Australia’s unions are preparing for a years-long election campaign over the future of compulsory superannuation, declaring “hands off our super” as Labor attempts to turn a rapidly escalating argument over the nation’s $4.5 trillion retirement system into a defining political battle.
Some of the country’s biggest unions have joined forces after Liberal senator Andrew Bragg launched an extraordinary attack on compulsory super and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson intensified calls for Australians to have greater control over their retirement savings.
The unions intend to campaign all the way to the 2028 federal election.
And Labor believes the issue could help decide who forms the next government.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared the future of compulsory superannuation is now at stake, accusing the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation of embracing ideas that could fundamentally dismantle the existing retirement system.
But beneath the increasingly fierce political rhetoric is a more complicated argument.
One side says Australia’s retirement system works precisely because workers generally cannot spend the money before they retire.
The other says Australians are being forced to lock away an increasingly large share of their earnings even when they desperately need that money for a home, medical expenses or a financial crisis.
That disagreement is rapidly becoming one of Australia’s biggest economic fights.
Bragg lights the fuse on compulsory super
The immediate confrontation intensified after Liberal senator Andrew Bragg delivered a blistering critique of Australia’s superannuation system.
Bragg has described compulsory super as one of Australia’s greatest public-policy failures since Federation.
His argument is that the system has failed important tests traditionally used to justify it — particularly reducing pressure on the federal budget and significantly reducing reliance on the Age Pension.
He has also attacked the compulsory nature of the system itself.
“Mandates are always costly,” Bragg said.
He argued forcing workers to direct 12 per cent of their wages into accounts controlled by fund managers represents a “loss of liberty”.
Bragg has been equally provocative about Labor’s push to extend compulsory superannuation to younger workers.
After criticising super for workers under 18, he joked that Australia would soon have “super for cats and dogs”.
The comments infuriated the union movement.
ACTU says workers’ retirement is under threat
The Australian Council of Trade Unions has accused Bragg of pursuing an ideological campaign against a system unions spent decades fighting to establish.
ACTU Assistant Secretary Joseph Mitchell said ordinary Australians now hold more than $4 trillion in retirement savings and argued compulsory super allows workers to maintain a better standard of living after leaving the workforce.
The ACTU says the system should be strengthened rather than dismantled.
It has also attacked Bragg’s comments about younger workers, arguing teenagers who work deserve superannuation just as they are entitled to wages and penalty rates.
But the union response has now moved beyond press releases.
It is becoming an election campaign.
‘Hands off our super’
Major unions are mobilising under a simple message: Australia’s compulsory retirement savings system must be protected.
The campaign is expected to involve union members from industries ranging from nursing and aged care to construction and other parts of the workforce.
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation federal secretary Annie Butler has described attempts to dismantle compulsory super as a direct attack on the retirement security of nurses, midwives and care workers.
For unions, these workers demonstrate why compulsory super exists.
Many spend decades in physically and emotionally demanding jobs and may not accumulate substantial assets outside their family home and retirement account.
Super is intended to ensure a working life produces an asset capable of supporting them in retirement.
Unions fear weakening compulsory contributions or allowing widespread withdrawals would steadily erode that asset.
Chalmers says the next election could become a referendum on super
Labor has enthusiastically entered the fight.
Chalmers says the stakes at the next federal election now include the future of Australia’s compulsory superannuation system.
He has portrayed the positions emerging from Bragg and One Nation as the greatest threat to super in four decades.
“If any combination or coalition of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation win the next election, it will be the end of compulsory super for workers,” Chalmers said.
He says such an outcome would damage the retirement security of millions of Australians.
That is Labor’s political warning, however, rather than an agreed policy jointly announced by those three parties.
The distinction is important.
There are major differences between the positions being advocated by individual Liberals and those advanced by One Nation.
Nor has the Liberal Party formally adopted Bragg’s preferred abolition of universal compulsory super as party policy.
Pauline Hanson is approaching the issue from a different direction
Hanson’s argument begins with a straightforward proposition.
Superannuation belongs to the person whose name is on the account.
She argues Australians should therefore have considerably more freedom to use their retirement savings when they face major financial pressures during their working lives.
That includes housing.
One Nation has advocated allowing Australians to use part of their super to help purchase their principal residence, with mechanisms designed to return money to super when the property is eventually sold.
Hanson has also argued for easier access in serious hardship and medical circumstances.
She describes the current system as broken and questions why Australians can accumulate large retirement balances while struggling to keep a roof over their heads decades before retirement.
But Hanson has pushed back on Labor’s claim that she simply wants super abolished
That qualification matters.
Although Hanson has questioned universal compulsory super and has made comments supporting an end to its existing compulsory model, she has also clarified that her immediate policy argument is about giving Australians greater access and control over their money.
She says super should be “lightened up” so people can use their savings during genuine crises.
The distinction will be central to the political battle.
Labor wants the election argument framed around whether compulsory super survives.
One Nation wants it framed around who really owns the money.
Those are very different questions — even though they concern the same $4.5 trillion pool of savings.
Barnaby Joyce has also joined the push for greater access
One Nation’s Barnaby Joyce has argued Australians facing serious personal crises should have greater ability to draw on their own super.
His argument focuses on situations in which someone may be seriously ill, struggling with medical expenses or facing acute financial pressure.
Supporters of reform ask why someone should be forced to preserve money for a future retirement if accessing a portion of it today could prevent financial catastrophe.
That argument has obvious appeal during a cost-of-living and housing affordability crisis.
But it also collides directly with the principle on which Australia’s super system was designed.
Super works because you cannot normally spend it
The technical term is preservation.
Most compulsory superannuation savings are preserved until a person reaches the relevant age and satisfies a condition of release.
There are exceptions.
Australians can already gain early access in certain circumstances, including severe financial hardship and specified compassionate grounds, as well as terminal illness and permanent incapacity.
But the rules are deliberately restrictive.
That is not an accidental feature of the system.
It is one of its foundations.
The theory is that small contributions accumulated over several decades become substantial retirement savings because the money remains invested and compounds.
Taking $20,000 today can cost much more than $20,000 at retirement
This is the central economic objection to expanded early access.
A dollar withdrawn from super when somebody is 30 is not merely one dollar missing when that person reaches 67.
It also loses decades of potential investment returns.
That compounding effect can make early withdrawals substantially more expensive over a working lifetime than their original face value.
This was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Morrison government temporarily allowed eligible Australians suffering financial hardship to access their super early.
Millions did so.
The policy provided immediate financial relief, but critics argued younger workers who withdrew money would sacrifice substantially larger retirement balances decades later.
The argument becomes harder when Australians cannot afford a home
Housing is where the preservation principle faces perhaps its most powerful political challenge.
For many younger Australians, the biggest barrier to home ownership is accumulating a deposit while simultaneously paying high rents.
A worker may have tens of thousands of dollars sitting in super but remain unable to put together enough cash to buy a first home.
That creates an obvious frustration.
On paper, they possess significant wealth.
In practical terms, they cannot use it.
Hanson and other supporters of greater flexibility say using super to acquire a principal residence is not simply spending retirement money.
It is exchanging one retirement asset for another.
Critics warn super-for-housing could simply increase house prices
Economists opposing the idea argue releasing billions of dollars of super into the housing market does not create additional homes.
If supply remains constrained while buyers suddenly have larger deposits, they can bid more for existing properties.
Some or all of the benefit can therefore be capitalised into higher prices.
That could help existing property owners while making housing more expensive for the next generation of buyers.
The outcome depends heavily on how a scheme is designed and what happens simultaneously to housing supply.
This is why the super-for-housing argument cannot be assessed solely by asking whether the money technically belongs to the individual.
Australians are already accessing more super early
The political debate is taking place as demand for early access under existing rules rises.
Recent reporting based on Australian Taxation Office figures shows about 93,500 applications were made for compassionate release relating to medical treatment in the latest period cited.
Approximately $1.4 billion in super was approved for early release.
About one-third of applications were rejected.
Those figures reveal the tension at the centre of the system.
Australians can possess substantial retirement savings while simultaneously experiencing serious financial pressure today.
Unions say opening the gate wider creates another problem
Retirement costs do not disappear because somebody spends their super early.
If Australians reach retirement with smaller balances, they can become more dependent on the taxpayer-funded Age Pension.
Former Labor treasurer and current Cbus chair Wayne Swan has made this one of the central arguments against Hanson’s approach.
Super, he argues, works because the money remains preserved long enough to compound.
Allow widespread withdrawals and the future retirement bill can shift from individual super accounts back onto taxpayers.
That is one reason unions regard preservation as inseparable from compulsory super itself.
Bragg says the system has failed precisely that test
The Liberal senator turns the argument around.
If compulsory super was supposed to reduce dependence on the Age Pension and improve the government’s long-term fiscal position, he argues its record should be judged against those objectives.
Bragg says it has failed.
He also argues the enormous compulsory savings pool has disproportionately benefited banks, fund managers and unions.
That puts a much more fundamental question on the table than whether withdrawals should be expanded.
Should Australians be compelled to contribute 12 per cent of their wages to super at all?
The 12 per cent rate is historically significant
Australia’s universal compulsory superannuation system dates to 1992.
The Superannuation Guarantee initially required much smaller employer contributions.
Over subsequent decades, the compulsory contribution rate increased progressively.
It reached 12 per cent on July 1, 2025.
For workers, that means a significant portion of total employment remuneration is now directed into retirement savings.
Supporters regard this as one of Australia’s great economic achievements.
Critics increasingly ask whether forcing Australians to save at that level remains appropriate when households are struggling with mortgages, rents and other immediate costs.
Unions see a very different history
Before widespread superannuation, retirement savings were distributed extremely unevenly.
Senior managers, many public servants and some white-collar workers commonly received occupational superannuation.
Large sections of the workforce did not.
Women were particularly disadvantaged.
Union campaigns during the 1970s and 1980s helped expand superannuation before the compulsory national system was legislated in 1992.
According to ACTU historical material, unions agreed to forgo a national three per cent pay increase that instead went into the emerging superannuation system.
That history explains why unions view super not merely as a financial product but as deferred wages won by workers.
And that explains the language: ‘Hands off our super’
From the union perspective, compulsory super is not government money.
It is not employer money.
It is workers’ money specifically preserved to provide financial security after their working lives end.
Ironically, that starting point sounds remarkably similar to one of Hanson’s arguments.
She also insists the money belongs to workers.
The disagreement is over what ownership should mean.
For unions, ownership means protecting the money until retirement.
For Hanson, ownership should include greater freedom to use it before retirement.
That philosophical divide could prove far more politically powerful than the familiar Labor-versus-Coalition argument over tax concessions.
There is also a battle over the economic power of $4.5 trillion
Australia’s superannuation pool is enormous.
It owns Australian and international shares, property, infrastructure, government and corporate debt and a growing range of private assets.
Its scale means decisions about super are not merely decisions about retirement.
They can influence Australia’s capital markets, housing investment, infrastructure and economic development.
That has created another political argument.
Labor has increasingly discussed the capacity of superannuation capital to invest in national priorities while delivering returns to members.
Chalmers has talked about opportunities including housing and the energy transition.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has similarly discussed Australia’s super pool as a major national asset.
Critics hear something very different in that language.
They fear governments want to influence where workers’ money is invested
Conservatives and some super critics argue government should not treat privately owned retirement accounts as capital available to advance political priorities.
They say trustees should make investment decisions exclusively according to members’ financial interests.
Labor responds that investment in infrastructure, housing or energy can satisfy both objectives if the projects generate competitive returns.
Super funds themselves are legally required to act in members’ financial interests.
The dispute therefore comes back, once again, to ownership and control.
And another super tax controversy has arrived at almost exactly the same time
The union campaign comes as the government is facing separate pressure over draft capital gains tax rules affecting managed investment structures used by super funds.
Financial Services Council modelling suggests at least $372 billion in superannuation assets could be exposed to less favourable effective tax treatment under the draft rules.
The FSC estimates the additional aggregate tax at about $55 million annually.
One of Australia’s largest super providers, Colonial First State Superannuation, has called for the provisions to be changed so members are not disadvantaged simply because investments are held through managed funds rather than directly.
That issue is separate from the “Hands Off Our Super” campaign, but politically the timing is awkward for Labor.
Labor is telling Australians its opponents threaten super while defending changes to super-related taxation
That provides an obvious line of attack for the Coalition and One Nation.
They can accuse Labor of presenting itself as the defender of workers’ retirement money while simultaneously changing tax rules affecting super investments.
Labor can counter that preserving compulsory super and determining appropriate taxation of investment earnings are fundamentally different policy questions.
Both arguments will almost certainly become part of the election contest.
The complexity of Australia’s super system gives all sides ample material to campaign with.
The Liberal Party itself now faces a difficult decision
Bragg’s intervention does not automatically become Coalition policy.
Opposition Leader Angus Taylor must decide how much of the argument he wants to embrace.
Abolishing or substantially weakening compulsory super would represent an enormous policy shift.
It would also give Labor and unions exactly the election battle they are preparing to fight.
But simply repudiating Bragg carries risks of its own.
Housing affordability and cost-of-living pressures have created a receptive audience for arguments that Australians should have greater control over money locked inside super.
The Coalition therefore has to distinguish between reforming super and appearing to threaten it.
One Nation faces the same challenge
Hanson’s message is powerful when framed as “it’s your money”.
It becomes more politically difficult if opponents successfully redefine it as “taking away your retirement”.
That is exactly what unions intend to do.
They will argue that allowing people to raid super solves today’s problem by creating tomorrow’s.
One Nation will argue that a retirement system is failing if people cannot use their own wealth to avoid financial disaster during their working lives.
Neither argument is likely to disappear before 2028.
The fight will be particularly important for younger Australians
A worker in their 20s or 30s faces an unusual financial trade-off.
They may struggle to buy a home today while simultaneously being required to accumulate an asset they cannot normally access for decades.
Because they have the longest period for compound investment returns, they also have the most to lose from withdrawing super early.
That makes younger workers central to both political cases.
Supporters of preservation say young Australians must resist sacrificing future wealth.
Supporters of flexibility say there is little comfort in being wealthy at 67 if someone cannot establish financial security at 30.
Women are another crucial part of the union campaign
Historically, women accumulated less super because of lower wages, career interruptions and unpaid caring responsibilities.
Workers in nursing, aged care and other female-dominated occupations are therefore likely to feature prominently in union messaging.
Recent reforms have attempted to close some of these gaps, including extending superannuation to government-funded paid parental leave.
Unions argue weakening preservation would risk reversing progress towards greater retirement security.
The next election battle may therefore be less about super than about time
When should Australians be allowed to use their own money?
Should government policy prioritise the financial crisis somebody faces this year or the retirement they will face in 30 years?
Should home ownership itself be treated as retirement security?
How much should individuals be allowed to sacrifice from future savings to improve their lives today?
And how much power should governments have to compel that saving in the first place?
Those are the questions sitting beneath the political slogans.
The unions are betting Australians will choose preservation
The “Hands Off Our Super” campaign is designed to make any threat to compulsory super politically dangerous.
Unions want voters to associate the existing system with decades of work, financial independence and dignity in retirement.
They will portray proposals for greater withdrawals or voluntary contributions as threats to that security.
Labor has already adopted much the same framing.
Chalmers is signalling that super could become a defining choice at the next election.
But the critics have found a potent counterargument
They can reduce an extraordinarily complicated retirement system to four words:
“It’s your money.”
For Australians watching their mortgage payments rise, struggling to assemble a housing deposit or facing major medical expenses while tens of thousands of dollars sit inaccessible in a super account, that argument can be compelling.
The preservation side has an equally simple response.
Spend retirement savings today and they cannot compound for tomorrow.
Australia’s $4.5 trillion superannuation system is therefore heading towards something it has rarely faced in its three-decade history: an election fought over whether its most fundamental rules should survive unchanged.
The unions have already started campaigning.
Labor has identified its enemy.
One Nation has identified its argument.
And the Liberal Party must now decide how far it is prepared to follow Andrew Bragg into a fight that unions believe could help determine Australia’s next government.
