Individual:

...I don’t wish to sound like a defender of the public service, but the reality of compulsory superannuation contributions, is the employer is mandated to contribute nine percent of the gross wage towards the fund. The public service is the Government workforce and as such the Government, as the employer of the workforce, is obligated, as are all employers in private enterprise, to contribute. One could argue that the burden on the tax-payer of the number of public servants employed is unjust, but not against the obligatory super contribution of nine percent.

...But as I pointed out in my post above, our “Tony” agrees to a greater burden on the tax payer by agreeing to an increase from nine to twelve percent, as a concept; the cynic would ask why: I answered that question above as well, the answer is, it becomes politically self-serving for him to agree, against the dictates of his own dogma, which is to promote "less" burden on the tax payer.

So to get around the issue of increase in the rate being a burden on employers, switch the rates outlined in awards, in enterprise bargaining and for those that have to negotiate their own salaries (professionals), to a total wage cost. From that employees have to wear the cost of superannuation and workers compensation and payroll tax to get back to their base figure. There will be no more cost to the employer to do it this way, and will be a hell of a lot more educating to employees. If they see what gets taken out of their total pay-packet they might
(a) care more about their super. At the moment for anyone under 50 its a mystery number that means little
(b) understand the total costs of employment - on-costs are enormous and most employees dont know about them. If they see how the ability of a business to pay them a better take-home wage is curtailed, there might be more pressure on government to do something about it.

Eg workers compensation schemes as they stand should be abolished. Apply a hefty penalty to an employer for any incident (that they cant insure against), and make it compulsory for employees to have income protection insurance. It gives them better cover anyway (covers them for illness and injury outside the workplace).