The IPA’s published arguments, proposals and archive.
Compulsory saving, tax concessions, industry funds and housing: a record of the Institute of Public Affairs’ published positions.
The clearest direct proposal is item 68 of the IPA’s 2012 manifesto. Later publications address the taxation of retirement savings, access for housing and the role of industry funds. These sources establish published positions; they do not by themselves prove that the IPA caused a government decision.
“Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement”
The condition is central: opting out would also mean promising to forgo the government retirement-income safety net. The brief proposal does not explain what would happen if someone subsequently experienced hardship.
Source: Be Like Gough — 75 Radical Ideas to Transform Australia
Archive notes awaiting original-document rechecking. The following entries were recovered from this project’s earlier research notes. Figures are attributed to the IPA, and the original PDFs have not been re-examined for this edition.
Brett Hogan’s 11 November 2016 article Throttling Superannuation criticised Labor and Coalition proposals. It opposed the $1.6 million transfer balance cap, reduced contribution caps, higher contributions tax for higher earners and the proposed lifetime post-tax contribution cap, subsequently replaced.
Hogan advocated low, flat super taxes and personal responsibility for retirement. He disputed the language of “tax concessions”, treating it as an assumption that government was entitled to additional revenue.
Research interpretation: defending favourable taxation of retirement savings can coexist with advocating an escape from compulsory saving. These are distinct policy positions.
The IPA’s 30 March 2020 economic update recorded the Morrison government’s provision for tax-free early withdrawals of up to $20,000. Recording the policy does not establish that the IPA designed it.
In a 30 July 2020 statement, the ACTU connected the early-release campaign with IPA alumni on government backbenches. This is evidence of the ACTU’s accusation, not independent proof of the policy’s origin.
On 24 September 2024, IPA research fellow Saxon Davidson published the institute’s submission to the Senate inquiry into the financial regulatory framework and home ownership.
It recommended allowing Australians to access super to purchase their first home, alongside reducing migration and strengthening restrictions on foreign property investors. This is a formal policy submission.
Source: IPA submission on the financial regulatory framework and home ownership
Michael Barrett’s 16 December 2024 article Super Views! criticised compulsory contributions and industry funds’ connections to former Labor politicians and union officials. It discussed payments from funds to unions and alleged an onward political benefit to Labor.
The article supported individuals accessing super for a first-home deposit while criticising government encouragement of investment in housing, clean energy and other national projects.
Evidence limit: the payment allegations require separate verification. Affiliation fees, payments for services and political donations are different categories; this article does not establish that every payment is a donation.
Language analysis: this is an example of compulsory saving being presented as a loss of individual control, relevant to the project’s examination of “freedom” and “liberty”.
An IPA-hosted transcript dated 24 June 2026 records Adam Creighton criticising changes affecting self-managed superannuation funds. His description of those changes requires checking against the actual measures before it is used as a factual policy explanation.
Source: Adam Creighton on Sharri, Sky News Australia
Further reading to retrieve: a search listing identified Creighton’s 28 July 2026 article, Sorry to say, for the young, super won’t be a golden ticket. The complete article was not retrieved for this edition, so no substantive finding is drawn from it here.
The project’s earlier Andrew Bragg research had not established formal IPA employment, board membership or fellowship. Similar positions support a finding of policy alignment; they do not alone establish organisational affiliation. One Nation’s housing proposal must likewise be compared with item 68 using its actual wording.
Overall interpretation: these publications repeatedly address who controls retirement savings—the individual, compulsory institutions, fund trustees or government policy. The manifesto, tax arguments, housing submission and industry-fund criticism establish a pattern of published positions. Claims of coordination or financial benefit require additional evidence.
Return to the policy lists · Party comparisons · Corrections and additional evidence