There are currently active discussions between Australian regulators, politicians and UK pension ministers and officials to find out how Australian Superannuation works, as well as trips overseas by those working in the pension sector in the UK.
Looking for inspiration
Nick Sherry, a former Australian Superannuation minister, says: "Australia is further along the evolution of its system. The modern Australian system was established in 1987, whereas AE [in the UK] has been operating for 12 years."
But should we be looking to Australia for inspiration?
Sir Steve Webb, former pensions minister and a partner at LCP, says: "We can always learn; as a minister I went to Netherlands, for example.
"However, every country has an incredibly different culture and this really, really matters. The things that work for them may not work for us, and they haven't got this massive fragmentation."
The problem for many is that we are not starting in the same place as Australia was when it launched its much-admired DC system in the 1990s.
Britain already has a DC sector, which grew up around auto-enrolment; some of it is heading in that direction with the master trusts that also came about when AE was launched, and the largest of these are in the tens of billions.
However, there are many thousands of schemes out there, of varying sizes, many of which will be single-employer schemes, with a huge focus on getting the best deal possible, far below the 75 basis point charge cap for default schemes instituted when AE was launched in 2012.
The answer being suggested now, under the DWP's pot for life plans, is that an employee can choose where to have their pension contributions paid, with the expectation that they can put it into the scheme they were saving into previously.
Such a system would radically change the way our DC pension system works, and some would argue that it might even undermine it.
The system of AE relies on inertia, and people not wanting to engage with their pension. Many argue that the pot for life concept breaks that passive relationship people have with their pensions, relying on their employer to sort it out for them.
They would, therefore, so the argument goes, have to take more active interest in their pension, and make choices for themselves.
Lack of education
Many are fearful of the British public's capacity to do this. If evidence from pension freedoms is anything to go by, the danger was not that people splashed out on Lamborghinis, but that they had no clue what to do with their pension pot.
They were therefore subject to scams from predators who wanted to take their money for themselves, under the guise of 'sound' investment strategies.
