Super is nothing more than a tax advantage investment vehicle with strings attached. Take away the tax advantages and tighten the strings and many would not have super any more. It is only marginally worth while having it now. 

Super is an excellent way for young people to start saving for their future; they need a way to save and it forces them to do this. Obviously they need to examine the fees charged to ensure they're not being ripped off.

Super has worked well for me, enabling me to retire at 55, of course you may be able to get better returns investing the money yourself but you also have a higher risk.

As a self-employed professional, I had superannuation to which I, alone, contributed. As Old Geezer says, its value was marginal, and I would have got almost as much at retirement if I had put away $20 a week under the mattress.

On the other hand, my wife's super had employer contributions as well as mandatory income deductions. Consequently she ended up with a lot more than me. Of course, while working, there was little benefit, but now that an income stream has been created from the super, the benefits are more obvious as the returns are much higher than if the money had been invested with a bank.

So, while ASFA has its own drum to beat, there is a certain amount of accuracy in its statements. But, as has been revealed in the Royal Commission into banking, there are enough greedy financial organisations in this country who will do what they can to screw you over, and for as long as fees are unregulated, the only advice is 'caveat emptor'!. In a superannuation system which has been legislated by government, and in which deductions are mandated, maybe fees should also be set.

The big issues with super are that you might lock your funds away for 40 plus years and during that time politicians will regularly change the rules making the final outcome very uncertain. All super rules changes should only apply to those entering the system say 2 years after the rule changes are announced, thus giving those who have not yet retired time to make the necessary changes to the way their investments are structured. The proposed rule changes re excess franking credits if Labor is elected is a classic example of what I am on about. They will principally apply to those who saved and are now self-funded in retirement. If implemented this change will cut the incomes of some retirees by 25%.

I was watching a TV programme a while back where they were asking random people in the street how often they checked on their super.

Most said "never".

Lachlan, your situation is the perfect example where the Government changes the rules. Since January 2015, Centrelink no longer look at an income stream more favourably when calculating the OAP. Fortunately, grandfathered rules apply to those who had an income stream at that time. Just don’t change super funds, or start a new income stream. Having said that, I think Super is still a good idea. In addition to being a low tax environment,  my fund paid 8% last year, banks paying 2%

In 2008/9 I lost about $125'000 in balanced super during the GFC. It came up again subsequently. I took the dough out and spent most of it but have some left to spend just in case Old Geezer would manage to convince the Govt to change my pension into a cashless card, haha! The card for necessities and the cash for frivolous things like having a beer, club visits and travel. I think I got it covered. Just do not trust Super any more and I would advise the young not to put it any more than necessary as it is locked up for 30 years and might become property in time.

I meant Government property in time!

It makes sense not to rely on media reports when it comes to your super.

More prudent to Seek information from a variety of sources before making a decision because many of the people who report on this topic haven't got a clue.