Coalition’s super-for-housing policy would drive up property prices: analysis

The Coalition’s plan to let first-time buyers use their superannuation for a home deposit would be “one of the worst public policy decisions” of the century, a leading economist said as industry analysis found it would drive property prices up by $75,000 across the nation’s capital cities.

But opposition housing spokesman Michael Sukkar has rubbished the analysis, saying the Coalition is determined to help all young Australians who aspire to own a home.

Allowing first home buyers to use their superannuation in a housing deposit would drive up house prices, experts and industry analysis shows.Credit: Dan Peled

Superannuation peak body the Super Members Council found the scheme to allow first home buyers to withdraw $50,000 from super for a deposit would fuel demand, pushing property prices up by 9 per cent. It would add almost $80,000 to median prices in Sydney, nearly $70,000 in Melbourne, $78,000 in Brisbane and $86,000 in Perth, its modelling showed.

The council’s chief executive, Misha Schubert, said that price spike would lead to higher mortgages for all buyers.

“That would mean higher and longer mortgages for Australians – and would quickly make capital cities even less affordable for new home buyers struggling to get into the market,” she said.

“We all desperately want more Australians to own their own home, but this idea won’t achieve that.”

The analysis comes before a Senate economics committee hearing into consumer experiences and choices in the retirement system, which will examine the Coalition’s policy.

Housing continues to be a major political issue, with home prices soaring 30 per cent in parts of the country over the past year and rental inflation still high amid record-low vacancy rates.

Last month, shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said the Coalition’s policy, announced in the lead-up to the 2022 federal election, would allow first home buyers and women over 55 to draw down on their super for a deposit, which would be returned to their retirement savings on the sale of the home.

Sukkar said “junk” analysis had been done by super funds who thought Australians’ money was theirs.

“Their analysis suggests that the answer to Labor’s housing crisis is simply to have fewer first home buyers, while so many can’t gather a deposit for a first home. This is an extraordinary admission,” he said.

“The Coalition believes young Australians should have the realistic opportunity to fund a deposit for a home with their own money in super.”

Centre for Independent Studies chief economist Peter Tulip agreed the Coalition’s policy would increase property prices but questioned the magnitude of the council’s findings.

“We have a shortage of supply, and if you just boost demand, the way the super-for-housing [policy] does, then the lucky recipients will get greater access to housing, but they’ll beat up prices for everyone else. So overall, it makes affordability worse,” he said, although he added the council’s $75,000 figure “seems very large to me”.

“The other big problem is that it’s going to reduce people’s superannuation balances.”

But Tulip said if there was a policy that also addressed the supply of housing, then there were good arguments for using superannuation for property purchases.

“The objective of our superannuation policy is to promote security in retirement, but a lot of people prefer doing that through paying off a mortgage – having equity in a house gives you security in retirement just in the same way,” he said.

Independent economist Saul Eslake said there was 60 years of evidence that any policy that allowed Australians to pay more for housing than they otherwise would have led to more expensive housing, not more people owning homes.

“It would be one of the worst public policy decisions of the 21st century,” Eslake said.

“Giving money to people to spend on housing that they otherwise wouldn’t have results in a supply-constrained market … and people paying more for housing.”

Eslake said the super-for-housing policy would also leave buyers worse off in retirement, if they even had $50,000 in their super funds to start with.

“It would undermine the purpose of superannuation,” he said.

“[And] the kind of people who would benefit most from being able to withdraw funds from super to purchase housing would be the people who are least likely to need it.”

Analysis from the Super Members Council found that a couple of 30-year-olds who each withdrew $35,000 from super could retire with roughly $195,000 less, in today’s dollars.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.