The Coalition remains divided over a proposal that would allow first home buyers to access their retirement savings for a house deposit, with some senior members downplaying claims from backbencher Garth Hamilton that there is enough support within the party to block the policy.
Hamilton, the Liberal MP for Groom, has been engaging with colleagues across the Liberal and National parties to challenge the Coalition’s longstanding position permitting first home buyers to withdraw up to $50,000 from their superannuation accounts to enter the housing market. This measure was included in the Coalition’s platforms at the last two federal elections under former leaders Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton.
Despite Hamilton’s opposition, key figures within the Coalition continue to support the idea. Treasury spokesman Tim Wilson reiterated his backing of the policy, arguing the benefits of homeownership extend beyond working years and into retirement, unlike superannuation which is designed solely for post-retirement support. Wilson highlighted that with the average age of first-time home buyers nearing 40 and mortgage terms frequently lasting 30 years, allowing access to superannuation could help Australians secure homes earlier when prices tend to be lower.
Similarly, housing spokesman Andrew Bragg, an advocate for reviewing compulsory superannuation, endorsed the policy as part of a broader effort to address housing affordability and retirement security. He warned against Australia becoming “a nation of retired renters” and emphasised ongoing reviews of housing and retirement frameworks within the Coalition.
A senior party source described the current division as more of an internal debate than a major split such as that seen during Coalition disputes over the Australia-European Union free trade deal. The source suggested Hamilton’s stance should not be viewed as outright opposition to Coalition policy but rather reflective of a diversity of views within the party room.
Hamilton has called for no changes to the way superannuation is invested, taxed, or accessed, describing it as a vital asset for Australians rather than a political tool. His position echoes a pragmatic approach from former Prime Minister John Howard, who previously accepted the popularity of certain policies despite ideological differences.
The debate over superannuation access also frames a contrast with the policy adopted by Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party. Hanson proposes allowing renters and mortgage holders to reduce the compulsory 12 percent superannuation guarantee by up to three percentage points for three years as a measure to alleviate cost-of-living pressures. With One Nation polling significantly ahead of the Coalition in some surveys, their alternative approach to superannuation and housing policy has drawn attention.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has characterised the upcoming election as a potential referendum on Australia’s A$4.5 trillion superannuation system, underlining the prominence of retirement savings debates in the national political discourse.