Independent MP Kate Chaney has taken an open-minded stance on Pauline Hanson’s proposal to let mortgage holders and renters access part of their future superannuation contributions, saying the idea deserves “further consideration”.
One Nation’s policy would allow eligible renters and people with mortgages to receive one-quarter of their future super contributions in their take-home pay for up to three years. Employers would continue paying the full 12% superannuation guarantee, but participating workers could have a quarter of those contributions redirected to them by their super fund.
Hanson argues the measure would provide immediate cost-of-living relief. She says a full-time worker earning $90,500 could receive about $2,300 a year after tax, or roughly $44 a week. The policy would not apply to investment properties or existing super balances.
The proposal has attracted strong criticism from the superannuation industry and economists, who warn it could reduce retirement savings and add to inflationary pressure. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia said the policy would make people poorer in retirement and push up inflation, while Treasurer Jim Chalmers described it as a “recipe to make Australian workers tens of thousands of dollars worse off in retirement”.
One Nation rejects the inflation concerns. Barnaby Joyce, the party’s treasury spokesman, argues that because only some eligible people would opt in, any inflationary effect would be “undetectable”. However, independent economist Chris Richardson estimated that around two-thirds of Australians could qualify and said universal take-up could put an additional $26 billion a year into household spending.
While Opposition Leader Angus Taylor criticised the lack of policy detail, Liberal frontbencher Andrew Bragg also left the door open, saying measures that could ease cost-of-living pressures were worth examining. He nevertheless warned that the proposal would not address the longer-term problem of increasing numbers of Australians renting in retirement.
Chaney’s willingness to consider the policy reflects a broader debate about whether compulsory superannuation settings may require greater flexibility. She pointed to previous work from the Grattan Institute, which has argued there may be a case for allowing workers to access super contributions above a certain threshold.
In 2024, then-Grattan Institute economist Brendan Coates proposed allowing workers to cash out contributions above roughly 8% to 9% of wages each year, with withdrawals taxed as ordinary income. He argued that some Australians may be compelled to save more for retirement than they need and that retirees can, in some cases, enjoy a higher standard of living than during their working years.
Chaney has not endorsed Hanson’s model outright, but her call for “further consideration” distinguishes her from those who have dismissed it and signals an interest in exploring whether greater flexibility in the superannuation system could help households without undermining retirement security.