Liberals announce superannuation policy to save house prices

With the official Liberal Party launch of the 2022 Election campaign underway today, Scott Morrison the Prime Minister of EZFKA has announced a new policy that will allow first home buyers access to their Superannuation to fund a home deposit. It is proposed that an amount of up to $50,000 could be used for the scheme.

The policy is the brainchild of Tim “Freedom Boy” Wilson, the former Human Rights Commissioner and current Member for the Victorian seat of Goldstein. Mr Wilson has long been an advocate of the policy, using the Twitter hashtag #homefirstsupersecond to promote the idea over the last 12 months to much ridicule and disdain. However, more recently he appears to have been less active on that front, presumably keeping busy fending off allegations regarding having sex with rentboys in the parliamentary prayer room and trying to have his own constituents fined by local council over election material.

Mr Wilson who owns 4 investment properties and receives a 15.4% superannuation rate was asked whether the move would only serve to push up the prices of property. “Of course it will, that’s the entire point,” said Mr Wilson. “No one wants to see the prices of their homes fall, so sacrificing the future retirement of the younger generation is a small price to pay.”

Mr Wilson also denied having a conflict of interest. “This isn’t like how the Franking Credits inquiry helped my relative who just happens to run Wilson Asset Management. My properties will instantly go up by 50,000 dollars, and so will those of most home owners!”

When asked whether this was simply a bribe but with one’s own money, the Prime Minister was also undeterred. “You have to remember that Tim is gay, and is a champion for all that trans rights stuff. If we had a woke Liberal he would be it, but we obviously don’t.”

“If it goes well, then of course I will take full credit. For any future homeowner, I will take the credit, and everyone considering buying another property should reward me with their vote. But if we lose the election – it is Tim’s fault and I will use every opportunity to remind you of that.”

A host of former and current Liberals, including Malcolm Turnbull, Christopher Pyne, Peter Dutton and Sussan Ley had previously spoken against such a scheme. When pressed on this point, Mr Morrison was quick to respond that, “the Liberal Party is a broad church with many views, personally I am a believer in the God of Property.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

All parties have their policies to keep house prices high.
Labor has shared equity
Liberals use of Super
Greens has open borders

House prices aren’t going down far, if at all.


House prices aren’t going down far, if at all

i would actually take the under on this. If interest rates rise in a non-trivial way, prices will fall.

whether they will become more affordable is actually a separate question.

The affordability question is also impacted by physical supply (how many houses are built), physical demand (how many people are imported) and how much money people must first devote to food & other necessities…

Reus's Large MEMBER

Yes there comes a point where the 50k in super that you can access means SFA if you can’t afford the 4k monthly interest only payment. However the good news with this announcement is that we now have to think up even crazier ideas on how they can keep the ponzi alive.


However the good news with this announcement is that we now have to think up even crazier ideas on how they can keep the ponzi alive.

yes. But $50k in super is very quick to deploy and is “real cash”, so easy to understand.

other crazy ideas might be slower to get running & harder to get but-in from banks

Reus's Large MEMBER

I still think that 50 year loans are a easy way to reduce the monthly costs so that people can afford to keep paying the crazy prices.


Does a 50 year loan really improve servicing much? Would’ve thought it is good for an extra 10% or 15% more loan, if that.


No it doesn’t improve affordability that much, but that is not the point. An extra 10% to 15% adds that to house prices.

Reus's Large MEMBER

Both really it means that interest rates can rise but if you re-fi over 50 years then it would buffer that increase, till it can’t then there will be 70 or 100 year loans, or any other scheme to kick the can.

A fly in your ointment

why 100yrs?
make it an ongoing revolving credit line.
who cares about capital payment of you can service only the interest until houses go up again (and we know that they do only and exactly that).

super access may do sumtin for OO’s but not much for investors on IO loans as they need capital gain to be on top of the interest rates by a bee’s fallus to float. $50k can only kick the can marginals whom need to bridge or whos $50k in capital payment will make their IO loan serviceable.

I just hope there are loads of unrented investments that will hit the market before it crumbles (if it does) as it will make rental affordable to cushion decades of flagellation and fornication of the rental demographic


Surely the next one will be making interest on owner occupier loans tax deductable..

Reus's Large MEMBER

I thought that was something that was already on the cards.


Isn’t it UAP policy?

Reus's Large MEMBER

Just combine all 3, use super, government pays part, and tax deductions on OO, this is EZFKA no need to hold back ….


This is why I am no longer bearish on housing and think MB will be wrong for another decade. If re-elected Scomo will ruin housing, retirement funding, and wealth equality with a single policy! It’s no news to anyone around these parts but of course either side of government have plenty of tweaking at the edges to keep property prices afloat. Letting FHB raid their super being just one of them…

Aussie Soy Boy

If rates get too high they’ll let people use super to make repayments or pay down principal. Maybe $20k per year maximum or something like that.

Anyway, the start of the year I had the view that 4 rate rises will be enough to take the heat out of the economy and get inflation down to 0%.

But that was before the Russian invasion and on the assumption that China wouldn’t try to keep omicron out because that’s impossible.


Some thoughts on this policy from an economist-turned-super writer:

Interesting points but who the fuck really knows anymore…


Super policy is almost as bad as housing policy. Super is effectively privatised retirement savings and benefits wealthier cohorts of society. I was going to write that after 30 years, Super has failed to achieve its objectives, but no one actually has defined Super’s purpose.

Reus's Large MEMBER

Just the kitchen sink left now to throw at this mess, things must be dire in the polling for them to bring this out there.


From a polling perspective, this policy was a success. It brought the Lib odds in from 5:1 to 4.4:1.

politically, I think it’s more of a poison pill for labor – as it is now explicit Lib policy, it will be derided by Lab and therefore out of bounds for a Lab government. This will make a painful housing correction more likely to be worn by the Labs in the future.

Reus's Large MEMBER

What I meant is that the libs must have seen bad poll numbers to bring this out the closet, TBH the Albo should just say that they will match it as it is going to be the one thing that could kick the housing can just beyond their next term if they follow up with some other smaller kicks and make it a Lib owned crash.


I agree. But because Paul Keating hasn’t kicked the bucket yet, I think Lab are painted into a corner and have to say they resist it. Even if it would have given them a great can-kick.

they will have to run the population importation activity so much the harder due to this.


ALP will fight this to the bitter end

Because it would mean less money in the hands of super funds to ticket clip

and industry super funds is where the ALP gets its money, and where it sends its party cronies for cushy fake jobs


Labor has its own policy to stop prices falling being the shared equity scheme. It will pretty much do the same thing, but use taxpayer money rather than Super.

Reus's Large MEMBER

No reason that they can’t do both in order to kick the can further ….


I just wish they’d stop referring to these asset pumper schemes as affordability policies. Makes me want to glove slap a cunt and bust out the dueling pistols.

Reus's Large MEMBER

Depends on the perspective, when the idea is to get the greater fools to buy in so that the BB’s can maximise their profit means that the retirement home and or Landcruiser / van combo is more affordable.


Exactly right. I should think more like a boomer. BBs get a two year holiday from any asset test that could affect their super or pension and young plebs get to use their super to bid up the properties of these BBs. Brilliant!


glove slap a cunt and bust out the dueling pistols.

see, this is where they get you as well.

you think that you have to act honourably and call them out to a duel.

Whereas the appropriate thing to do is to lean in for a hug of gratitude… then shiv them a few times under the ribs or in the spleen.

it’s what EZFKA has been doing for years, under the veneer of propriety and honour.


Yes all true. But you’ve got to admit it would funny watching me duel Tim Wilson out on the lawn at parliament house!

Reus's Large MEMBER

Yep I would pay to see that, and then get him with the shiv if by some chance he came out on top


Yes, I think that would be a great spectacle! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾


No modelling. Seemed to be modus operandi now. It seems to be bipartisan too as the suburban loop in Melbourne has no modelling and the same with Super. If you did modelling the results would be kept under lock and key. No one wants to tell us that the policy will drain billions.


pfh007 sticking the boot into MB in a way that only he can.

The man is a genius.


They are a special crowd over at EmBee arguing that this is a disastrous policy and yet the Labor shared equity is better 🤷‍♀️. All it shows me is that house prices will be supported no matter who wins.


It’s all over now, baby blue.

These can kicks aren’t going to do shit, they won’t even have a chance to get implemented.

Remember, the same clowns that said there won’t be any inflation, there is no inflation, it’s just transitory inflation etc are now saying inflation has peaked and a few lousy rate rises are all we need. It’s not transitory, the largest fiscal and monetary gangbang in history has ravaged the economy and rates are going up, up, up to deal with the aftermath.

The elites know this and are prepared, the plebs are going to get roasted alive. Same as it ever was.

Last edited 2 years ago by canuckdownunder

I like your style, mr canuck! Good point about “chance to get implemented” – this is what I was talking about too, in terms of “$50k from super” (actually $100k, given man and wife, or man and gay-wife) being an attractive option.

it’s a tap that you jsut turn on and money flows very quickly.

whereas shared equity and shit like that need a fair bit of runway to get going, banks to get comfortable, enabling legislation, administration machinery, all that jazz…

I don’t think that the housing crater is locked in yet. They could go slow on rate hikes have Palmer-style 3% mortgage rate caps, etc.

but with AUD plumbing 0.67 now, the rates are certainly going to get swueezed

Reus's Large MEMBER

The poor or low income earners are the ones that are going to get squeezed the most, those that were struggling to make ends meet 2 years ago, that tapped into the super to buy toys etc. that owe more on their cards than they can pay off, as imported inflation forces food, fuel goods prices up, they are stuffed.


The poor or low income earners are the ones that are going to get squeezed the most, those that were struggling to make ends meet 2 years ago

well, in order to have any kind of downturn, somebody has to get squeezed, right?

If nobody is getting squeezed, it’s not a downturn, it’s boom times.

and the trite fact is that the poor and low income earners were always going to be the ones most likely to get squeezed most. It’s the trickle up effect.

in theory the government could arrange things so that the poors would be insulated and the more wealthy (specufestor class, say) would cop the squeeze. But not in the EZFKA.