have the scale to fundamentally change the economics of advice delivery. A modest per-member monthly levy providing access to comprehensive advice on demand would be transformative. Members who understand their finances save more purposefully, retire more confidently, and spend their savings more effectively.

Health: Partnering with insurers and preventive health providers to support members’ physical and mental wellbeing across the lifecycle – not just when claims arise – is entirely consistent with a genuine commitment to retirement outcomes. A healthier member at 65 can spend more confidently, claim less, and draw on their savings for the experiences that retirement should offer.

Superannuation’s promise was never just a number. It was a better life in retirement.

Delivering that promise – for a generation that will be renting, living longer and arriving at retirement with more uncertainty than any generation before them – will require us to think more expansively about what that promise actually means.

That conversation will be uncomfortable in places and will take bravery from both Government and the sector. And I’m sure it’ll invite some further eyebrow-raising.

But the alternative will produce a retirement crisis for a generation that deserves better. The system that built Australia’s retirement future has both the scale and the responsibility to help shape the life that leads to it.

The graduates in our seminar room, asking sharper questions than their predecessors ever did, already know something has changed. It’s time the industry caught up.

 

Adam Nettheim is chief customer officer at Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC), with more than 30 years’ experience across insurance, superannuation and financial advice. He holds qualifications in Business Administration and Financial Planning. He is a Fellow of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), holds ASFA’s Trustee Accreditation, is a Fellow of the Future Government Institute and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

 

  •   15 July 2026
  • 25
  •      
  •   
25 Comments
Lauchlan Mackinnon
July 16, 2026

Re "A superannuation fund that does everything right in the final five years before a member retires but nothing beyond accumulation in the preceding 35 years is like a coach who only works with their client the week before a marathon." - what else should they be doing in the 35 years leading up to 5 years before retirement? It seems to me that the main activity during accumulation is to accumulate, so it's not clear exactly what else they should be doing ...

If there's one thing they could be a little clearer about during that 25 years, to me it would be how much money people need to retire on, which is (in my view) a little complicated as there are a variety of approaches such as the 4% rule or the ASFA superannuation targets, none of which in themselves are right for everyone.

You also say "There is also a spending problem waiting on the other side of that effort. The Retirement Income Review found that most Australians die with the bulk of their retirement wealth intact. This is driven by many factors, including the fear of running out."

But is that a problem? Or is it rational behaviour? No one knows in advance if they'll live to 85 or 105 or some other age, or what medical or age care support they'll need in later years. Surely it's rational, given conditions of genuine uncertainty, to be a little cautious about running down their funds. If they die with money left over in their accounts, it's easy to say "look! They could have / should have spent more!" But they didn't know in advance whether they would need funds for another 10 or 20 or 30 years or not.

Also, they have no control over the stock market. If they are withdrawing at 5% a year and the market is growing at 10% a year, they end up with their super growing at a faster rate than they spend it. Is that a problem? Given that they could always spend more if they chose to, I'd say no - it's a considered choice that they make around an investment - their investment.

So, I don't really see the problem here ... the system is working. :)

21
Geoff
July 19, 2026

I completely agree with your statement as to the behaviour of not spending up to someone's conception of what I should be spending being a completely rational one. There are just too many uncertainties ahead, the government being a major one, but health and aged care being others, especially when you have no children and have a partner who also has no children.

I have no desire to own a yacht or a Ferrari at this stage of my life, and I have all the guitars I could ever need. I could buy better wine, perhaps, and travel more, but those aside, there's nothing much else I want to spend money on.

So if that means I'm "underspending", then that's just fine by me. I'm not seeing it as a problem, and in the end I hope some charity or cause will do well out of my demise.

3
Richard Brannelly
July 16, 2026

Can we please dispense with the ill conceived idea that super funds (organisations that deliver best when working on a massive scale), can provide bespoke personal financial advice to unique individuals and couples. It's like trying to order a 7-course degustation dinner with matching wines from your local McDonalds.


The author would have us believe that allowing super funds to charge a modest fee to all members (really just a commission in different form unless there was opt out) would be a better solution than fixing the crippling bureaucracy loaded onto qualified financial planners. Fix the financial advice laws and qualified professionals can help far more people at a far better price point with personal bespoke advice (such as Bert James in his earlier comment) without handing the system over to scale organisations with massive conflicts of interest. Australia's super funds need to get their own houses in order before they go about solving for issues they are neither designed or qualified to address.

17
Bert James
July 16, 2026

I agree with most of your argument. I run my own SMSF in pension mode running my own investments. I’d love to be able to have a simple talk with a Financial Adviser to discuss investments. These days that’s impossible. Any FA wants to do a full examination with the costs that go with that which is far more than I need. I’ve invested my whole life so learnt from my mistakes so don’t need the bottom up advice. Financial year just gone I made a shade under 20% return with a 6.5% drawdown so I’m not hopeless. The only information I can get is from columns like yours, facebook groups or AI and they all have their deficiencies where a trained person on a one on one question answer is what I need.

11
Dudley
July 16, 2026


Claude for Financial Services?
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-for-financial-services

1
Lauchlan Mackinnon
July 17, 2026

Bert, out of interest (and if you are happy sharing), what kind of information advice or guidance would you want to get from a financial advisor that meets a gap beyond the "invested my whole life so learnt from my mistakes" learning? It sounds like you are doing fairly well anyway - and hopefully you have a strategy for a potential bear market in place as well.

To Dudley's point, I find AIs such as Claude pretty good for investment analysis. For example if you give it an ETF's name and ask it to analyse the index and reverse engineer the investment thesis and give a summary of the kinds of companies the index invests in and what the outlook is like for that industry / sector and what risks and trends and pressures there are, I think it is pretty good. Of course, the quality standards are up to you - if you think the answer is a bit superficial, it's up to you to set the parameters and direction for a better answer.

Ryan
July 16, 2026

Whenever you see the words “a modest fee” you know that is never where it will remain. So members who try and keep fees low and do their own planning / research will need to subsidise others that want financial advice?

10
Aussie HIFIRE
July 16, 2026

So to reframe the three suggestions:

Housing - make sub optimal investment allocations costing most members returns that help provide for their own retirement.

Financial advice - have all members pay for the comprehensive advice that some small number of members receive.

Health - become a health insurance fund?



8
Roger
July 17, 2026

It’s the gentle first encouraging step towards full government control of your every decision.

1
Tone def
July 16, 2026

Superannuation as a concept is a failure.

1 – From day one it was built on a false assumption, that people will not save unless the government forces them to. This is clearly nonsense. People want to and do build their wealth an invest to improve their quality of life today and for retirement. They will do it with or without super.

2 – The benefits and tax breaks of super flow to the wealthy. The poor get virtually nothing of the overall benefit.

3 – Superannuation has entrenched union dominance in Australia, giving them a pot of money to flush away on building their own power base and exerting influence over the economy.

4 – Ever increasing minimum contributions mean that people cannot do what they want with their own money. Retirement is important, but equally educating your kids, buying a home and putting food on the table. Super does none of these.

6
David
July 16, 2026

Dear Tone def, I do not agree with your comments for the most part. For me, superannution as a concept has been an absolute life saver. It is by no means a failure. Every day I thank my lucky stars that I retired at the same time as Peter Costello, with attendent benefits of better contributions regimes, fully refundable franking credits and an economic environment of zero government debt. Nothing but deterioration since then. I am no where near the reach of the new law to hit superannuants with more that $3M in their funds, but close to the sweet spot of getting sufficient benefits without that worry. I own the property I live in with no debt. That helps, but more in the the security of tenure it provides rather than saving rent. I manage my own SMSF.
To respond to your 4 points. 1. We used to have a system whereby only company management and senior professionals were offered superannuation, the rest being expected to fall back on the old age pension. If the latter group had sufficient savings to not fully qualify for the pension, a big luxury trip around the world soon blew that. This was part of the ritual of retirement. It was realised that the old age pension commitments were unsustainable under that system. Those that had sufficient super in their own right would be excluded from accessing the pension by the means test. That is the tax penalty I pay. Benefits I get by having more of my own assets in super are at the expense of not getting any government assistance via Centrelink, and where the government saves hugely, but with the not-inconsiderable side benefit to me of not having to deal with Centrelink.
Point 2.The poor get the old age pension, which is not too ungenerous. It is much more sustainable without any of the potential claims on it of the "undeserving" already well off, who already contributed to it over a lifetime of taxes.
Point 3. You may be right about the union funds, but SMSF holders come in for a particular class-hatred, as if anyone should dare to manage their own funds successfully.
Point 4. I am at an age where I am experiencing ever increasing minimum contributions to my pension payments to eventally force me to draw down the value of assets in my fund. I cannot spend that much annually. Fortunately I can still pay the minimum drawdowns from dividends payments, but there will soon come a time when I have to sell assets. It is a race to see if I will outlive the super fund or not. I will not run out of money however, but I may have to save for this eventuality out of taxed funds. On your last point, I agree with all the other things you say, but I have done all these things previously in my life. Super was never intended to do these things, nevertheless I hope to leave a good legacy to my children and grandchildren.

18
David Edwards
July 18, 2026

Dear Tone D...superannuation did not create union dominance in the industry...lazy Federal Governments did. Super Funds and Unions should be brought within the structures and structures of the Corporations Act to ensure proper business and financial management of OPM (Other Peoples' Money). As in companies, no money should be spent but for the benefit of shareholders/superannuitants. Thus, no more political donations or payments to spurious political/union vanity projects. Please God that a Super Fund didn't invest in Snowy Hydro! Super Fund Directors should be personally fined for breaches of these conditions, not the Fund itself.

5
john
July 16, 2026

I agree that Comprehensive financial advice remains too expensive but also it is not needed by many with a modicum of understanding, such as centrelink rules etc. I once had a fin adviser tell me they could get us the centrelink pension even though we had nearly $1.8 million in financial investments. Plus the advice is skewed towards advisers get the largest commissions.
However I disagree with tone def regarding ' They will do it with or without super. Because human nature being what it is will mean the money 'will burn a hole in most peoples pocket'.

1
Jon Kalkman
July 17, 2026

Why do Australian retirees need guidance and support when they managed quite adequately as functioning adults while working. The reason is, when people have a regular income, they adjust their spending to the income available, but our super system delivers retirees a lump sum, as it is designed to, and expects them not to turn that large sum of money into an income stream for a retirement of highly uncertain duration and complexity.

Retirement is replete with risk, with uncertain investment returns, longevity, inflation, health issues and legislative changes. Given that the future is simply unknowable, it is no wonder that retirees respond with extreme caution by hoarding cash. And for most Australian retirees, each individual must mange these retirement risks alone. Financial advice might provide clarity, but it does not remove the risks they are expected to manage.

Retirees who have enough capital that they can simply live on the income it produces, or those who live on a defined benefit pension, or an annuity like the age pension do not face that uncertainty. Indeed the reason that defined benefit pensions were discontinued was to deliberately shift these risks onto the shoulders of retirees. Retiree behaviour is a rational response to the need to self-insure against retirement risks. That is something that Treasury, as shown in the Retirement Income Review, has never understood.

5
Harry
July 16, 2026

With the restrictions on deductible contributions and post tax contributions, if retirees are relying on super, it will be a frugal retirement.

4
Nadal
July 16, 2026

Not with a SG rate of 12%, and (in the public service, which CSC is a beneficiary of) massive salary increases (with no productivity gains, mind you). Not to mention the "Chalmers put" of an age pension if the super fund money runs out.

2
Steve
July 16, 2026

Probably no better placed group to influence policy than the army of public servants. Here's a question for your next presentation, how many of these public servants think excessive migration (meaning literally the number of migrants exceeding our ability to house them) might be part of their dilemma. I would be very interested in what they see as the cause of their housing concerns. And remember if you expect to rent for a long time you better hope people are willing to risk their own money acting as a landlord. Every renter needs a landlord.

3
Andrew Smith
July 16, 2026

Those immigrants are part of the solution for budget tax revenue & pensions, for an ageing population.

Like tourism, using short to medium term temporary visa holders' 'border churn' (NOM 'immigrants', ie. international students of whom most depart) as 'net financial contributors' to support budgets.

In turn supporting more retirees Vs fewer working age tax payers, see increasing old age dependency ratios.

Australia's retirement income system state pension &/or super, is consistently judged as one of the most financially stable and effective in the world, what's wrong with that?

3
Tony
July 16, 2026

Whilst your argument has merit, it feels like it could be the start of the "slippery slope" where superannuation becomes the source for all aspects of life pre retirement and at its extreme could result in providing a better life pre retirement but the need for the aged pension post retirement. Yes this might be exaggerated but it could occur over a long period of time and many interested parties seeking to get their share of the honey pot.

Perhaps there is an argument to provide Financial Advice in some finite form but it seems to me that that is where it should stop to keep clarity around intention and outcome.

1
lyn
July 16, 2026

John, Thought as you re age of 40 is enough time to contribute for retirement, 1) by own experience of little super for varying reasons & owned home by 42 then saved into super, also saved outside, 2) observing how both chidren 9 yrs apart are financially with such time lapse; at 25 and 34 the younger nominally behind but saving & older on home ladder, same salaries, then 7yrs later at 32 & 41 the younger way behind re home prices in that time & older a home now almost double value & contributing greatly into super from age 39, similar salaries. Having watched this scenario (& lived mine), it cements my opinion re super only from age 40 & allow a bigger catch-up to avoid Govt pension.
The young deserve a break now to achieve home ownership not pie in the sky CGT/negative gearing changes. Someone will say "that will push up home prices" but probably only those on higher than usual salary under 30 so not many, shouldn't they all at least get a chance to save a deposit as we did? We can't magically recreate our playing field but we can try to make it similar.

1
John
July 17, 2026

Lyn, in my own case it was the major change of job at age 40 with the chance to cash super, as you could in those years, and step up the property ladder, setting up for retirement.

lyn
July 19, 2026

John, which supports idea of no Super until 40 as used what you had accumulated for property ladder.
Allowing release for home deposit until age 40 (delivery on Settlement so no mis-use) will achieve same effect as yours did. Allow catch- up payments to same sum later when likely to be able. It lets young people have some of the past playing field. Perhaps happier workforce from stabilty of a home.
If there's talk re Super Funds to be allowed to invest in rental homes, it's conflict of interest when so many young can't get out of renting, if me I'd spit chips my fund buying rental homes but can't release my super to add to a deposit for own home.

1
Audrey
July 17, 2026

Adam, why can't young people have defined benefit pensions like us oldies? If all public servants received pensions, such a system would not be required. It was more elegant and human in my day. Turn 55 and you got a pension.

1
John
July 16, 2026

Fine to “materially improve the quality of life in retirement” but it needs a major rethink with many extremely well educated young people now struggling to pay HECS, 12% super(too high anyway), save for a house, build a family, pay rental with retirement 45 years or so away. Many would not be much worse off with saving ouside super until they are forty, family and housing started, higher salaries and plenty of time to accumulte super. And super contributions are far too generous for the wealthy versus the young less-well paid. Also super being pitched to avoid the age-pension! I would have thought some of Adam's smart young audience would be questioning the compulsory mandate.

CC
July 19, 2026

High income earners pay the Div 293 15% surcharge on Super contributions, i.e total 30% tax on Super contributions, versus 15% for middle income earners.

2
 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Super is catching up, but ageing is a triple-threat

Why the $5.4 trillion wealth transfer is a generational tragedy

Understand the retirement income challenge

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The strange effect of the 30% minimum capital gains tax

The 30% minimum tax on capital gains sits at the heart of the budget's proposed reforms. Yet the mechanics reveal anomalies that introduce unexpected distortions that raise questions about its design.

Does your will qualify for the discretionary testamentary trust exemption?

Treasury has confirmed the exemption many families were hoping for. But buried in the fine print are two conditions that could leave some wills on the wrong side of the exemption, despite years of careful planning.

Ranking three common retirement strategies

The defining challenge of retirement isn't just about building wealth, it's about converting your lifetime savings into sustainable income. A holistic understanding of different strategies can improve long-term outcomes.

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why Australian shares are falling behind the world

Australia’s market boasts a long record of outperformance, but recent results tell a different story. Is the ASX’s lagging performance a temporary setback or evidence that structural forces will keep global markets ahead?

Australia has saved $4.5 trillion for retirement. Here's what matters more

Most Australians approaching retirement can tell you the exact dollar value of their super account. But success depends on more than a sizeable balance. Here's four key questions to ask yourself at the start of the financial year. 

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

UniSuper CIO shares his reflections on the 2025-2026 financial year

Markets climbed a wall of worry in FY26, but artificial intelligence remained the dominant force, rewarding some of the world’s biggest companies while leaving others behind.

Planning

Post-Budget blues? A knee jerk won’t help

Sweeping tax changes are reshaping the investment landscape and many investors are considering major restructures. But before chasing lower tax bills, it's worth asking whether those decisions will strengthen—or undermine your ability to build wealth across generations.

Investment strategies

Is value investing still relevant in today’s stockmarkets?

Is value investing relevant in an age when momentum investing, quant strategies and index funds increasingly dominate markets? It is underappreciated how share price distortions may be creating some of the best opportunities for patient, disciplined investors.

Investment strategies

How to find opportunity in global equities

Australia's concentrated market makes global diversification essential, but breadth alone is not enough. Investors still need a disciplined framework combining business quality, sensible valuation and a credible catalyst.

Gold

What keeps the world’s most patient investors returning to gold

While many investors are asking whether gold has peaked, the world's central banks appear to be asking different questions altogether. Their thinking offers useful insights for long-term investors.

Investment strategies

Don’t underestimate Australia

Investor sentiment towards Australia has turned increasingly gloomy, but the data tells a different story. There are still plenty of reasons to remain optimistic.

Superannuation

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.