Libs want home-ownership to be a part of superannuation

Font Size:

Liberal Party MPs have been discussing the idea of home-ownership becoming a major part of your retirement income, as part of a raft of suggestions to fix our retirement income system.

Home ownership could become the cornerstone of retirement under their proposal.

The Liberals want to use superannuation to help first home buyers get into the property market.

It seems allowing members to dip into their superannuation to help them get a foothold in an increasingly challenging fiscal environment is becoming a theme.

That’s how tens of thousands of Australian have got through the pandemic – accessing up to $20,000 in super early.

And that’s how the Libs think young people could be able to buy their first home.

Liberal MP Tim Wilson told Jane Caro on the weekend that super should be used to help investors into the market.

This is despite more than $42 billion being drained from existing super accounts, with 600,000 Australians using all their retirement savings and the fact that more and more women are already without adequate retirement funds.

Some say the proposal will simply inflate property prices, but Mr Wilson is sticking to his guns, saying it might be the only way some people could buy a home.

“Not owning your home is one of the biggest determinants of poverty in retirement. And it disproportionately impacts women,” he tweeted.

“And because we prioritise super over home ownership, we fuel it. It is wrong.”

Liberal member Andrew Bragg also thinks super should be used to buy a home, but says the Prime Minister still needs to fix a system that consistently gouges Aussie workers with high fees.

“The system costs more than it saves. There should be more flexibility. Australians should be allowed to access super for a first home; a home is more important than super,” said Mr Bragg, who believes super should be treated like a self-managed super fund (SMSF) to give Australians greater flexibility with their money.

“I know a lot of people will be expecting me to say we should abolish super; I don’t think we should. I think the idea is very good, but I do think the execution has been poor,” said Mr Bragg.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is not a fan of the plan, says a Nest Egg report, which states Australians should not have to choose between a dignified retirement and home-ownership.

“While the rest of us are working on how to get through this pandemic and protect workers, the Morrison government remains focused on their own pet political issues,” said ACTU president Michele O’Neil.

“People shouldn’t have to choose between owning a home and a dignified retirement, but that’s exactly what the Morrison government wants.

“This idea also makes no sense; it will simply increase house prices and decrease the amount that superannuation funds have to invest in housing and other infrastructure projects.

“Without a decent superannuation system, we’ll go back to a world where most people retire on a pension that barely puts food on the table.

“Under the cover of COVID-19, the government has already ripped $42 billion from Australian’s super accounts, and this will cost working families hundreds of thousands at retirement time.”

The ACTU said the government was seemingly bent on undermining the purpose of super for political ends instead of supporting workers through a difficult economic period.

“Superannuation must be protected to provide Australian workers with a dignified retirement. It must not be used as a Liberal Party piggy bank to be dipped into whenever the government decides,” said Ms O’Neil.

What do you think of this plan? Can people be trusted to have more access to their money? Or does it undermine the purpose of super?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy


Include family home in assets test: economist

Including family home in assets test ‘the right thing to do', says economist

COVID-19 has brought on a new set of challenges for pensions, pensioners

Pensions and pensioners face huge challenges now and in the future. Here's why.

Could family home exemption be a victim of stimulus package debt?

A leading taxation expert says that including the family home in the assets test for the Age

Written by Leon Della Bosca

Leon Della Bosca is a voracious reader who loves words. You'll often find him spending time in galleries, writing, designing, painting, drawing, or photographing and documenting street art. He has a publishing and graphic design background and loves movies and music, but then, who doesn’t?



Total Comments: 41
  1. 0

    Not a bad idea amoung many for fixing the now broken Australian super system. The problem is like all grand government ideas, no matter which party is in power, it will be screwed up by incompetent public servants and their money grubbing consultants. When implemented it will financially hurt the people it is supposed to help.

    • 0

      The Australian super system is not broken just distorted through the benefits afforded to the wealthy through Howard and Costello’s largesse to them.
      If the Libs want to help young people get a home divert the tax for the wealthy into tax deductions on the mortgage payments low income earners as faced with or toward an effective reduction in the deposit needed.
      Typical Tim Wilson with his interest in financial matters that appear to have a personal leaning.

  2. 0

    Do not trust this idea, coming from Wilson and Bragg who are both opposed to the concept of general superannuation particularly the well performing industry funds, they want to destroy the system that Paul Keating set up and they also do not want the scheduled increases to happen.

    I am very disappointed that Your LifeChoices published this ideological piece of deceit.

    • 0

      But you are quite happy that YLC publishes despicable get rich quick scheme adverts?

    • 0

      Sceptic: Actually I do not like their adverts, have not supported them, sounds like a red herring comment to me. Damn, you might have red herrings under the bed!

    • 0

      Adverts are necessary to pay for publishing YLC. Take the ads with a grain of salt and ignore if they do not appeal though there must be enough leads generated for repeat advertisers to find some attraction. It’s certainly hard to imagine any members would pay to access YLC.

  3. 0

    Typical LNP idea to further increase the costs of housing. Why? It suits the real estate “industry”. An inverted pyramid with the poor buyer at the pointy end supporting all the leeches – from agents, banks, various governments, councils etc.
    Its all about milking as much $$$ from the general public as possible. And the $$$ flow to their rich mates who then return the favour buy returning them to office.
    Superannuation is just the next cashcow to be milked. When that’s gone, what next?
    All the while all these schemes increase the costs of housing.
    How about low-cost housing? Affordable housing?

  4. 0

    The Libs just can’t keep their hands off our super.Blow your money on a big home than you can get a full pension,more short term policy.The big end of town is at it again.

  5. 0

    “What do you think of this plan? Can people be trusted to have more access to their money? Or does it undermine the purpose of super?”

    Is this a plan? If a couple of back benchers make a suggestion how does this become a Liberal plan? Rather than asking the government for a clarification, it seems a better idea is to go to the mortal enemy of the Liberals and ask them for a quote about what a couple of back benchers have said. Top marks for journalistic integrity.

    People should only have access to their super in emergency situations and this has already been covered in the legislation. Release of funds from super for any other reason should not be allowed as the original design was to put funds aside for retirement, not to be used as a savings scheme.

  6. 0

    Super is for your retirement years not to buy a home. You save a deposit then get a mortgage & save to pay that off, earlier the better just like we did & our parents & grandparents.
    This idea will put more people on the pension in the long term as their super will be less of an asset $ wise.
    So now I smell a Liberal rat. I have a suspicion that this is the start of making the family home included in the asset testing as the Libs will argue that the family home in a lot of cases has been paid for with super funds originally intended for retirement therefore the value of the house should be included in any asset testing to reduce pensions.

  7. 0

    One solution would be to combine all super into the Future Fund. Problem solved.

    • 0

      And then the Future Fund gets taken over by the Govt, included into general revenue and then everybody gets the universal pension. Now, have we not heard of that happening before, a few decades ago?

    • 0

      It was set up by the Howard Costello Government to fund their super so I doubt they would jeopardize their gravy train. If they are so worried about the high fees regulate them. Maybe there was some actions to be taken from the Royal Commission into the financial and Banking sectors.

  8. 0

    Every time the government produces a scheme to add money to peoples ability to by housing, the price of housing goes up. I have seen this happen again and again over the 40 years I have been in Australia.

  9. 0

    So young ones take out super to fund a home. Sounds plausible until you realise this demographic won’t get a pension. So how are they supposed to live then????

  10. 0

    At last, a suggestion that actually maked sense! Whilst I agree that retirement on the aged pension is very difficult, retirement on just the aged pension whilst having to pay rent is even more difficult. Any scheme which allows young families to acquire an appreciating asset, rather than keep paying escalating rents, must be worthy of consideration. If they retire owning their own home (and have little to nothing in superannuation) they at least have something that they can reverse mortgage if they wish!

    • 0

      That is what fathers told their sons in the 60s, Sceptic. They were right then and I believed in the endeavour but that was before means and asset testing started. Buying a house you anchor yourself in and when the Govt changes the rules, as it often does, your are on your own. Love to see some certainty back for our young.

Load More Comments



continue reading


Do you really need breakfast? Or three meals a day?

Is nothing sacred? Nine lifestyle writer Sarah Berry says we don't need three meals a day to be healthy. Older...


How to spot the signs of stroke and reduce your risk

Strokes might be something we tend to associate most with older generations, but some figures are painting a different story...


Who needs a colonoscopy most? Ensuring those at risk head the queue

Professor Jon EmeryMary was 55 when she started having on and off tummy pains, and noticed she needed to go...


Extraordinary facts about snakes

From their forked tongues to their slit-like pupils, there's something about snakes we humans often find unsettling. Maybe it's the...

Finance News

What is the value of your time?

A perceived lack of time is one of the biggest factors affecting our sense of wellbeing, according to research conducted...

Aged Care

Is the government considering a new tax to fund aged care?

If we learnt anything in the short time since the monumental aged care royal commission report was released last week,...

Age Pension

How to sell excess land and keep the Age Pension

Kathy wants to know whether selling excess land can stop someone from receiving the pension. Q. KathyA friend of mine...


Pelvic floor exercises and other bladder myths

So you’ve done pelvic floor exercises for most of your life – as your doctor advised. And that means you...