The election’s getting close, and between now and polling day, we’ll be bombarded with an avalanche of sensational headlines, all designed to sway us one way or the other. They might grab attention but scratch the surface, and they often fall apart.

Take this week’s example: ‘True cost of super raids for deposits.’ The headline screams crisis. The claim? That letting first homebuyers access their super could cost taxpayers more than $1.4 billion a year by 2050 in extra age pension costs.

It sounds dramatic, but dig deeper.



The figure came from the Parliamentary Budget Office – theoretically independent – but hinges on a hypothetical 40-year-old pulling out $50,000 next year, then retiring at 67 with no attempt to rebuild their balance. That’s a shaky foundation. It gives no credit for the upside of getting into a home sooner or the wealth that can come from owning property earlier. And there’s no mention of the downsizer contribution – $300,000 into super after age 55 – which could more than make up the difference.



Labor MP and Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economics, Daniel Mulino, weighed in, warning that ‘Peter Dutton’s reckless plan to raid super will push house prices up.’ But it’s not a raid – it’s a proposal to let first homebuyers use part of their super for a deposit on the condition it’s repaid with earnings.

Yes, it may push house prices up, but every other scheme to help buyers does, too: stamp duty concessions, Labor’s shared ownership proposal, and even interest rate cuts.



Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque in diam id erat facilisis consectetur vitae vel urna.

Ut lacus libero, suscipit auctor ipsum sit amet, viverra pretium nisl. Nullam facilisis nec odio nec dapibus. Integer maximus risus et velit porttitor ullamcorper