“It may instead discourage engagement with superannuation, result in poor product design or increased reliance on government aged pension,” the submission stated.

The association continued that it does support innovation and the modernisation of the retirement income system to help create one that considers the broader retirement ecosystem and the individual needs and circumstances of retirees.

“The current system is highly complex and laden with jargon which makes it difficult for many consumers to engage with and understand. Some good foundation policies are present within the system, and others are yet to be legislated,” it stated.

Although there is a growing need for good quality advice, the SMSFA said it is difficult to access and becoming increasingly unaffordable for many ordinary Australians.

“The discussion on the delivery of professional advice by suitable qualified professionals needs to continue and must be broadened,” it said.

“A greater focus must be placed on member engagement and education, underpinned by quality tool kits and calculators. This will assist members to better understand and engage with their superannuation.”

The submission added that the retirement income covenant is in its early stages and has not had sufficient time to achieve its policy objectives and deliver measurable outcomes and will only start to be realised once super funds can have real conversations with their members and provide the advice needed under a limited advice framework.

“Once legislated, tranche 1 of the Quality of Advice Review recommendations will take time to have any measurable impact. Funds will need time to onboard new advice systems and services, and to deliver advice to a sufficient number of members to start to have any meaningful impact,” the submission stated.

“We support the retention of choice and flexibility in the system to allow for the client's individual circumstances to be catered for.”

The association concluded that super is just one component of the retirement income system and policy development must consider the impacts it will have across the system in its entirety.

“A silo approach to policies here is no longer sustainable and adds further complexity,” it stated.