# Why are the conservative parties suddenly obsessed with super?

An episode of [7am](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1461999702), 8 Sep 2026, 16 min.

Audio: https://p.podderapp.com/2544644999/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/2fb3740d-3436-44af-8cc0-a91900716aa5/62723a1f-3e96-4fc4-882c-b25e0181da4d/3240ec65-4636-4aaa-bc8a-b4bf006d7219/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=70f29d90-2a63-48aa-bf8f-b25e0181da70

One Nation is copping heat for a proposal that would let Australians take some of the money going into their super as extra pay instead. For up to three years, renters and mortgage holders could choose to take home a quarter of the money that would normally be put into their retirement – worth about $44 a week for someone on the average full-time wage. At the same time, the Coalition has been looking at its own ways to give people greater access to their super now – and some of its MPs want to go further. So why is superannuation suddenly being pitched as an answer to Australia’s cost-of-living and housing problems? And is it a good idea? Today, economist Greg Jericho, on the growing political fight over what our super should actually be for. If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support. Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram Guest: Chief economist at the Australia Institute, Greg Jericho Photo: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: Obviously this is a policy that your party has come
[0:02] Speaker 1: up with, so we.
[0:03] Speaker 2: Would expect you as.
[0:05] Speaker 1: The Treasury spokesman for that party to be across.
[0:09] Speaker 2: Let's just try it. The Treasury spokesman, not Jesus Christ.
[0:13] Speaker 2: One Nation is copping heat for a proposal that would
[0:15] Speaker 2: let Australians take some of the money going into their
[0:18] Speaker 2: super as extra pay instead.
[0:20] Speaker 1: A 50-year-old, they would be 27,000 worse off.
[0:26] Speaker 2: Well, folks, how on earth... How does... I mean, this
[0:29] Speaker 2: is ridiculous. For up to three years, renters and mortgage
[0:32] Speaker 2: holders could choose to take home a quarter of the
[0:34] Speaker 2: money that would normally be put into their retirement, worth
[0:38] Speaker 2: about $ 44 a week for someone on the average full-time wage.
[0:42] Speaker 2: At the same time, the Coalition has been looking at
[0:44] Speaker 2: its own ways to give people greater access to their
[0:46] Speaker 2: super now, and some of its MPs want to go further.
[0:50] Speaker 2: So why is superannuation suddenly being pitched as an answer
[0:54] Speaker 2: to Australia's cost of living and housing problems? And is
[0:58] Speaker 2: it a good idea? I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening
[1:03] Speaker 2: to 7am. Today, economist Greg Jericho on the growing political
[1:07] Speaker 2: fight over what our super should actually be for. It's Wednesday,
[1:15] Speaker 2: September 9th. Greg, the case that Pauline Hanson is making
[1:24] Speaker 2: here around super is simple, right? She's saying people are
[1:28] Speaker 2: struggling with their rent and their mortgage, so why not
[1:32] Speaker 2: let them take home a little bit more of their
[1:34] Speaker 2: money now? What's wrong with that idea?
[1:37] Speaker 1: Look, what it is, is it's a very, I think,
[1:40] Speaker 1: clever pitch actually by Pauline Hanson and One Nation, because
[1:44] Speaker 1: you're right, it's all about dealing with the real issues
[1:48] Speaker 1: that households and people are having right now, which is
[1:52] Speaker 1: the fact that they're suffering a massive cost of living crisis.
[1:56] Speaker 1: Their basic pitch is if you're paying rent or mortgage,
[1:58] Speaker 1: so basically everyone who really isn't retired, essentially, that's going
[2:03] Speaker 1: to cover most people, you can redirect 3% of your 12%
[2:08] Speaker 1: superannuation guarantee contribution to yourself. So you can basically say, look,
[2:14] Speaker 1: we want to take 3% now. Maximum of three years,
[2:17] Speaker 1: apparently you can do it, although, you know, with a
[2:20] Speaker 1: thing like this, they say a maximum of three years,
[2:22] Speaker 1: but it'd probably continue on and on. It's a type
[2:25] Speaker 1: of policy that once you set in place, you don't stop.
[2:29] Speaker 1: And so it's all about essentially giving Australians that money now.
[2:34] Speaker 1: And we're talking perhaps around $ 44 a week or so
[2:38] Speaker 1: for sort of an average income earner. So essentially what
[2:42] Speaker 1: she's saying is, okay, we'll give you some money now
[2:45] Speaker 1: because now's when you need it. Don't worry about retirement.
[2:48] Speaker 1: It'll all be good by then. And the real problem
[2:51] Speaker 1: with that is that it essentially is robbing yourself from
[2:57] Speaker 1: later to pay yourself now. And it doesn't end up
[3:01] Speaker 1: in a good situation. It has problems both now and
[3:05] Speaker 1: in the future.
[3:06] Speaker 2: Okay. And there's been a lot of talk about this
[3:08] Speaker 2: being potentially inflationary. One nation's argument is that not everyone
[3:13] Speaker 2: will take this up. So realistically, I mean, how much
[3:16] Speaker 2: difference would this make or could this make to inflation?
[3:20] Speaker 1: Yeah, look, it definitely would be inflationary because we know
[3:23] Speaker 1: from what happened during the COVID years when the Morrison
[3:27] Speaker 1: government did allow people to take out some of their
[3:30] Speaker 1: super if they needed to, that a lot of people
[3:32] Speaker 1: did and they took out as much as they could.
[3:35] Speaker 1: So the likelihood is that this will be a fairly
[3:40] Speaker 1: popular scheme and that many people would do it. That
[3:43] Speaker 1: is introducing a lot more money into the economy and
[3:48] Speaker 1: And it comes at a time when the Reserve Bank,
[3:50] Speaker 1: rightly or wrongly, is saying that we're spending too much
[3:53] Speaker 1: money at the moment. That means that we'll see interest
[3:56] Speaker 1: rates go up. And so probably what we'd see from
[3:59] Speaker 1: this is any of the benefits of it kind of
[4:02] Speaker 1: be wiped away by an interest rate rise that also
[4:06] Speaker 1: we know flows into rental prices increase. So it's kind
[4:10] Speaker 1: of a bit of an illusory gain in that sense of, oh,
[4:13] Speaker 1: we've got more money.
[4:14] Speaker 2: Great.
[4:14] Speaker 1: We can all go and spend it. And then the
[4:16] Speaker 1: Reserve Bank says, yeah, we're going to actually take away
[4:19] Speaker 1: all that money out of the economy through a rate rise.
[4:23] Speaker 2: So if we were to take this pitch at face value,
[4:27] Speaker 2: that's three years of reduced super contributions, what would the
[4:30] Speaker 2: impact of that be on the average person's super in retirement?
[4:35] Speaker 1: Yeah, so we're talking for a sort of average income
[4:39] Speaker 1: earner around $ 25, 000 less when you retire. And given the
[4:45] Speaker 1: average super balance of someone as they sort of get
[4:48] Speaker 1: close to retirement is just a touch over $ 200, 000, we're
[4:52] Speaker 1: talking basically about 10% less. So it's a sizable whack.
[4:57] Speaker 1: And again, it might be this thing about $ 25, 000, that
[5:01] Speaker 1: doesn't seem like much and it's a long way away.
[5:04] Speaker 1: But that just shows that sort of sense of what
[5:07] Speaker 1: $ 45 a week adds up to over the many years.
[5:10] Speaker 1: And Again, that's if it's just limited, but history sort
[5:16] Speaker 1: of shows that when you offer these types of policies,
[5:21] Speaker 1: they'll be limited at first and then they just keep
[5:24] Speaker 1: on going because, again, what would you do if you're
[5:27] Speaker 1: One Nation? You've put this policy saying, oh, you should
[5:30] Speaker 1: have your money now, not later, and then what, in
[5:33] Speaker 1: three years' time, you're going to see One Nation suddenly argue, actually, no,
[5:37] Speaker 1: now you should have your money later? No. you know,
[5:40] Speaker 1: the three years is a nice, makes it sound reasonable,
[5:42] Speaker 1: but I think what we'd likely see is it just
[5:45] Speaker 1: go on and on.
[5:46] Speaker 2: And there's no guardrails proposed, is there, around people actually
[5:50] Speaker 2: spending it on their mortgage or rent? Because, I mean,
[5:53] Speaker 2: we saw with COVID when people had access to super,
[5:56] Speaker 2: you know, they spend it on all sorts of things.
[5:58] Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's the thing. At the moment, you can
[6:01] Speaker 1: actually access super if you are able to demonstrate, you know,
[6:05] Speaker 1: essentially a dire need due to medical emergencies or financial
[6:09] Speaker 1: hardship you know if you are able to demonstrate that
[6:12] Speaker 1: then yes you can but with this it's just yeah
[6:15] Speaker 1: if you you know if you want it you can
[6:18] Speaker 1: you can have it and some will use it to
[6:20] Speaker 1: pay down bills some will use it to pay off
[6:22] Speaker 1: their home loan and some will just use it because
[6:25] Speaker 1: oh i can use it and what we certainly saw
[6:27] Speaker 1: during the covid years was people who didn't have a
[6:31] Speaker 1: lot of super essentially running it right down and we
[6:35] Speaker 1: also know that because women generally have less super than
[6:40] Speaker 1: do men. This will do more damage to women's long-term retirement.
[6:45] Speaker 1: And we also know that women also struggle the most
[6:49] Speaker 1: when it comes to poverty in retirement. So quick fix,
[6:54] Speaker 1: not a good long-term outcome. But it's hard to tell
[6:58] Speaker 1: people who are suffering through a massive cost of living
[7:02] Speaker 1: crisis to say, oh, please believe my accountancy and acumen
[7:08] Speaker 1: and you shouldn't have your money now because once it accumulates,
[7:11] Speaker 1: you know, that kind of argument is really tough to
[7:15] Speaker 1: say to people who are struggling. It's really sort of,
[7:20] Speaker 1: in a way, conning people in saying, here, we're going
[7:23] Speaker 1: to give you some easy money, don't worry. Instead of
[7:27] Speaker 1: looking at what is the real problem, the fact that
[7:29] Speaker 1: real wages have fallen, the fact that the costs of
[7:31] Speaker 1: services have risen... the fact that perhaps people are struggling
[7:36] Speaker 1: with the reality that going to the GP or going
[7:39] Speaker 1: to the dentist or things like that are costing more,
[7:42] Speaker 1: and we're not going to put any pressure on businesses
[7:45] Speaker 1: to raise their wages. We'll fix it all with a
[7:48] Speaker 1: bit of super.
[7:51] Speaker 2: Still to come, the Coalition's controversial plans for our super. Greg,
[8:04] Speaker 2: there is this kind of strange twist here. It turns
[8:07] Speaker 2: out that the coalition under Susan Lee had already developed
[8:11] Speaker 2: almost this exact policy. And in one respect, I think
[8:16] Speaker 2: theirs went even further. So tell me about what they
[8:18] Speaker 2: were considering.
[8:20] Speaker 1: Yeah, apparently it's come out that they were costing this
[8:23] Speaker 1: before Susan Lee got rolled. So back in 2025, essentially
[8:28] Speaker 1: much the same with that three percentage points of your super.
[8:31] Speaker 1: they were going to exclude renters for some reason. I
[8:34] Speaker 1: think it was their suggestion was this is about people
[8:38] Speaker 1: paying off their mortgage. I would suggest that renters, if
[8:41] Speaker 1: you're going to do something like this, need just as
[8:43] Speaker 1: much help. They were not going to have that three-year
[8:45] Speaker 1: limit and they were going to have it being paid
[8:49] Speaker 1: as ordinary income, which would mean it would get taxed
[8:52] Speaker 1: like income tax, whereas the One Nation policy is saying, oh,
[8:55] Speaker 1: we'll give you this extra income, but we're going to
[8:58] Speaker 1: treat it still as superannuation for taxation purposes. And as
[9:01] Speaker 1: you know, superannuation attracts less tax and we give superannuation
[9:07] Speaker 1: less tax because you can't touch that money. So in
[9:11] Speaker 1: a sense, One Nation is saying, not only are we
[9:12] Speaker 1: going to give you the money, we're going to basically
[9:14] Speaker 1: give you a tax cut as well, which adds to
[9:17] Speaker 1: the entire cost of the thing as well from a
[9:19] Speaker 1: budgetary point of view. But the Liberal Party's proposal slightly
[9:24] Speaker 1: less generous because of that taxation aspect, but would go
[9:29] Speaker 1: on forever. And again, as part of, I think, a
[9:33] Speaker 1: suite of policies that the Liberal Party have for a
[9:37] Speaker 1: long time been sort of mulling over because they've never
[9:40] Speaker 1: had a real love for superannuation. People like Senator Andrew
[9:44] Speaker 1: Bragg really hates compulsory superannuation, essentially calls it communism. And
[9:49] Speaker 1: so they like using the idea of superannuation as this
[9:53] Speaker 1: quick fix.
[9:54] Speaker 2: Yeah, well we heard Andrew Bragg, the opposition's shadow housing minister,
[9:59] Speaker 2: calling One Nation plan just a start. So he's been
[10:03] Speaker 2: talking about going further, using super as a mortgage offset,
[10:07] Speaker 2: maybe even collateral for a home loan. Mortgage offsets, collateral arrangements,
[10:12] Speaker 2: cash out measures. There are pluses and minuses on all
[10:15] Speaker 2: of these models, but I think it's a good debate
[10:17] Speaker 2: to have because we want to be giving Australians the
[10:20] Speaker 2: best chance that we can to live in a house
[10:22] Speaker 2: that they own. Where does the coalition want this to
[10:25] Speaker 2: end up?
[10:26] Speaker 1: Well, the coalition, I think if you really sort of
[10:29] Speaker 1: held their feet to the fire, would say, let's get
[10:31] Speaker 1: rid of compulsory superannuation completely. And I doubt we'd see
[10:35] Speaker 1: much of a suggestion of, oh, well, let's fix up
[10:37] Speaker 1: the age pension on the other end. The problem with
[10:42] Speaker 1: the Liberal Party's policies against superannuation and, again, using it
[10:46] Speaker 1: as this fix is, especially when it comes to housing,
[10:50] Speaker 1: is all of their policies regarding using superannuation, whether it's
[10:54] Speaker 1: as an offset or using as collateral or whatever for housing,
[10:58] Speaker 1: is all designed to actually increase house prices. That's what
[11:02] Speaker 1: it will always do because you're, in a sense, saying, oh,
[11:05] Speaker 1: we've got this money, let's use it now to bid
[11:07] Speaker 1: up house prices. And it's kind of bizarre that we've
[11:12] Speaker 1: got that policy occurring at the same time where we've
[11:15] Speaker 1: finally seen the changes to the capital gains tax and
[11:18] Speaker 1: negative gearing having a literal impact on prices, causing house
[11:22] Speaker 1: prices to fall in a way we haven't seen for
[11:25] Speaker 1: many years that's actually helping housing affordability. And yet we've
[11:29] Speaker 1: still got the Liberal Party saying, oh, the best way
[11:32] Speaker 1: to solve housing affordability is to let people use their super.
[11:35] Speaker 1: And it's like, It's this case of they're ignoring the
[11:39] Speaker 1: actual signs in the housing market at the moment and
[11:43] Speaker 1: still just going on this attack on superannuation. The irony is,
[11:48] Speaker 1: of course, there's lots of problems with superannuation. And yet,
[11:52] Speaker 1: whenever there are attacks on superannuation, it only really gets
[11:57] Speaker 1: criticized if it's an attack on the tax breaks that
[12:01] Speaker 1: go to the richest. We saw last year the the
[12:05] Speaker 1: government trying to do something on superannuation balances of more
[12:09] Speaker 1: than $ 3 million that was attacked as a death tax,
[12:12] Speaker 1: as hitting people's inheritance, even though it affected maybe 0.1%
[12:18] Speaker 1: of people with super. Whereas these policies that are essentially
[12:23] Speaker 1: going to ruin or at least worsen the retirement for
[12:27] Speaker 1: people on lower middle incomes, they're regarded, oh, this is
[12:31] Speaker 1: a common sense kind of plan.
[12:33] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's interesting because there was, I guess, a sense
[12:38] Speaker 2: until recently that there was bipartisan support for super, that,
[12:42] Speaker 2: you know, super had to be protected for retirement. So
[12:47] Speaker 2: why do you think the idea of using that money now,
[12:50] Speaker 2: you know, for cost of living, for housing, why do
[12:53] Speaker 2: you think that is gaining political ground?
[12:56] Speaker 1: Well, because look at who's proposing it and we're talking
[13:00] Speaker 1: essentially about The conservative political parties, whether or not you
[13:04] Speaker 1: want to call One Nation conservative, One Nation are doing
[13:07] Speaker 1: it purely because it's a populist policy that looks like
[13:10] Speaker 1: they're helping people, whereas they're not actually putting any pressure
[13:13] Speaker 1: on businesses to do anything. And the Liberal Party are
[13:17] Speaker 1: doing it because they know it's not going to affect
[13:20] Speaker 1: anyone that they really care about. They say, yeah, do
[13:24] Speaker 1: whatever you want with super. It also will help house prices. Well,
[13:27] Speaker 1: that's great. That's certainly what they're all about, is trying
[13:31] Speaker 1: to increase house prices and increase wealth of the wealthiest.
[13:35] Speaker 1: And they're saying, let's do that, but let's make sure
[13:38] Speaker 1: we don't touch those tax breaks that are going to
[13:42] Speaker 1: the richest. And it's just, I think, really highlights the
[13:47] Speaker 1: inequality that has riven throughout our polity, whereas when we're
[13:51] Speaker 1: talking about changes to superannuation that will affect the very,
[13:56] Speaker 1: very richest 1%, the wealthiest 1%. That's painted as being
[14:02] Speaker 1: a horror show of destruction, death tax and terrible stuff.
[14:07] Speaker 1: Whereas when we suddenly get a policy that is going
[14:09] Speaker 1: to actually reduce the retirement income of people who are
[14:13] Speaker 1: certainly not thinking about inheritance or their second or third
[14:17] Speaker 1: investment property, that's given this cavalier approach of, oh, why
[14:21] Speaker 1: shouldn't we be touching it?
[14:24] Speaker 2: Greg, thank you so much for your time. Pleasure.
[14:29] Speaker 1: Thank you.
[14:54] Speaker 2: And instead see only posts from people they follow. The
[14:57] Speaker 2: laws will also require services including online games, apps and
[15:01] Speaker 2: AI chatbots to protect children from harms like pornography and
[15:04] Speaker 2: misogynistic content. And a friend of Alan Jones, who denied
[15:09] Speaker 2: witnessing an alleged assault in a Sydney restaurant, has admitted
[15:13] Speaker 2: in court to sending a text to Jones saying, if
[15:16] Speaker 2: you need me to refute any lies, I of course will.
[15:19] Speaker 2: The man says he doesn't recall the lunch, where another
[15:21] Speaker 2: witness claimed to have seen complainant C looking distraught or
[15:25] Speaker 2: sitting next to Jones, who had his hand under the table.
[15:28] Speaker 2: Alan Jones has denied all 22 counts of indecent assault
[15:31] Speaker 2: and two counts of sexual touching against him. I'm Ruby Jones.
[15:35] Speaker 2: This is 7am. Thanks for listening.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.