Albanese's wish list for our hard-earned superannuation is a much more serious threat than anything Pauline Hanson is proposing

By PETER VAN ONSELEN, POLITICAL EDITOR, AUSTRALIA Published: 02:43, 17 August 2026 | Updated: 02:43, 17 August 2026 Pauline Hanson is right about at least one thing when it comes to your super… it is your super. It's your money, that you earned and saved. It's certainly not Albanese's 'national asset', as he's described it, to be dragooned into whatever 'nation building' investments he wants extra money tipped into. Hanson has ignited the latest round of debate about superannuation, arguing that Australians under genuine financial pressure should have greater access to their retirement savings, including to help them buy a home. Australians 'doing it tough' and struggling with mortgages should be given 'their money now,' she argues. Treasurer Jim Chalmers responded with the usual rhetorical overkill, unable or unwilling to engage in a serious discussion: 'One Nation wants to destroy the compulsory superannuation system,' he thundered. Except that Hanson has made it clear that she isn't proposing to abolish compulsory super. She simply wants the access rules loosened in limited circumstances. Chalmers is attacking the most radical version of an argument Hanson isn't making, presumably because doing so is easier than debating the proposal she is actually putting forward. I say this as an unabashed supporter of compulsory superannuation. I've had many interesting and productive discussions over the years with the original architect of Australia's superannuation system, former PM Paul Keating. I've praised Keating in print and on television for his pioneering embrace of compulsory super, and he's welcomed my staunch defence of its value when some policymakers have sought to end or crimp it. Pauline Hanson has ignited the latest round of debate about super, arguing that Australians under genuine financial pressure should have greater access to their retirement savings The compulsory contribution rate has now reached 12 per cent, which is a good thing. There is value in pushing that rate steadily higher too, so that a lifetime of savings into super can help more Australians fund their own retirements. The more Australians save during their working lives, the less pressure there is on future taxpayers via the Aged Pension. Australia is a world leader in this field. Our retirement system places seventh among 52 systems according to the latest Mercer global index. Compulsory super has built an extraordinary pool of national savings, worth a staggering $4.5 trillion. Which is also why Albo wants to get his grubby little hands on it and direct where and how it gets invested. That's a terrible idea, and a much bigger threat to super than anything Hanson is proposing. The sole purpose of super should be to maximise its value for its real owners, us. The Reserve Bank says super has historically supported financial stability, which of course is also a good thing. Funds have long investment horizons, little leverage and a steady flow of contributions. During market sell-offs they've often bought assets when other investors have fled, dampening rather than magnifying falling values, also taking advantage of the upside of those assets over the longer term. Super supplies capital to Australian companies, banks and infrastructure. It's an underappreciated strength of our economy, but the tail can't wag the dog as Albo seems to want it to, by letting politicians dictate where and how funds invest. Which isn't to suggest there aren't other ways super can be tinkered with, in the best interests of its real owners. Supporting compulsory super doesn't require treating every preservation rule as divinely ordained. Think about a low-income worker who has spent years trying to save a deposit for a house while simultaneously renting, paying bills and paying taxes. For many there's barely anything left to build a deposit. Labor's proprietorial attitude towards super is real, and it's also proven more than willing to break promises that affect people's retirement planning, writes Peter van Onselen Yet they can open their super statement and see $50,000 or $100,000 or perhaps even more saved and sitting there, unable to be touched. It's their largest asset and could get them into a modest home years earlier, making mortgage repayments manageable. Yet it's locked away until they hit 65 years of age and stop working. But does that really have to be the case? The government effectively says 'it's your money, but you can't use it to secure a roof over your head.' In contrast Hanson is now saying workers sacrificing that money 'in lieu of pay' should be able to access it in defined circumstances, one of which is to help them buy a home. Labor can quibble over the wording, but compulsory employer contributions aren't a gift that falls from the sky. They are wages each of us earns, as part of our total remuneration package. Home ownership is also an important part of people's retirement. Treasury describes voluntary savings, including home ownership, as one of the three pillars of Australia's retirement income system's success. Yet home ownership is increasingly out of reach for many Australians, in a way not envisaged when Keating introduced compulsory super. A retiree who owns a home outright is generally more secure than one with a larger super balance who must keep paying rent. Why should a diversified share portfolio count as retirement savings, but equity in the roof over your head does not? This is a serious debate worth having. One Nation's emerging housing policy is more sophisticated than simply letting people raid their super accounts, as Chalmers' callow commentary would suggest. Hanson is therefore onto something, and she's right when she insists it's our money, not the government's, writes PVO Hanson's approach would let a super fund invest part of a member's balance as equity in their principal home. When (or if) it gets sold, the fund receives its share of the proceeds, lifting what remains in the owner's super balance. The money remains a retirement asset, it simply becomes a registered stake in the super member's home. I think many Australians would welcome such a scheme. It would give them more choices and more options. The Coalition took a similar 'Super Home Buyer Scheme' to the 2022 and 2025 elections. It allowed for up to 40 per cent of a balance, capped at $50,000, with the amount and its proportional capital gain or loss returned to super when the home gets sold. It's not a bad investment, given that capital gains on the family home aren't taxed. The specifics of the One Nation plan are yet to be spelled out. But there are other options as to how super might be utilised to help people get into the property market earlier. For example, a portion of super could be used as collateral for a deposit while the balance remains invested, only being called upon if the borrower defaults. A paper presented at a 2025 research conference estimated that the median first home buyer's combined super was equal to around 92 per cent of their saved deposit. Accessing it could bring a purchase forward by at least three years if not sooner, without sacrificing investment returns. My preferred model would be tightly controlled. It would only apply to a first home used as the buyer's principal place of residence, not an investment property. There would need to be a cap and a minimum diversified balance. The fund would hold a legal equity interest or charge, with the money returning to conventional super investments when the home was sold or refinanced. Put simply, no cheque would land in the member's everyday bank account. That really would undermine compulsory super. A fund's stake in an owner-occupied home wouldn't earn rent, obviously, so its return would in essence be limited to capital growth. And it would be less diversified and less liquid than typical super investments, which can carry risks. For some members that will mean a lower retirement balance than leaving every dollar in a conventional balanced fund. But the household gets earlier home ownership, pays less rent, and gets the benefit of a sense of greater security with a smaller mortgage to service as well. Surely tax-paying, income-earning adults should be allowed to weigh up these pros and cons when making a decision about their own hard-earned super savings? In situations of genuine financial hardship, such freedom of choice feels like even more of a no-brainer. Current super laws already permit early access to super in very narrow and limited circumstances, including severe financial hardship, for extreme medical costs and to help prevent a home from being repossessed. But the bar is very high and the assistance usually comes when it's too late or at crisis point. Access to super savings for routine consumption would drain balances and increase future reliance on the pension, pushing up costs on the budget. But that's not what Hanson is arguing for. Giving buyers more money without building more homes also risks pushing up prices, so any scheme must sit alongside aggressive supply-side reforms too. These are design challenges underlining the complexity of the policy area; they aren't reasons to ban the discussion altogether, as Labor wants to do. And let's call a spade a spade here: Labor and the unions have permanently infiltrated big super, meaning that their self-interest is wrapped up in preventing debates about ways in which the sector might operate more effectively for the benefit for ordinary Australians.  Labor's proprietorial attitude towards super is real, and it's also proven more than willing to break promises that affect people's retirement planning. Don't forget, before the 2022 election, Albo promised there would be no changes to super. Within a year of winning government, however, he announced a new tax on large balances. He then spent years redesigning the backflip, at one point proposing to tax unrealised gains, before legislating a revised regime after the outcry. Whatever the merits of taxing very large balances more heavily, the lesson is that super rules can be rewritten at the drop of a hat, which makes it harder to rely on the existing rules when planning for retirement. Now Albo has even started to refer to our saved super as 'a national asset' that could be used not just for individual investors and retirees, but for the nation writ large. Excuse me? It's a chilling development. Super isn't a slush fund for national projects that Albo would like to see built, such as his beloved fast trains up and down the east coast he's often mused about. Would you trust politicians to decide which investments are likely to maximise your super returns? I wouldn't trust them to manage a chook raffle much less my super! We are talking about a class of people who have racked up a trillion dollars of national debt and can't seem to balance the budget. With government spending also at record levels, the political class don't exactly scream competent financial management do they? Compulsory super is absolutely worth keeping, but it's also worth debating the form it might take. I certainly wouldn't turn it into an ATM for ordinary living expenses, but allowing a struggling first home buyer to deploy a controlled portion of their super into a home, while still preserving it as a retirement asset, is absolutely a debate worth having. It just might be good policy. Hanson is therefore onto something, and she's right when she insists it's our money, not the government's. Chalmers can defend the status quo with all the self-interest he can muster, and Albo can jealously admire the size of super. But just remember, neither of them owns a cent of it.