When Jim Chalmers laid out his plan to legislate an objective for superannuation and preserve it for the purposes of retirement, he said it would end the ‘super wars’ once and for all.
The claim of victory was surely delivered tongue-in-cheek, with the Treasurer – himself a disciple of super system elder statesmen like former Prime Minister Paul Keating and Cbus chair Wayne Swan – knowing full well the 24-word sentence would trigger Labor’s adversaries on this ever-contested policy area.
The so-called super wars have taken several forms over the 30-year history of our unique system of compulsory defined contributions. They were initially manifested in the traditional acrimony between labour and capital, as trade unions and employer groups locked horns over this proposal and others ahead of the 1983 Prices and Income Accord.
They then morphed into a conflict between retail and industry super funds, with the Investment and Financial Services Association (now the Financial Services Council) and Industry Super Australia (now Super Members Council) the key antagonists. These tensions have subsided somewhat as the sector has matured and industry funds began recruiting bankers and retail fund execs to their top brass.
In more recent years, the main spectacle has been fighting between the politicians and the press, with super policy a highly contested area between the Coalition and Labor and the links between unions and super a common bugbear of establishment conservative figures like John Howard and the two national newspapers.
But in this 2025 federal election, a new front in the super wars has been thrown open, as calls for a less rigid and more flexible super system are emerging as a mainstay of the nation’s populist Right, which is seemingly inspired and emboldened by the Trump White House.
‘Take your super anytime’
In one of many unsolicited SMS texts received this week, Clive Palmer’s new ‘Trumpet of Patriots’ party screamed simply: “Take your super anytime”.
Multiple calls and emails from this publication’s journalists to clarify the statement went unanswered. Regardless, it is clear Palmer is pursuing the rhetoric of at least a more flexible or even voluntary super. On its website, Trumpet of Patriots references an official policy to “allow Australians to use 30 per cent of their superannuation for a deposit and cap interest rates at 3 per cent” in a bid to “ease the housing crisis”.
Similarly, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation – Australia’s original right-wing populist party – has made super a central plank of its election platform, also allowing voters to invest “a portion of their retirement savings in their primary residence to improve housing affordability”. It heavily opposes the government’s objective of super legislation including authoring a petition subtly titled “Grubby Hands Off Our Super”.
Both go beyond the Coalition’s policy, which is restricted to first home buyers and includes a cap of $50,000 and/or 40 per cent of a super account balance on the amount that can be withdrawn.
Of course, these minor parties will likely have little ability to actually implement these policies – the national primary vote for One Nation is polling at 7-12 per cent and for Trumpet of Patriots it is just 2-3 per cent despite the expensive and invasive advertising blitz.
However, with the prospect of a hung Parliament looking increasingly possible, and a majority in the Senate highly unlikely, any elected officials from these parties will be able to wield at least some influence, whether in opposing Labor’s agenda or encouraging the Coalition to be more extreme about its policies.
More significantly, these policy platforms suggest preservation of super is perhaps being seen in some quarters – rightly or wrongly – as less about bolstering a social safety net for workers and retirees and more about protecting the vested interests of powerful and educated elites in politics, academia and the super sector itself.
Both Hanson and Palmer are shrewd populists with experience of understanding and articulating the gripes of disenfranchised demographics, especially the White working class.
And Trump’s success suggests the super industry and its lobbyists dismiss them at their peril.
