Using super for a housing deposit would make homes more expensive, hinder the home ownership aspirations of young Australians, reduce retirement incomes, and lead to a significant long-term cost to the Budget, a Corinna Economic Advisory report authored by Saul Eslake has found.
In an independent report, commissioned by the Super Members Council, Mr Eslake charts how a long list of demand-side Australian housing policies over several decades have simply made homes more expensive.
He warns super for a house would be the worst of all.
“We have 60 years of history, which unambiguously tells us, anything that allows Australians to pay more for housing than they otherwise could leads to more expensive housing and not more homeowners,” he said.
“Of all the demand-fuelling housing policies, the Coalition’s super for housing policy would be the biggest – it can only lead to higher prices.”
“If super for house was introduced, it would be one of the worst public policy decisions in the last six decades.”
Mr Eslake said the decline in home ownership rates could undermine a key assumption in Australia’s retirement system – that most retirees will own their own home – and noted the need to expand housing supply.
However, the Coalition’s ‘Super Home Buyer Scheme’ under which people would be allowed to withdraw up to 40% of their superannuation savings up to a maximum of $50,000, would likely hinder home ownership aspirations for younger Australians.
The Corinna Economic Advisory report points to 17 years of evidence from a similar New Zealand scheme to back its findings. New Zealand’s KiwiSaver allows for withdrawal for home deposits, but since its introduction home ownership rates have declined by 2.1 per cent overall and by 5.7 per cent for people in their early 30s.
“Advice given by New Zealand’s Treasury said the benefit of KiwiSaver would go to sellers in a supply-constrained market, and that’s exactly what has occurred. There are fewer homeowners since the scheme’s introduction,” Mr Eslake said.
“In New Zealand, house price spikes coincide with periods in which the volumes of withdrawals from KiwiSaver accounts have rapidly risen.”
The need to carry additional cash has also harmed returns for KiwiSaver members, meaning it has returned less than the Australian MySuper members for the last 10 years. This difference in investment returns could mean $130,000 less at retirement.
Analysis of super balances also shows the scheme would heavily favour older and wealthier non-homeowners.
- The median non-home-owning couple both aged between 35 and 44 would be able to add almost $38,500 to their deposit, which with borrowing could allow them to spend $192,500 more
- The median couple aged between 45 and 65, if they had not previously bought a home, could spend $400,000 more
- Compared to the median couple aged between 25-34, this archetypical home buying age could only withdraw $18,000 – leading to a $90,000 higher purchase price.
In fact, 78% of single Australians aged between 25-34 could not withdraw more than $20,000 under the scheme.
“It would do little for the people who are most in need of assistance in order to become homeowners and would do most for those who need it least,” Mr Eslake said.
“And depending on the number of homeowners who accessed the scheme, the impact on prices could be far greater than first homeowner grants.”
The scheme would also lead to those who used the scheme retiring with less super and having to be more reliant on the taxpayer-funded age pension.
Mr Eslake added one solution will not solve Australia’s housing crisis – instead we must focus on boosting the supply of housing – and, in particular, ‘affordable’ housing.
“Super for housing would just make the affordability crisis worse.”
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Well, then! Let’s do exactly that!
Another brilliant stroke by fucknuckle Dutton and the ‘worlds best economic’ managers.Up there with the nuclear boondoggle.Albanese has been mediocre,the other rabble are still much, much worse.Bucket mouth Taylor as the alternative Treasurer?What could possibly go wrong?
This fits in ?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/explained-the-governments-stalled-housing-agenda-and-why-the-greens-are-opposing-it/wnvzf1i2u
Housing is being used as Trojan horse to nobble super as it will produce well funded and empowered retirees from ’30s onwards, along with union super funds…
Locally median house values have stagnated in past decade, apartment values and prices worse; one guesses a linkage with the permanent population’s (last symptom of high fertility) boomer ‘bomb’ (5+ million) in or transitioning to retirement, joining oldies for a crowded retirement cohort (but let’s blame international students by mislabelling as ‘immigrants’).
Arnd, yep, that’s what we will do. Super is already a disaster in the making, lets fuck it up even more. When you design a system to do one thing badly, why not mix it up with another disaster……what could possibly go wrong.
The policy of making it a political weapon has dug a hole for itself and now the solution is to deep deeper.
After all, the politization of problems and finding stupid solutions to overcome self made lies is the root of our dilemmas. Dont you love Liberals.
Onya, Andy! That’s the spirit!
(Apologies for my brevity, but I’ve tapped out a number of long posts elsewhere on this site. And I’m just so, so tired of this institutionalised fuckwittery – on both sides of politics!)
Good idea Arnd. Might as well throw the kitchen sink at destroying affordability now that the destination is in sight – national bankruptcy as the result of Team Dutton being on the same wavelength as Team Albo. The UnaParty has spent decades buiding up legislation against a situation where there’d be an adequate supply of affordable homes. They prefer greater quantities of private & national debt, because of their personal IP portfolios.
Despite the efforts (or non-efforts) by the LNP, the knots in superannuation administration are being ironed out.
The biggest grafters of superannuation are SMEs and the wealthy – the grafting behavior of both are being attended to currently by change to legislation and regulation. The LNP, on principle, hates superannuation, the principle that prols need to be kept as a pool for exploitation only by the wealthy, and ought not have access to equity or the fruits of the ‘big boy’s’ markets.
The influence of superannuation is increasingly having an effect on ‘markets’ by ‘keeping the bastards honest’. As yet, it appears that govts don’t leverage superannuation funds sufficiently in public projects, where it could help engender a circular economy against the wiles and entrapments of the mega-giant private investment accumulators.
The Duttonate’s ‘Super Home Buyer Scheme’ is a con job on their targeted voters of the poorer and less informed, and of course aids their long term aim of smashing superannuation.