The Super Scheme was put there to eventually replace the Pension. It has a long way to go before those people who didn't have a Super when they started their Working life are no longer with us. (I'm in that lot)

The problem with Super is all the hanger-on-ers taking the guts out of it. When it comes time to live on the Super the people who were on lower Wages all their working life or have never worked will receive bugger all.

Obviously Paul, as you have not responded to my list of other tax payer costs that must be cut at the same time as any age pension reduction to give an equitable result, you must agree.

However you have not added to my list of exorbitant expenses that should be addressed simultaneously. Surely you must have a few other things that are an excessive drain on taxpayers, or is it only just the pension you think is excessive?

From my observations the pension is both excessive & not enough. It is excessive for those who hardly contributed & inadequate for those who did.
Super is heavily subsidised for public servants & blue collar workers can ill afford to contribute adequately.
We need to get away from Super replacing the pension, it doesn't & won't work any better in future.
Super should be a voluntary nest egg, the pension should be for everyone retiring. Super should not be in the hands of companies. We pay tax to Govt so Govt should manage the pension & Super. We have a zillion public servants twiddling thumbs, they can manage these funds. Abolish old age pension asset testing & replace it with inheritance & or transaction tax.
It's time blue collar workers are allowed a life after work & circulate their money!

Australia would be in a much healthier state to support the pension if we had not aborted 3,000,000 healthy potential young workers over the last 30 years. Instead we have imported over the last 30 years middle aged persons, now coming on to the pension.

The Australian population in increasing in age the Australian population has increased by 3 years over the last two decades, from 34 years at 30 June 1997 to 37 years at 30 June 2017. The pension is adequate if you are not paying rent.

Josephus,
The lack of a National Service is also a factor. Thousands of young people go tripping around the world for long periods during which they do not contribute to either future pension or Super.
But when the time comes they'll be complaining bitterly that the pension isn't enough.
It's high time they get a dose of responsibility.

individual,
Were national service reintroduced, the number of young people tripping around the world for long periods and not contributing to super would rise into the millions!
(OK, perhaps that's an exaggeration, but it would greatly increase as there would be a much more tangible advantage in making yourself scarce).

You whinge about the younger generations' apparent selfishness, without realising that this is far worse in the older generations. For proof, look at Hasbeen: he wants to deny the disabled a fair go because he thinks the NDIS is too expensive. And that's just the start - with cuts to education and services, we'd soon be a third world country if he had his way!

As for the age pension, I think eligibility for it should be based not only on age, but also on years spent working in Australia. As for the amount, there is a case for having it rise more slowly than income, and whether I'd support it depends on what other changes are made in subsidies and the tax system. But I'd strongly oppose a cap or peg of the cumulative amount.

Ultimately Australia's a rich country. The age pension is sustainable if we choose to sustain it.