Homeownership vs. retirement savings: Debate over superannuation access heats up

The Australian dream of owning a home has become increasingly elusive for many, particularly as the housing market soars and the cost of living bites harder into our budgets.

However, a radical proposal from Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg could change the game for countless Australians struggling with mortgage repayments.

The suggestion? Allow Aussies to withdraw their entire superannuation balance to pay off their mortgage.


This bold idea is a response to the current housing affordability crisis and the rising cost of living, which is leaving many Australians feeling the pinch.

The Coalition had previously campaigned to allow first-time homebuyers to withdraw up to $50,000 from their super for a mortgage deposit.

However, Senator Bragg is pushing the envelope further, proposing that Australians be allowed to use their entire super balance to achieve the dream of home ownership sooner.


1722902162405.png
Senator Bragg proposes using superannuation to pay off mortgages. Credit: Shutterstock


The proposal comes as the average borrower has been shelling out an additional $19,000 annually on their mortgage since the Labor government took office in May 2022.

‘There are many Australians who have a decent-sized super balance that they would like to offset on their mortgage which would reduce their interest payments and get them closer to home ownership,’ Senator Bragg explained.

‘There's a range of ways this could be achieved from full withdrawal through to being held in a legislated offset account.’

‘One of the things that worries me is you've got people forced to pay high fees to their super fund and simultaneously pay high interest to a bank.'


Those in arrears or default have limited options, as current severe hardship rules restrict immediate access to superannuation funds.

Senator Bragg, the Opposition's home ownership spokesman, believes that the key to a successful retirement is not necessarily the size of one's superannuation balance but instead their home ownership status.

‘It's a highly rigid system. I just don't buy this idea that we have to force everyone into a straitjacket,’ he continued.

‘If the Bank of Mum and Dad is now going to be determining housing outcomes, we're in very dangerous territory.’

‘Increasingly, we're seeing housing outcomes dictated by parental wealth, and that's very bad. I'd say that's very un-Australian.’

‘Where super comes in, absent the Bank of Mum and Dad, this is likely to be people's biggest source of capital.'


He cited the example of a homeowner in their 40s with an average mortgage of $600,000, suggesting that using $200,000 from super to offset the loan could significantly reduce interest payments and fast-track the journey to outright home ownership.

The Senate Economics Committee is currently exploring this idea, with a report from the 'Improving consumer experiences, choice, and outcomes in Australia’s retirement system' inquiry expected soon.

An interim report has already floated the concept of a mortgage offset account linked to super, allowing borrowers to use their retirement savings for monthly repayments, thereby preserving their bank savings.

While the idea may seem attractive, especially to those feeling the squeeze of high mortgage repayments, it has its critics.

Labour has opposed early super access, arguing that it could deplete retirement savings and increase elderly dependence on the age pension.


The Reserve Bank's series of interest rate rises have only added to the urgency of finding a solution, with monthly mortgage repayments on an average of $600,000 loan jumping by 68 per cent.

The debate is set against the backdrop of a growing superannuation sector valued at $3.5 trillion, which the current government argues is essential for ensuring a dignified retirement.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has expressed concerns that early access to super could harm long-term retirement savings.

‘The last decade saw the former government raid the superannuation system for its own purposes with a devastating impact on the savings of millions of Australians,' he said.

'Legislating an objective of super will help prevent this happening again.'


Senator Bragg, however, counters that the Labor government's ties to union-dominated industry super funds may be influencing their stance against exploring early super access.

'Labor doesn't care about the workers. What they care about are the donations they receive from unions and the super funds,' he replied.

‘The idea that super makes a massive difference to pension is false,’

‘For younger people who want individual agency, this is a practical policy,’

‘It's also a policy that helps protect the Budget over the longer term.’


In related news, a woman explained how Australians can receive a government contribution of up to $500 for their superannuation by making a personal after-tax contribution of $1,000.

The Super Co-contribution Scheme provides 50 cents for every dollar contributed, up to a maximum of $500, specifically for low—and middle-income earners. More information is available here.
Key Takeaways
  • Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg suggests Australians should be allowed to withdraw their entire superannuation balance to help pay off their mortgages.
  • The proposal comes as the opposition considers making this an election issue amidst rising mortgage costs and the cost-of-living crisis.
  • A Senate economics committee is exploring the idea, and an inquiry report is expected soon. Discussions include allowing mortgage offset accounts linked to super funds.
  • Labor opposes the early withdrawal of superannuation, arguing it would deplete retirement savings and increase dependency on the age pension.
What do you think about using your super to pay off your mortgage? Is home ownership the ultimate retirement security, or should super be preserved for later years? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
 
Sponsored
It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. When people retire they might own their house (or maybe still have a mortgage) then have only a state pension to live on. Good luck with that! You can't buy food and pay the bills with a house.
Such a move might also further inflate the housing market.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be irresponsible if homeowners were able to access all of their super. It will never be replaced and retirement will be more of a struggle than life is now. Always looking for easy options. You need to think why superannuation was brought about to start with and now you want to allow people to dip in early or wipe it out entirely. Unbelievable
 
What an idiot so people use all their super to get their house we are the Liberal government going to up the pension age so no one can get it or are they going to up the pension so people can live in their homes with no super to pay their bills and live comfortably I think not lobotomised fool 🤔🤬
 
With sensible limits on the type of home you can use super to buy or pay off, this would be a sensible reform. Super is useless if you don't have a home. Take the example of a couple in their early 50s still renting, but with $800,000 between them in super. By retirement, they will have well in excess of a million dollars, but will have paid out close to a million in rent. They can then buy a house that will likely cost them all of their super and leave them to draw a pension. If allowed to buy now, they can buy for maybe $750-$800K and still have some super and another 17 years to add to their retirement nest egg. They can save a lot more in the next 17 years because they are not paying rent.
Of course, they should NOT be allowed to buy a lavish home. They should be restricted to a basic dwelling or to drawing a limited amount of their super. But the current system is patently STUPID. It just forces people who can't afford to pay off a home to pay an exorbitant price for a home or continue to rent and be hard up in retirement. Only the non-thinking would think hoarding money in super while not having a home is sensible.
 
That would be great, but if you are leaving the family home to the kids, the gov would have to increase the pension, as even with cost of living expenses, ie a caravan park or youcamp eats up a vast percentage of what you have. If you are single the fees are the same and there is nothing left to live on.
 
As I understand, Super was bought to ultimately replace the age pension in effect you fund your own retirement without any assistance from government. Of course eventually they found out that were billions of dollars they couldn't touch, so then they started scheming on how they could their filthy on it. However If anybody can draw down on an amount for a mortgage, then I hope they stipulate that cash payment goes directly to the loan PRINCIPLE otherwise most of it will be lost on interest costs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ezzy
What an idiot so people use all their super to get their house we are the Liberal government going to up the pension age so no one can get it or are they going to up the pension so people can live in their homes with no super to pay their bills and live comfortably I think not lobotomised fool 🤔🤬
Where did you learn economics? I have a reasonably healthy super balance - enough that I don't qualify for any pension. If I had to pay rent, I would not be able to live on the income from my super and within 5 years I would be on a pension. How patently STUPID to think super is more benefit in retirement than a home! Who are the retirees struggling now and costing the govt money. THE RENTERS!
I am well off in retirement BECAUSE I bought and paid off a home before even thinking of saving for retirement. After 15 years of paying off my home, my accommodation cost was a very small portion of my income - a tiny fraction of what rent would have been costing me - so I was able to start saving for my old age.
 
It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. When people retire they might own their house (or maybe still have a mortgage) then have only a state pension to live on. Good luck with that! You can't buy food and pay the bills with a house.
Such a move might also further inflate the housing market.
Actually, if you own your home you can manage okay on the pension. It's the renters who are struggling in retirement and costing the government money. It is patently STUPID to prioritize retirement savings over a home of your own. You might retire with a little more - not much more, because rent is crippling even when you are working - but then in retirement you are either paying a huge amount for accommodation or having to draw your super to buy a house at 4 times the cost your could have purchased it for if allowed to access super earlier.
 
On the surface it appears that by reducing your mortgage that your stress will be diminished. Consider, the current mortgage rate is around 6% whilst the average default super is 8% in a good super fund. There's talk of mortgage rates reducing in the near future which will increase to the gap of cost to savings.
 
Personally, I think if a couple have a proven rental record of always paying on time over many years, that should be deposit enough. The bank can always on sell the house to retrieve their money.
 
This beat up of interest rates is ridiculous. The point is Rates should never have benn allowed to get so low that buyers bought twice the house they could really afford. Never a beatup of where that cheap money came from. Some came from self funded retirees getting next to zero on savings/super while at the other end buyers are able to spend double and now they are in trouble. letting super pay is wrong because there will always be the ones that draw super to pay for a more expensive house and so the cycle goes. PLEASE let us have a beat up of the retirees living off next to zero interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marni
What an idiot so people use all their super to get their house we are the Liberal government going to up the pension age so no one can get it or are they going to up the pension so people can live in their homes with no super to pay their bills and live comfortably I think not lobotomised fool 🤔🤬
What kind of idiot thinks it's better to have money in super than a home of your own? I retired self-funded with a comfortable amount of super, but if I had to pay rent I would be on a pension and rent assistance within 10 years after retirement. Anyone who owns their home outright CAN live on the aged pension. And if it were possible to buy a home earlier in one's working life, accommodation costs would be much lower later on and people could then save for retirement as well as having the security of a home. Instead, they pay well over a million in rent, then have to pay 4 -6 times the price for a home after they retire. That's DUMB!
 
  • Like
Reactions: midgemills
Will the pension still be available. I believed super was to replace the pension.
What do people want..... for their employers to pay for their homes and the gov to pay for their old age.
Life isn't easy but you just need to prioritise.
Super can never replace the pension, ESPECIALLY if people can't afford a home. A home is far better security in retirement than super. It's the renters costing the country money and whining about living in poverty!
Let people access super to buy a very modest home, and then their accommodation costs fall over time and they can start loading up their super again with the savings. Currently, they are paying well over a million in rent, then spending their super on retirement to buy a home at 6 times the price they could have bought it if allowed to use super earlier. Then they have to rely on the government in retirement because they weren't allowed to use their money sensibly earlier in life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midgemills
Super can never replace the pension, ESPECIALLY if people can't afford a home. A home is far better security in retirement than super. It's the renters costing the country money and whining about living in poverty!
Let people access super to buy a very modest home, and then their accommodation costs fall over time and they can start loading up their super again with the savings. Currently, they are paying well over a million in rent, then spending their super on retirement to buy a home at 6 times the price they could have bought it if allowed to use super earlier. Then they have to rely on the government in retirement because they weren't allowed to use their money sensibly earlier in life.
Oi! Rely on the Government? They rely on todays Taxpayers to fund the Pension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marni
Well another bright mind to the front, to me sounds like the super ,being paid off loans, is a reciept for more people on pensions as they get older, i have always had a sneeky suspision that govt wants to do away with aged pensions so more money can be given to the greedy?.these people on over !25,00.00/ year should try living on $20,000,00 / year, its a real surprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ezzy
All the people saying here they purchased a long time ago and now can live on the pension are missing the simple fact that houses are many multiple more expensive than they were before. Sure if you bought your home in the 70s 80s you could have paid it off by now and possibly saved for retirement at the same time through Super. This policy from the LNP is completely lacking in sense for the economy as a whole .Firstly allowing people to draw on their super would put a rocket ship under prices the whole property market more inequitable and basically leading to more of the same, people not getting into houses. Secondly having money drawn from Super balances where at present it is typically invested in Balanced funds that invest across many Investment classes and funnelling the money in to property would further the already ridiculous over investment in property in this country to the detriment of industry and the economy as a whole. Lastly the main reason that the LNP want to do this is cynical and political, to undermine the influence of Industry Super funds not because the policy makes any economic sense. Australia has the most expensive property prices per capita in the world. All this would do would be to make that worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leoniey

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else

Latest Articles

  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×