While it is unlikely Scott Morrison would ever take policy advice from Paul Keating, he could be well advised to heed what the former Hawke Government treasurer, and prime minister, said about compulsory superannuation and housing on the weekend.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
That is that it is a bad idea or, as Mr Keating put it, "policy bankruptcy".
Keating oversaw the protracted gestation and birth in the 1980s and 1990sof Australia's Superannuation Guarantee Scheme, so speaks with some authority on the subject.
Thanks to the decision by public sector trade unions to forego a three per cent wage increase for their members under the 1983 Prices and Incomes Accord if the money was paid into superannuation accounts, Australians now have more than $2 trillion in retirement savings.
The scheme, which is the envy of many countries around the world, ranks with Medicare as one of the most socially significant policy achievements of the post-war era.
Allowing first home buyers to draw down against their superannuation for home deposits is contrary to what the scheme was designed to do - namely provide a post-work income, thereby easing the strain on the Federal Government to support those retirees unable to support themselves.
Keating argues, not without justification, there are elements within the Turnbull Government who have both Medicare and compulsory superannuation in their sights.
The Coalition, which came close to losing the 2016 election over fears it wanted to wind back Medicare, has already watered down the Superannuation Guarantee Scheme once before.
The contribution rate, which steadily climbed from three per cent to 9.5 per cent between 1992 and July 2014 for most workers, was supposed to increase to 10 per cent by July 1, 2018. That was knocked on the head in the Abbot-Hockey budget of 2014.
The decision, to halt future increases until July 2021, will cost millions of Australian workers billions of dollars over their lifetimes.
If, on top of this, people in the early stages of their working lives are not only allowed but actively encouraged to pull tens of thousands of dollars out of their fledgling retirement accounts to bootstrap their way into the housing market they will be caught short when they leave the workforce.
Unlike negative gearing, which effectively robs Peter to pay Paul, this is a case of robbing Peter to pay Peter or, to paraphrase the words of Alexis De Tocqueville, "bribing people with their own money".
And to what end? Economists across the country are in almost universal agreement putting more money into the property market in order to increase housing affordability is counterproductive.
It simply adds petrol to an already raging inferno, driving prices even further out of reach. Australia's superannuation system needs careful protection if its long-term objectives are to be realised.
