Randeria has been a vocal opponent of the proposed legislative changes since they were first mooted nearly two years ago, and with the bill scheduled to go before the Senate on 4 February, she said many Australians don’t realise the true implications of the proposal.

“The changes will undermine the overall stability and structure of what is one of the best superannuation systems in the world and force more people to rely on the age pension in retirement, resulting in increased aged care spending and completely blowing out future budgets,” Randeria said.

“The government’s continued claim that the proposal will only impact around 80,000 of Australia’s wealthiest is wrong and insulting. The younger generation is essentially being told that they have no chance of ever having $3 million in their superannuation by the time they retire, so they don’t need to worry about the changes – it’s counterproductive and belittling.”

Randeria added that Treasurer Jim Chalmers was robbing the next generations of any real opportunity to save and be self-sufficient in their retirement.

Furthermore, she said with future inflation, regional disparity and the continued rise in the cost of living, by the time today’s 20-year-olds are retiring, $3 million is likely to be considered modest or potentially even insufficient.

“Common sense would dictate that we encourage today’s children to save for a rainy day so they can continue to live a comfortable lifestyle in their later years, but instead they’re going to wear the burden of their money being used to fund the federal age pension, as more people will be relying on government support in retirement instead,” she said.

“Let’s not forget, we’re living longer, which means people need to fund their retirement and age-related costs for longer to maintain quality of life with a standard of living.”

Randeria said it wasn’t just the younger generation that would be significantly disadvantaged by the changes, and warned that farmers, start-ups and ultimately all taxpayers would also be impacted.

“The National Farmers Federation has expressed serious concerns about the impact of the changes on farmers, warning families will be forced to sell farm assets and property to meet unrealised capital gain liabilities,” she said.

“Farmers will be punished for factors outside their control while politicians conveniently shift financial-planning goal posts.”

Furthermore, she said, start-ups that rely on investors and venture capital for funding, some of which may come from superannuation funds, would find it more difficult to source funding in the future.

“What kind of message does that send? That Australia is not a place for innovators and entrepreneurs, because the government will punish you for your successes with measures such as these.”

The measures would fundamentally change the superannuation system and create a disincentive to save, she continued, forcing more people to rely on the age pension in years to come – a significant cost burden for taxpayers.

She concluded that while she was supportive of the measures the government had put in place more recently such as increasing the superannuation guarantee rate and superannuation being paid on paid parental leave, she warned they would only serve to disadvantage people should these new proposed changes be passed.

“On the one hand we have changes coming into effect that boost superannuation balances, and yet at the same time the government is trying to pass legislation that will punish you for boosting your balance too much,” she said.

“It’s hypocritical, wrong, and makes absolutely no sense.”