One problem I fail to understand under this stupid proposal is what happens if a couple subsequently go their separate ways. What protection would be put in place to protect an individual's superannuation contribution. As is so often the case one of the parties will get stung and no allowance made for a members' lost super entitlements .

This argument cuts straight to the core of the problem with the majority (if not all) of the substantial problems behind super changes designed to benefit the "lower income" population. This applies across all facets of super not just this specific issue.

It is exceedingly hard, if not impossible, to justify putting money into super (that in most instances you wont see again until you are 65) when you are struggling at a day-to-day level to make bank.

Successive and varied governments have all tried to both cut down on "avoidance" strategies that benefit the wealthy and to encourage the saving of younger, lower wealth and economically disadvantaged peoples.

The problem with a lot, if not all, legislation based around this is that it a)ignores the fact that you generally need to be wealthy enough to have large portions of disposable income, or have saved the money anyway to take advantage of it (say concessional contribution banking) or b) they have neglected the diminishing value of money (say for instance a transition strategy that nets someone with $20m an extra $5m, as opposed to a transition strategy that nets someone with $400k and extra $100k - they are proportionally the same thing, but $100k to the person with only $400k is much much more valuable than $5m to the person with $20m).

The system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, it needs to be built so that it is progressive, it needs to legitimately and usefully incentivise saving to superannuation early in life, it needs to recognise people's wealth outside of the super system and it needs to prioritise savings bonuses for disadvantaged peoples.