One Nation has unveiled a major shake-up of Australia’s superannuation system, proposing to let workers paying rent or a mortgage redirect part of their future compulsory super contributions into their bank accounts for up to three years.
Under the policy announced by One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson on Monday, eligible Australians would be able to take the equivalent of 3 per cent of their wages from future employer super contributions as additional take-home income, while the remaining 9 per cent would continue accumulating for retirement.
Employers would still be required to make the full 12 per cent compulsory super contribution, with the worker’s superannuation fund responsible for redirecting the elected portion to their nominated bank account.
The proposal is aimed squarely at households struggling with mortgages, rents and other living expenses and immediately opens a political fight over whether Australians should sacrifice some future retirement savings to ease financial pressure today.
“People are working hard and still struggling to get ahead,” Hanson said in announcing the policy.
“Interest rates keep rising. Rents keep climbing. Groceries, power bills, petrol and insurance are taking more and more out of the family budget.”
“One Nation wants to give people some breathing room.”
How the 3 per cent plan would work
The proposal would be voluntary and apply only to future superannuation contributions. Workers would not be permitted to withdraw their existing super balance.
A worker who opts in would effectively split their 12 per cent employer contribution:
- 9 per cent would remain in super
- 3 per cent would be redirected to the worker
- The arrangement could operate for a maximum of 36 months
- The worker could end the arrangement earlier
- Changing jobs or super funds would not restart the three-year entitlement.
The diverted amount would retain the concessional tax treatment it would ordinarily receive within super. One Nation says that for most workers this would mean a 15 per cent tax rate, rather than having the payment taxed again as ordinary salary.
Australia’s compulsory Super Guarantee rate is currently 12 per cent.
Hanson said the policy was about giving Australians greater control over their own money.
“If you are doing it tough now, paying a mortgage or rent, you should have the choice to use some of your own money to help stay afloat,” she said.
Who would qualify?
According to One Nation’s policy document, the option would be available to Australians receiving compulsory super who are paying either rent or a mortgage on the home in which they live.
Investment properties would not qualify.
Eligibility would be established directly with a person’s super fund using evidence such as a lease, rental statement or mortgage statement.
The party says a husband, wife or partner who genuinely contributes towards household rent or mortgage payments could also qualify even if their name was not formally listed on the lease or mortgage.
Super funds, rather than employers, would administer the scheme.
Under the proposal, employers would continue making their normal contributions and would not need to know whether an employee had elected to receive the 3 per cent payment.
Hanson says worker on $90,500 could get $44 extra a week
One Nation estimates a median full-time worker earning $90,500 could receive about $2,300 a year after the proposed concessional tax treatment, equivalent to roughly $44 a week.
For a couple earning a combined $168,000, the party estimates the benefit at about $4,300 annually, or $82 a week.
An individual earning $120,000 could receive approximately $3,060 a year, while a household earning a combined $240,000 could receive about $6,120 annually under the party’s calculations.
Those estimates broadly correspond with the mechanics of redirecting three percentage points of wages and applying the proposed 15 per cent tax treatment.
Hanson said the money could make a tangible difference to households struggling with everyday expenses.
“That’s a real boost to help you pay the rent or the mortgage, leaving more room for groceries, power bills and the costs of raising a family,” she said.
“Your existing super won’t be touched. Not one dollar.”
One Nation MP and Treasury spokesperson Barnaby Joyce has thrown his support behind the proposal, arguing the retirement system should recognise the immediate financial pressures confronting households.
“There’s no point telling a family they’ll be better off in retirement if they can’t afford the mortgage or their rent payment today,” Joyce said.
“A good retirement starts with keeping a roof over your head.”
Joyce also challenged the government’s approach to superannuation, arguing workers should have greater control over money held on their behalf.
“Labor calls your money in super a ‘national asset’. Jim Chalmers wants to treat it like it is his, when it most definitely is yours,” he said.
Speaking on Monday, Joyce said the policy was fundamentally about giving people access to their own money and argued Australians were capable of assessing the trade-off between immediate financial relief and their retirement savings.
The proposal has already drawn strong criticism from the Albanese government.
Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek argued people who participated could ultimately retire with thousands of dollars less.
“It’s obvious One Nation wants you to raid your super instead of getting a pay increase,” she said.
“We support higher wages and better super when you retire.”
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has gone further, describing the proposal as a “dangerous risk” to workers’ financial security and arguing it would result in Australians having less superannuation available in retirement.
That criticism points to the central economic question surrounding the proposal: while redirecting contributions would put additional cash into household budgets immediately, workers would lose not only those contributions from their retirement accounts but also the investment returns those contributions might have earned over subsequent decades.
For younger workers in particular, the effect of lost compound returns could substantially exceed the amount initially redirected.
The Coalition has taken a more cautious position.
Deputy Liberal leader Jane Hume said the proposal deserved examination if One Nation could provide sufficient detail, while arguing that addressing inflation and government spending was a bigger part of tackling cost-of-living pressures.
“If there’s any more substance behind it, of course, everybody should be interested in looking at it and what it might mean both for your retirement and to whether you can pay your rent and pay your mortgage,” Hume said.
The debate comes amid broader political arguments over the purpose of Australia’s compulsory superannuation system and how much flexibility workers should have to use retirement savings before reaching retirement age.
Australians can already access super early in limited circumstances, including severe financial hardship and certain compassionate grounds, but the One Nation proposal would create a much broader mechanism specifically tied to housing costs.
One Nation’s proposal represents a fundamentally different approach to cost-of-living assistance.
Rather than providing a government payment or requiring employers to increase wages, it would allow workers to redirect part of money already being contributed for their retirement.
For Hanson, the argument is about choice: Australians facing financial pressure should be able to decide whether having more money today is more valuable than having a larger super balance decades later.
For critics, the concern is that cost-of-living pressures could push workers into sacrificing retirement savings when they have little practical choice.
That battle — money in Australians’ pockets today versus more money in retirement tomorrow — is now shaping up as another major dividing line in the national debate over the future of Australia’s multitrillion-dollar superannuation system.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
