The fight over using super for housing has deep roots in Australian politics. But would it actually work? | Emily Millane

<p>Ultimately, the debate is a battle for power over Australians’ savings pool of $4.8tn dating back to the scheme’s inception</p><ul><li><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/series/past-present">Past/Present</a> is a column which places current events in historical context</p></li></ul><p>Should you be able to take money out of your super to pay for housing? <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/07/one-nation-policy-early-super-access-renters-explained-ntwnfb">One Nation</a> has recently suggested you should. <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-22/federal-politics-liberals-float-super-changes-home-ownership/107179680">Liberal senator Andrew Bragg</a> has also revived the idea. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, tells us the Coalition and One Nation are “coming after super” and want to “vandalise” the retirement savings scheme. He also predicts the next federal election will be a referendum on super.</p><p>In the midst of a national cost of living crisis and housing shortage, it would seem reasonable to ask about the balance between how much money we are saving for retirement and how much money we have to use now. It would also seem uncontroversial to discuss whether altering that balance will assist with cost-of-living pressures or add to them.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/oct/10/would-early-access-to-superannuation-actually-work-housing">Continue reading...</a>