Housing experts slam wild One Nation ‘kneejerk’ super-for-rent bid 
Housing experts and economists have slammed a wild One Nation plan to let Aussies raid their super for rent and mortgages - warning the inflation hit will push homes even more out of reach.   


News.com.au
September 7, 2026

Experts have slammed One Nation’s suggestion that Australians paying rent or a mortgage be allowed to divert a portion of their compulsory superannuation contributions into their take-home pay for up to three years to cover daily costs.


Housing experts and economists have slammed a wild One Nation plan to let Aussies raid their super for rent and mortgages - warning the inflation hit will push homes even more out of reach.   

The policy comes off the back of earlier pre-election proposals to let first home buyers access super for deposits - an idea previously rejected by housing advocacy groups.

Under the latest suggestion from One Nation, Australians paying rent or a mortgage would be allowed to divert a portion of their compulsory superannuation contributions into their take-home pay for up to three years.

One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson and Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce in the Senate courtyard at Parliament House in Canberra.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson said “that’s a real boost to help you pay the rent or the mortgage, leaving more room for groceries, power bills and the costs of raising a family”, arguing the plan gives struggling households “breathing room” without touching existing balances.

But leading housing experts have hit back hard, slamming the scheme, with national campaign Everybody’s Home labelling it a dangerous “Band-Aid over a rigged housing system” that would leave everyday workers worse off.

Everybody’s Home spokesperson Maiy Azize said “anyone proposing to raid people’s retirement savings instead of doing something to fix the housing crisis is admitting they don’t want to fix the problem”.   

“Super should be for retirement. It should not become a Band-Aid over a rigged housing system. People should not have to choose between a roof over their head now and financial security in retirement.”

Ms Azize warned that dumping extra cash into the market would simply fuel inflation, drive up rents and push home ownership even further out of reach.

“Drawing on retirement savings just to pay for rent and everyday essentials is not a solution to the housing crisis and financial hardship. But it is a signal that our housing and income support systems aren’t providing the security they should.” 


Part of a survey in 2024 around the idea of tapping superannuation - in this case to pay for a deposit for a home. Source: Everybody's Home

Now, independent economic analysis from PRD chief economist Dr Asti Mardiasmo has exposed a raft of critical flaws and hidden financial traps buried inside the proposal.

Dr Mardiasmo warned that the policy lacks basic checks and balances, failing to outline any minimum super balance required before allowing workers to opt in.

She said injecting raw cash into household budgets also acted like a structured handout and if those funds were spent on general lifestyle expenses rather than direct housing costs, it risked driving inflation higher and forcing the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates again.

At the same time, renters and buyers who believe they have access to extra cash risked overcapitalising and taking on higher mortgage debts than they could actually cannot afford if interest rates spike or wage packages change, she said.

From a property perspective, Dr Mardiasmo said the policy completely missed the root cause of the housing crisis.

“Our property woes are a demand and supply problem - we are simply not building enough houses,” Dr Mardiasmo said.

“Cash injections to renters and mortgage holders do not solve affordability or help a first homebuyer secure a deposit. It simply creates higher risks for the national economy.”

Because anyone renting or holding a mortgage could potentially access the scheme at any adult age, young or low-balance workers risked significantly crippling their long-term compounding returns.

“The impact or consequence of opting in is not yet clear or modelled,” Dr Mardiasmo warned. “For anyone weighing up whether they should opt-in or not, it is crucial for them to see impact and consequence modelling to make a better decision. At the end of the day, this is about your retirement fund.”

Ah so they must have a way of increasing affordable housing stock, lowering interest rates and increasing land availability? Strange theyu don't mention how.

Jasin wrote Yesterday at 4:14pm:


This.

Encouraged by scumbag real estate agents, of course.

Quote:


The Greens are a party of nutjobs and weirdos