One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has put forward a new policy that would let working Australians trade a slice of their future superannuation contributions for extra cash in their weekly pay packet.
The proposal is aimed squarely at easing cost-of-living pressure for renters and mortgage holders, and has sparked a fresh debate over how Australia’s compulsory super system should work.
Under the plan, anyone paying rent or a mortgage could opt to redirect a portion of their future super contributions into take-home pay, for a period of up to three years.
Employers would keep contributing the full 12 per cent superannuation guarantee as usual. Instead of all of it flowing into a worker’s super account, roughly a quarter of that contribution (around 3 percentage points) would be paid out to the worker directly through their super fund, taxed concessionally rather than at the person’s normal income tax rate.
Importantly, the scheme would not touch any super already accumulated. At least 9 per cent of ongoing contributions would continue to be paid into retirement savings as normal, and workers who don’t want to make any change could simply leave their arrangements as they are.
One Nation estimates the boost would be worth roughly $2,300 a year, or about $44 a week, for a full-time worker earning around $90,500. For a couple with a combined household income of about $168,000, the party estimates the benefit at close to $4,300 a year, or $82 a week, potentially adding up to close to $12,900 over the three-year window for eligible couples. For households feeling squeezed by rents, mortgage repayments and grocery bills, the party says this is intended as timely, practical relief.
The proposal has drawn a mixed response across the political spectrum. Nationals figure Barnaby Joyce backed the idea, arguing it is workers’ own money and they should have a say over how it’s used, particularly if they’re under financial strain.
Fellow party figures have echoed Hanson’s view that existing hardship provisions for early super access are too restrictive and complicated to navigate, suggesting a simpler option could genuinely help households doing it tough.
Labor has taken a more cautious view, with Treasurer Jim Chalmers and frontbencher Tanya Plibersek raising concerns that dipping into super now, even temporarily, could mean less money and less financial security later in life.
Hanson has pushed back on suggestions that One Nation wants to dismantle the super system, stressing that the party’s goal is to give people more flexibility during financial hardship, not to scrap compulsory super altogether.
She also addressed Treasurer Chalmers’ concerns directly on social media writing, “perhaps if you hadn’t so thoroughly buggered the economy, Jim, they wouldn’t need (to supplement wages with a portion of their super). And there’s nothing more anti-worker than presiding over four years of falling real wages.”
This proposal sits within a wider conversation currently taking place about the future of superannuation. Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg has separately argued that compulsory super hasn’t fully delivered on its original aim of reducing reliance on the Age Pension, and has called for a broader rethink of how the system works.
Hanson has also previously floated the idea of allowing super to be used as a deposit for a first home, with a proportional share of any eventual sale proceeds returned to the fund.
For those already retired or nearing retirement, the proposal itself would not apply. It targets future contributions from current workers, not existing balances, so retirees’ own super and pension arrangements remain unaffected.
Still, the discussion has wider relevance for the long-term health and public trust in the superannuation system, which now holds more than $4 trillion in national retirement savings.
Older Australians with family members currently working, paying rent or managing a mortgage, may find the policy directly relevant to their household’s day-to-day budget, even if their own nest egg isn’t part of the equation.
It’s also a useful moment for families to have a broader conversation about balancing near-term financial pressure with long-term retirement planning, and to consider what options already exist for accessing super early in cases of genuine hardship.
The policy hasn’t yet been legislated and would need support beyond One Nation’s own numbers in parliament to move forward. How it develops will likely become clearer as the major parties set out their own positions on cost of living and retirement policy in the lead-up to the next federal election.
