Overview of How One Nation made super a political battleground
This ABC News Daily episode examines One Nation’s new proposal to let Australians under housing stress access part of their superannuation early, and why that has reignited a national debate about retirement savings, housing affordability, inflation, and whether super should be used as a short-term cost-of-living fix. Political strategist and pollster Cos Samaras argues the policy may be more politically useful as a message than as a workable solution, and warns that both One Nation and parts of the Coalition risk alienating voters by repeatedly framing super as a source of easy cash.
What One Nation is proposing
The policy, in brief
- Employers would still pay the full 12% super guarantee into workers’ accounts.
- Eligible renters or mortgage holders could withdraw 3% of their super.
- The withdrawn amount would be taxed at a discounted 15% rate.
- It would be available for up to three years.
- There is no hardship threshold.
The pitch
- Pauline Hanson framed it as a cost-of-living relief measure.
- One Nation says it could help people keep a roof over their head and avoid housing loss.
- The party argues Australians are under severe pressure and need access to their own money now.
Why the idea is controversial
Superannuation vs. immediate relief
- Critics say the policy trades short-term cash flow for lower retirement savings later.
- The episode highlights the basic tension:
- more money now for housing stress,
- versus less money in retirement.
Inflation concerns
- Economists and the super sector warned the proposal could be inflationary.
- The concern is that money withdrawn from super would not stay limited to rent or mortgages and could instead increase demand and prices more broadly.
- Cos Samaras said voters are likely to understand the basic logic that putting more money into the system can make inflation worse.
Political strategy and voter reaction
Who One Nation is targeting
- Samaras says One Nation is increasingly appealing to:
- people in their late 40s, 50s, and early 60s,
- those still carrying large mortgages,
- renters worried about housing insecurity,
- voters who feel the political system has ignored them.
Why the policy may not resonate
- He argues the intended audience may not actually love the idea of raiding super.
- Many of these voters worry they may still be paying off debt when they reach retirement age.
- He says they are likely to see the policy as asking them to pay for an economic problem they did not create.
A broader anti-political-class message
- Samaras suggests One Nation benefits from a narrative that mainstream parties make voters pay for systemic failures.
- But he also warns that repeated superannuation proposals could backfire because Australians may be tired of politicians “playing with” their retirement savings.
Responses from Labor and the Coalition
Labor’s attack line
- Treasurer Jim Chalmers condemned the proposal as an attempt to end superannuation as we know it.
- Labor framed One Nation as anti-worker and said the policy would damage retirement incomes.
Coalition ambiguity
- The Coalition’s response was mixed:
- Angus Taylor was initially skeptical and questioned the detail.
- Andrew Bragg later said the Coalition was reviewing ideas such as:
- using super to offset a mortgage,
- using super as collateral for a bigger loan.
- A Liberal spokesperson later denied there was any formal policy yet.
Why this matters politically
- The episode argues Labor has a clear advantage if the debate is framed as:
- retirement security vs. reckless access to savings.
- The Coalition is in a more awkward position because it risks looking too close to One Nation if it copies its policy themes.
Broader political pattern
One Nation shaping the agenda
- The episode notes a pattern where One Nation has pushed ideas that the Coalition later echoes, including:
- cutting tobacco excise,
- criminalising flag burning,
- locking in January 26 as Australia Day.
The Coalition’s challenge
- Samaras says if the Coalition doesn’t clearly distinguish itself from One Nation, it may confirm to voters that it is no different from the party they already moved toward.
- That would make it harder for the Coalition to win back economically disaffected voters.
Main takeaways
- One Nation is using superannuation as a political wedge in a cost-of-living debate.
- The policy may be popular as a slogan but is economically and politically risky.
- Critics say it could:
- reduce retirement savings,
- worsen inflation,
- fail to address the root causes of housing stress.
- The episode suggests Australians want real economic solutions, not repeated raids on their super.
Notable insight
- Cos Samaras’ central point is that voters are increasingly frustrated with “band-aid” politics:
- politicians keep proposing ways for people to spend their own savings,
- instead of fixing the deeper housing and cost-of-living problems.