Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has drawn both support and sharp criticism after describing Australia's $4.5 trillion superannuation pool as a "national asset" — with Westpac's chief executive firing back that governments should keep their hands off workers' retirement savings.
Albanese made the remarks at the annual superannuation lending roundtable on Tuesday, arguing that the nation's retirement savings had the potential to do more for the broader economy while still delivering strong returns for members.
"There is a real potential to see these funds as a national asset that can be used more appropriately and get better returns as well, not just for individuals and for retirees, but for the nation," the Prime Minister said.
Andrews Backs Super Investment in National Priorities
Former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews lent his voice to the push, suggesting a portion of the superannuation pool could be directed toward solving the country's most pressing "productivity challenges." He specifically cited housing, infrastructure, the energy transition, water security and pandemic preparedness as areas ripe for investment.
"That's a wholly efficient and good repurposing of a portion of that national savings pool," Andrews said.
The peak body for the sector, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), offered a measured response, acknowledging that funds are legally bound to act in members' best financial interests — but noting that productive investments often benefit both individuals and the wider economy simultaneously.
"Super funds invest significantly in Australia, including in local businesses and infrastructure, and sometime alongside government," ASFA chief executive Mary Delahunty said, adding that the organisation's research estimates super funds' investment in local businesses delivers around $2,500 in pre-tax wages per year to the average Australian.
"Super funds will pursue investments if they deliver real investment returns to members. Often those investments deliver benefits to the nation, too. So it's a double dividend," she said.
Westpac Warns Against Government Direction of Superannuation
The most pointed pushback came from Westpac chief executive Anthony Miller, who cautioned strongly against any political interference in how super funds deploy their capital.
"One thing I would call out is: don't touch the super complex, don't direct it, don't tell it where to go," Miller said.
He argued that the primary obligation of funds must remain to their members — particularly as Australians move from the accumulation phase of their working lives into retirement — and that the focus should instead fall on strengthening governance across the industry.
"Let's get stuck into governance. Let's make sure these funds understand the responsibility they have, and that the governance is there," he said.
Miller also flagged liquidity as an emerging risk that has historically flown under the radar. "Liquidity is not a risk class that the super complex has ever had to worry about, because all they ever had was money coming in," he warned, implying the maturing of the system — as more Australians reach retirement — will change the equation significantly.
A Debate That Goes to the Heart of Super's Purpose
The exchange reflects a broader tension in Australian policy circles over whether superannuation should remain a purely member-focused vehicle or whether its enormous scale justifies a wider national purpose. With the pool now valued at $4.5 trillion and continuing to grow, the pressure on policymakers and fund managers to define its role — and its limits — is only likely to intensify.
For now, the Prime Minister's framing of super as a national asset has opened a debate that cuts to the core of how Australia plans to fund its future — and who gets to decide where that money goes. Those interested in broader trends shaping Australian political leadership can explore a profile of the Greens leader and the values driving Australian politics for further context on the evolving policy landscape.
