Almost all of the current superannuation conversation remains focused on issues such as caps that will impact less than one per cent of the population, BT Financial Group (BTFG) believes.
BTFG's chief executive, Brad Cooper, said it was not helping more people save enough for retirement.
Cooper said tax incentives were necessary to encourage Australians to save more for their retirement as they were being used to build savings that generated an income in retirement that afforded a decent quality of life.
"Most Australians remain of the view that it's entirely appropriate, and necessary, to place limits on the tax concessions people receive once they have accrued enough for a dignified retirement," Cooper said.
"But we need to move past this debate and focus on helping middle Australia."
Cooper said the annual assessment of the super system that was pegged to the Federal Budget cycle could lead to an erosion of confidence in long-term planning.
Cooper noted that the Intergenerational Report was a more appropriate vehicle to steer super policy changes than the budget as it was published every five years and had a 40-year time horizon.
"After the release of the Intergenerational Report, a small independent group of superannuation experts should be established to provide advice and expertise to government to ensure that further superannuation policy refinements are aligned with both the legislated purpose of the superannuation system and the updated demographic outlook," he said.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.