Pre-retirees are "crystal clear" about the purpose of superannuation, believing it should provide a steady income through retirement, research reveals.
Data from a survey conducted by National Seniors Australia and commissioned by Challenger, found more than 80 per cent of 50 to 64-year-olds believe their super should be a central income source for their retirement.
While the Government has considered setting out the objective of super, Challenger chairman, retirement income, Jeremy Cooper, said the survey showed there were few doubts about its purpose in the minds of those closest to drawing down on their super.
"For senior Australians the objective of superannuation is crystal clear," he said.
"It's about retirement income. It's critical for retirees to have a steady, dependable income from super to sustain their lifestyle in retirement."
The results reflect a similar finding from the National Seniors Australia's 2015 report, which found 80 per cent of pre-retirees believed that super should provide an income stream for retirement.
While the majority of those late in their working lives seek super as a source of income for retirement, many expect Government pensions and allowances to supplement their income from superannuation.
"This shows that older Australians understand that while super is the main game for retirement, the Age Pension can make up a meaningful proportion of retirement income," Cooper said.
"This can be comfort to many Australians, but it's there as a back-up, not a catch-all."
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.