Does anyone really believe that Labor did not have a much more far-reaching plan for changing Superannuation arrangements and provisions - that is, Before the Lib/Nats and a wide segment of the Aus population started kicking up a ruckus about the non-disclosure of what they had in mind?
If so, they are either a blind follower of Labor or a too-trusting, disinterested, or apathetic fool.
And we have only been given a glimpse, as yet. (They have merely 'tested the waters'.)
(And, even so, the 'Greens' are bitterly disappointed - so we know what to expect from that quarter.)

OK, no problem taxing super 'earnings' (ie. Net Interest/Profit) exceeding $100,000, even though a significant portion of the overall 'gains' may in fact represent the equivalent of a 'capital gain', such as where the super account is invested primarily in equities or property - since capital gains tax is usually 15% anyway.
But, Super in such accounts does Not Always go Up! Is there facility (as there is with Capital Gains Tax) for a refund/deduction if a subsequent year registers a Loss in the Super account? I'll bet NOT!
But, so what? $2 Million in any super account is a lot of loot - so they must be a parasite anyway, right? And, deserve no 'fair' consideration whatsoever, right? (Not even if they're 65 and have worked damned hard for 50 years, right?)

Do people realise there are Limits to how much anyone can put into super each year? (And that all contributions to super are taxed at 15% immediately on investment - that is, for all beyond the exempt 30% or so of lower income earners.)
So, the filthy rich can't go making too much of a meal of it anyway, can they? And anyone selling a major asset can't just dump it all into super to evade Capital Gains tax - and that includes those who've worked hard and bought an investment property as a 'nest egg' along the way. TBC>

Cont'd>
Super is complex. There are provisions to tax drawings from super (as pension or as a lump sum), at the prevailing annual income-tax rate, beyond a certain drawing limit each year - so, once it's locked-in, there's a penalty for dipping-in to invest in alternatives, like property or equities, or even for that longed-for overseas trip or a home deposit for the kids. Not 'free' money after all; and the Super Funds need not worry about a 'run'.

Labor got a much-needed 'check' at the starting gate, but they're not finished yet, far from it, and the proposed new Superannuation 'Oversight Body' is designed to prevent the 'Coalition' (or anyone else) from 'tinkering' with Labor's 'Legacy'.
So, beware what you wish for.

Tony Abbott is wrong to propose tinkering with the tax exemption for lower income earners, but Labor has already pulled-back the dollar-for-dollar previous arrangements, so it's not all black and white in this, or in any other area of our fuddling political arena.
Tony may be far from perfect, but he's worth giving a reasonable chance.
The 'proof' of the pudding will be tested as 'E' day draws near.

Want to point the finger? The Howard government wanted to pull back pension arrangements and other 'perks' (such as travel and staffing) for ex-politicians (of all persuasions), but was blocked by the (then) opposition.
Who would mind getting a pension of 70-80% of final year earnings (indexed) immediately on retirement (or non re-election) after a mere 3 or 4 year term in political office - irrespective of your age, and despite you immediately taking up a lucrative overseas ambassadorial posting or private sector job, or already with assets totaling millions from inheritance or whatever? Who needs to worry about Super under those conditions? (It's all from the public purse!)
So, Labor truly has 'real' care for the 'battlers'? In my boot! Mind you I haven't heard of any such further commitment from the Libs, but let's wait and see.

Politics is a dirty business, and they all look after No.1, make no mistake in that, but at least the Libs could see the contradiction in parliamentary pension provisions. Not a peep in this regard from Labor.

Each to his own, but I think our overall political system stinks, and I would much rather we were governed by an elected Board of Governors with an established track-record in leadership, stewardship and business acumen.
Our current system offers us only the blind leading the blind at best, and a rabble of rogues at worst.
Ideology with only the merest skerrick of common sense is no recipe for long term success.
Out damned Spot!

The government constantly needs more taxes and this is a tax based on class hatred that can be broadened at will.

Regardless of the spin it is stealing from people's savings for their personally funded old age, which is what the government has been demanding.

The Gillard government's lack of principle on superannuation is well demonstrated by its own shabby treatment of its own employees, ex-military and public servants.

Here, regarding the military,

<Senate condemns Gillard Labor Government over military superannuation failures

28/02/13

The Coalition has today successfully moved a motion in the Senate condemning the Gillard Labor Government for failing to provide fair indexation for Australia’s 57,000 military superannuants.

Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, said the motion’s passage through the Senate must now be followed by real action on Fair Indexation.

“Today the Senate has said enough is enough”, Senator Ronaldson said. “The Gillard Labor Government has been rightly condemned for its misrepresentation of the annual average DFRDB military pension and its ongoing and stubborn refusal to give our veterans a fair go.”

The motion which today passed the Senate said:

That the Senate:

a) notes that the average annual DFRDB military superannuation pension in 2011-12 was $24,603;

b) condemns the Gillard Labor Government for Its ongoing and stubborn refusal to grant 57,000 Australian military superannuants and their families a fair go;

c) denounces the Labor Party for misleading veterans before the 2007 election into believing that Labor would actually deliver fair indexation, a point highlighted by Senator Lundy and Minister Kelly in their letter to former finance minister Tanner of 14 September 2009; and

d) criticises the Government for its ongoing failure to schedule a time for the Senate to consider the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and thus denying the Senate the opportunity to debate and vote on the Coalition’s amendments to provide fair indexation for these men and women who have served their nation.
..
“Labor must ...finally live up to its 2007 pre-election position of supporting Fair Indexation.”
...>
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/02/28/senate-condemns-gillard-labor-government-over-military-superannuation

OTB, you wrote, "Does anyone really believe that Labor did not have a much more far-reaching plan for changing Superannuation arrangements and provisions"

Manufactured conjecture. You should be a Murdoch journalist. Also, perhaps you should form a new thread to discuss political and military superannuants?

You also wrote "Regardless of the spin it is stealing from people's savings for their personally funded old age, which is what the government has been demanding."

So, the earnings on the capital you put aside should be untaxed, right? Meanwhile income taxes and/or GST should rise to meet the shortfall in government revenue needed to run the country? Pity those on low incomes with little or no capital to invest to take advantage of this idea, while the wealthier bury income into it to avoid tax. How equitable!

As for the government "demanding", I'd say it's more of a warning that the current pension level is unsustainable given future demographics. The government simply demands that employees should receive 9% super rising to 12% over coming years, if elected and this will probably apply whoever wins the election.

Once the LNP puts out its policies rather than fear-mongering, you'll have something to compare on super and other matters before deciding whether "Tony may be far from perfect, but he's worth giving a reasonable chance." as Saltpetre thinks. (Perhaps the same thinking should be applied to that witch Gillard but you guys prefer to burn her at the stake whatever policy she may espouse)

Saltpetre's point about CGT and loss years is a good one and will need to be handled, but the basic principle that there should be a limit to the super return that is untaxed, remains a sound one. It is reasonable, perhaps, to apply the limit only to dividend or interest earnings, and tax positive annual capital gain only after adjustment for accumulated losses. This would change how capital gain is handled inside and outside super. Many property trusts are traded as market-based shares whose price may or may not reflect current rents and valuations, a punt one takes with this vehicle.

Sorry, the first quote in my post should have been attributed to Saltpetre and the second to OTB. Apologies.