One Nation wants to let renters and mortgage holders take money from their superannuation to boost their pay packets.
The super industry says it would be “economically disastrous” and stoke inflation and both Labor and the Liberal party have said they don’t support the policy. But economists say the superannuation system needs reform.
How does early access work?
Employers pay 12% of workers’ earnings into their super accounts, where it is taxed at just 15% instead of their personal income tax rate.
At the moment, you can only get early access to the money in your super account for a set of specific purposes. People who have been paid income support for six consecutive months and cannot pay for urgent living expenses can apply for up to $10,000 every 12 months.
The Morrison government offered broader super releases in 2020 when it let people withdraw up to $20,000 if they were in hardship due to the Covid-19 crisis. Economists found large sums withdrawn were spent on gambling and shopping, while the Super Members Council (SMC) estimated about 725,000 Australians completely emptied their accounts.
One Nation is proposing far wider access. All renters and mortgage holders would be given the option to split their 12% payments into 9% for their super account and 3% to go back to their bank account, still at the low 15% tax rate.
About two in every three Australian households are renting or have a mortgage. One Nation estimates about 7 million people would be eligible.
There would be no other conditions and the money could be spent on anything, not just housing costs. Those who opted in would only get the split payments for a maximum of three years.
How would One Nation’s proposal affect you?
One Nation says the early release would mean a full-time worker earning $90,500 a year would get about $2,300 in their pocket that would otherwise have gone to their super account. That’s $44 a week.
But the SMC has estimated a typical 30-year-old worker on that income would end up $25,000 poorer by retirement if they opted in to the One Nation plan.
Barnaby Joyce, the One Nation MP, admitted the party had not modelled what the policy would cost workers in retirement.
“I can come back tomorrow with that,” he told a News24 host on Monday.
Poorer retirees would force the government to spend more on the age pension. The SMC estimated the Covid-era withdrawals, where 3 million Australians took out nearly $38bn, would cost taxpayers up to $85bn by the end of the century.
Asked on Monday about the prospect of higher pension spending, Pauline Hanson said: “I would rather see them get that help and assistance that they need now, not later in life.”
How would it affect the economy?
More cash in workers’ pockets today could help Australians handle the cost of living. Inflation is high at 3.5%, while wage growth is falling behind at 3.2% a year. The proposal would effectively lift wages by 3%, putting income growth ahead of price rises.
But it would also mean more money flowing through the economy when the Reserve Bank is trying to take money out by lifting interest rates. Strong household spending is one of the factors expected to increase inflation.
The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia chief executive, Mary Delahunty, said the proposal would be “economically disastrous”.
“This policy would push up inflation and make people poorer in retirement,” Delahunty said.
Hanson has claimed the proposal is “neutral” on inflation.
What do political opponents say?
Jim Chalmers on Monday said the proposal was a “full-frontal attack on superannuation” and claimed it would end super “as we know it”.
Angus Taylor, the Liberal leader, said he did not want to change the way super was being paid.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions assistant secretary, Joseph Mitchell, said the proposal was the next step in Hanson’s “anti-worker” agenda.
“If Pauline Hanson wanted to help people with the cost of living, she could have backed minimum wage rises, penalty rates and safer workplaces that unions have fought for,” Mitchell said. “She voted the other way every time.”
Is super too high?
The compulsory rate of super contributions has crept up since the system was established. It sat at 9% from 2002 to 2013 and hit 12% in July 2025.
The system has generated a $4.4tn pool to fund Australians’ retirement living, reducing our reliance on the age pension. The government estimates the share of retirees receiving the full pension will fall from about 44% in 2023-24 to about 21% by 2063.
Graph: Australian retirees are expected to become less reliant on the pension
But economists have called for reform to the super system, which gives high earners big tax breaks, compounding intergenerational inequality.
The Grattan Institute estimates the current level of 12% leaves some with excess wealth and 9.5% would be enough for Australians to cover their retirement needs.
Robert Breunig, director of the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, said One Nation’s proposal would have costs: super funds would be forced to hold more assets that can be quickly sold so they can stump up cash on demand, which could mean lower returns on workers’ investments.
Early withdrawal could worsen retirement inequality, as lower-income people would probably opt in and raid their policy while high earners keep their savings and get a bigger return, Breunig said.
But the proposal was “pushing a conversation that we probably need to have” about improving the super system.
“I think it’s just forcing people to over-save relative to what’s required,” Breunig said.