Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s Treasury spokesperson and Member of Parliament for New England, has acknowledged that his party has not conducted economic modelling on the impact of its proposal to allow access to superannuation funds for millions of Australians. The comments came during a series of interviews following his earlier assertion that he “was not Jesus Christ” and could not be expected to have all the answers on policy details.
One Nation’s proposal would enable around nine million households who are paying rent or a mortgage to redirect part of their compulsory superannuation contributions into their take-home pay for up to three years. Under the plan, employers would continue to contribute the full 12 percent compulsory super payment, but a portion—up to 3 percent—could be paid directly to the individual, taxed at the current concessional rate of 15 percent.
Joyce dismissed calls for detailed economic analysis of the policy’s potential effects on retirement incomes and inflation. He questioned if standard modelling applies to personally earned income, stating, “Is there an implication beyond it being their money? Do you model the money you get paid at the end of the week?” He further argued that individuals would act rationally with their super funds, suggesting most would leave their money invested unless there was an immediate financial need.
The One Nation proposal bears similarities to a policy initiative previously developed within the Liberal Party under former leader Sussan Ley. That draft policy would have allowed employees to reduce their compulsory super contributions to 9 percent, receiving the remaining 3 percent as increased wages subject to marginal tax rates, with no time limit or restriction based on housing status.
Critics have been swift to condemn One Nation’s plan. The Super Members Council, representing not-for-profit superannuation funds, warned that the average worker could lose approximately $25,000 in retirement savings if the policy were implemented. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the proposal as a threat to the foundational principle of compulsory and universal superannuation, emphasizing that diluting these rules would undermine the system.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers also criticized the approach, labeling it “an absolute shambles” and underscored that the party had failed to explain the policy’s consequences for pension expenditure or the broader economy.
As debate continues, the lack of formal economic modelling and the fundamental challenge posed to established retirement income frameworks have placed One Nation’s superannuation policy at the center of intense scrutiny ahead of further political deliberations.