Cost of living // Commentary
Same super.
Two very different ideas.
Pauline Hanson wants to give Australians access to their super to help with the cost of living. So do I. But how we get there matters.
A recent news.com.au report highlights modelling of One Nation’s superannuation proposal. The Super Members Council puts the long-term annual budget impact at a peak of almost $4.5 billion, through higher Age Pension costs and lower super tax receipts.
It’s a substantial figure. It’s also a projection, not a bill that’s arrived.
And it’s worth understanding what is actually being proposed.
One Nation // Spend the contributions
Pauline Hanson’s Super Pay Boost would let eligible people paying rent or a mortgage on their home receive one quarter of their future compulsory super contributions for up to three years.
The employer would still pay the full 12% into the super fund. The fund would retain nine percentage points for retirement and pay out the other three, subject to concessional tax. Existing savings would not be withdrawn.
The attraction is obvious. More money in people’s pockets when household budgets are stretched.
The trade-off is equally straightforward.
Part of each new contribution would be paid out instead of staying in super to earn returns. That means less money invested today and potentially less retirement income tomorrow.
The Super Members Council’s modelling raises the prospect of greater future Age Pension expenditure and reduced government revenue. That’s the basis of the reported $4.5 billion concern.
The difference isn’t small.
Consider two workers, each earning $90,000.
Under One Nation’s proposal, an eligible worker could receive $2,700 a year before tax: $8,100 over three years. With the proposed 15% contributions tax, that would be $2,295 a year, or $6,885 over three years.
Under my proposal, the worker’s full compulsory contributions stay in super. A payout depends instead on their existing balance, inflation-adjusted capital baseline and qualifying investment growth.
They might qualify for $10,000. They might qualify for $2,000. They might qualify for nothing.
One is tied to wages and housing eligibility. The other is tied to investment performance.
Neither is free money.
Withdrawing investment growth means that money can no longer compound inside super. My published fixed-cap example shows four $10,000 payouts leaving the account about $108,000 lower at year 20 than taking no payouts. It assumes a $100,000 starting balance, steady 8% annual returns, 2.7% CPI, $8,000 credited each year and payouts in years 3, 6, 9 and 12.
That’s a real opportunity cost, and one Australians should be able to see before making a decision. It is an illustration, not a forecast or a like-for-like costing of the two proposals.
So what about the taxpayer?
The $4.5 billion figure concerns modelling of One Nation’s particular proposal. It cannot simply be applied to another scheme with different eligibility rules, distribution limits and funding mechanics.
My proposal does not pay out compulsory contributions. It uses qualifying growth already accumulated within the member’s super.
But that doesn’t make it costless to government.
Lower retirement balances can affect future Age Pension expenditure. Tax-free distributions and reduced investment earnings would need their revenue effects costed. Administration would cost money.
That’s why the Super Growth Dividend calls for independent Treasury and actuarial modelling before implementation.
Different mechanics do not, by themselves, prove a lower taxpayer cost. Australians deserve to know what a policy costs, who benefits and what happens twenty years down the track.
This is about choice. With structure.
Compulsory super builds savings for retirement. That purpose matters.
But it doesn’t automatically follow that every dollar of investment growth must remain inaccessible throughout someone’s working life.
There’s a legitimate policy question here.
Can we allow Australians to enjoy a limited portion of their superannuation’s investment performance today, while maintaining compulsory contributions and a disciplined framework for retirement savings?
I believe it’s worth pursuing.
Not by pretending there are no trade-offs. Not by making promises the numbers haven’t earned.
By putting forward the mechanism, publishing the assumptions, seeking independent modelling and letting the evidence determine the final settings.
Hanson wants to pay out part of future contributions rather than keep them invested.
I want to retain those contributions and allow a capped share of qualifying growth to be distributed after it’s earned.
Same national conversation. Two fundamentally different approaches.
And Australians deserve to understand the difference before anyone asks for their vote.
Policy note: The Super Growth Dividend is a proposed Commonwealth reform, not an existing early-release entitlement. A Victorian MP cannot introduce it through state law. National fiscal costs and retirement outcomes require independent modelling. The examples above are illustrative, not individual financial forecasts.
Sources behind the comparison
- One Nation: Super Pay Boost, 7 September 2026. The party’s own description of eligibility, contribution flows, tax treatment and the three-year limit.
- Super Members Council: modelling release, 9 October 2026. The source of the almost $4.5 billion long-term annual peak estimate, attributed to the Council rather than a Treasury costing.
- Super Growth Dividend: proposed settings and the campaign model.
- Super Growth Dividend sources and model limits.