One Nation has proposed a policy to allow homeowners and renters to unlock some of their super to pay pressing bills. The government has moved to scuttle the policy, while the opposition and economists have warned it will drive up inflation, and cause more interest rate rises that will increase cost of living pressures further.
Listen to Australian and world news and follow trending topics with SBS News Podcasts.
TRANSCRIPT
The fallout from One Nation's super-sized bid to combat housing stress continues.
Pauline Hanson says under her party's proposal, renters and mortgage payers could access three per cent of their super for up to three years.
"This is their money, this is the people's money, this is not the government's money this is their money. If it means can put a roof over their head or keep their house, once they loose their house they are destroyed for life."
One Nation's policy has been condemned by the government - who say it will leave millions of Australians poorer and destroy the existing superannuation system.
Opposition Leader Angus Taylor has called for more detail. While Opposition Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Andrew Bragg, says the Coalition is in response reviewing it's own superannuation policies.
He says options like letting people use their super to offset their mortgage could help reduce the number of Australians retiring without owning a home.
"Too many people are retiring without their own house, and so we need to look at how to best calibrate the retirement system and the housing system to ensure that we get more homeowners in retirement. That is our solemn duty as policy makers."
Senator Bragg's comments prompting Treasurer Jim Chalmers to accuse the Coalition of mirroring One Nation's policies.
"Well, One Nation's superannuation policy is in absolute shambles, and now the Coalition say that they want to copy it. When most people would run a mile from this absolute madness, which is the One Nation superannuation policy, we now hear that Andrew Bragg wants to copy it. Andrew Bragg, the Coalition spokesman today, has made it really clear that instead of rejecting One Nation's superannuation madness, they want to photocopy it."
Liberal Senator Paul Scarr says while there is room for amendments and the Coalition is exploring options, scrutiny is crucial for any potential changes.
"The Coalition has previously had policies which allowed people to access a certain amount of their super to purchase their first home, with very defined conditions, which included when that home is sold potentially that money being reinvested into super. So, I think the coalition is considering its policy, but it is really important that you have appropriate guard rails."
Greens Leader Larissa Waters says Australians should not have to compromise their super to alleviate housing and cost of living stress.
"You shouldn't have to dip into your retirement savings to be able to afford groceries and a roof over your head. The government needs to act now to freeze rents and to stop the banks profiteering and price-gouging off people's mortgages."
But One Nation Treasury spokesperson Barnaby Joyce has doubled down, accusing opponents of denying Australians access to their savings.
"They've gone absolutely ballistic because they don't want people getting access to their own money. And this is the, the core issue here. It's your money. It's not their money. It's your money."
One Nation's push for super release would mean the average full-time worker on about 91,000 could access about 44 dollars a week.
A family on a combined income of 168,000 would get back around 82 dollars a week.
The proposal has prompted varied responses from renters and home owners...
VOX POPS: "While it'd be pretty useful short term, it'd be much more difficult long term, especially after retiring." / "I don't think I would say I agree with One Nation in general, but I feel like that's not a terrible idea."/ "I think its a crazy idea what I think would happen is employers would say, hey you got three per cent you don't need that increase."
Economists warn pumping more money into the economy would fuel inflation, making it more likely the reserve bank will hike rates, pushing up repayments and rents.
Senior Economist at the Australia Institute , Matt Grudnoff says the policy would ultimately worsen cost of living stress.
"I can absolutely see why this might be a popular policy. At the moment, people's real wages are going backward. That means they can buy less stuff with what they earn. They're feeling the financial squeeze, and they're angry about that. Unfortunately, this policy isn't actually going to help. So if this were to occur, then what will happen is the Reserve Bank will freak out and increase interest rates more."
He says change is needed to ease cost of living pressure, but he says politicians should be looking elsewhere for solutions.
"What the real problem is, is that we give enormous tax concessions to those at the top. So, if One Nation really wants to help people on low and middle incomes, then they would be far better off cutting down some of the 20 billion dollars that goes in superannuation concessions to those at the very top, and using that to reduce cost of living pressures, and generally taking the pressure off households, rather than having them raid their own super."
The Super Members Council, the country's peak body for super fund members, says One Nation's proposal is a short term sugar hit, with damaging long-term consequences.
The Council's Chief Executive Misha Schubert, says the policy could mean tens-of thousands of dollars lost in retirement funds for the average Australian.
"It's really clear, stark, and sobering. Your medium wage earner in our country would be 25, 000 dollars poorer if this policy were to be implemented by using that facility over that 3-year period that's been put forward, and a couple would be 50, 000 dollars poorer by retirement. That's on the effect of 3 years alone. "
She says vulnerable groups would be hardest hit.
"Without those strong safeguards, the people who would be most vulnerable to being made poorer, younger people, people in low-income and middle-income households, and of course, people in culturally and linguistically diverse communities across our country, for whom, you know, this would also make the biggest of differences to have super in your retirement years."
She says the proposed changes would undermine a system many other developed countries now look to with envy.
"In other countries where they've relied on a fully taxpayer-funded age pension model alone, their budgets into the future are a sea of red to cope with aging populations and a dwindling taxpayer base. They look at Australia, and they think, "we wish we'd built something as strong and successful as the Australian system." And so that should be a clear message to us all that we've got a responsibility and a duty to keep those strong fundamentals of Australia's super system in place to protect the futures of 17 million Australians who will rely on super to be their paycheck in retirement."
