New modelling warns of budget costs from One Nation super proposal
The Super Members Council released October 9 modelling of One Nation's proposal to allow temporary access to part of compulsory retirement contributions. Its model estimates that today's 20-year-old Australians could pay an extra A$3,700 in lifetime income tax.
Pauline Hanson proposes allowing renters and mortgage borrowers to access a quarter of regular compulsory contributions for up to three years. With the current 12% contribution rate, that represents three percentage points of earnings. Hanson says the initiative would ease cost-of-living pressure. It has not become law.
The Super Members Council, which represents retirement funds and opposes the proposal, attributes the projected tax burden chiefly to future public pension costs for people who use their savings. Its model estimates extra annual budget costs of about A$750 million in the 2030s and A$4.5 billion in the 2070s. These are conditional projections if the proposal is implemented, rather than costs already incurred.
An earlier council estimate suggested that a median-income worker using the option for three years would retire with A$25,000 less. Australia's compulsory retirement contribution rate has risen from 3% when the system began in 1992 to 12% since July 2025.
The debate also concerns whether the contribution rate is sufficient. A 2020 retirement income review and the Grattan Institute considered 9.5% adequate for most people. Economist Saul Eslake argues that such models often assume 40 uninterrupted years of full-time employment, which many workers do not achieve.
Council analysis from 2021 found that 24% of women and 39% of men had such work histories. Women in Super chief Jo Kowalczyk highlights low earnings and career interruptions for care responsibilities. For many women, she argues, the issue is whether contributions from low or interrupted income are sufficient, rather than whether 12% is excessive.
Australia's collective retirement savings total A$4.8 trillion. Treasurer Jim Chalmers defends the system as a way to improve retirement incomes while relieving budget pressure. One Nation's proposal puts the trade-off between extra money now and smaller future savings at the centre of the debate.
