David Crowe The Sydney Morning Herald’s Chief political correspondent writes
Scott Morrison has gained the political fight he wanted by promising a housing policy that the superannuation industry, the union movement and Labor cannot abide.
This is a culture war on the economy that energises the Liberal base and gives the prime minister and his supporters a policy crusade against their opponents.
But even those who like the policy are guarded about whether it has enough appeal to turn the tide of the election campaign and deliver another miracle victory for Morrison this Saturday.
Morrison knows how to run hard on a dramatic policy idea in the final stretch of an election contest because he did this with the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme during the 2019 campaign, promising a government guarantee over 15 per cent of a mortgage.
The new proposal is far more dramatic, however, because it unleashes the pent-up frustration within the Liberals over the $3.5 trillion that is controlled by retail super funds as well as industry funds backed by unions and employers.
Will it work? The benefits of the policy depend entirely on assumptions about property values, super fund balances and compound rates of return. Australians are certainly better off if they can own their own home in their retirement. The uncertainty in the policy is the cost of achieving that goal by shrinking their super fund nest eggs.
Will it work? The benefits of the policy depend entirely on assumptions about property values, super fund balances and compound rates of return. Australians are certainly better off if they can own their own home in their retirement. The uncertainty in the policy is the cost of achieving that goal by shrinking their super fund nest eggs.
The advantage for Morrison is that he is promising younger voters the freedom to choose what they want to do with their savings. Nobody would be forced to dip into their super. People could make their own decisions about having a bigger home deposit or a bigger super fund balance.
This is a simpler proposition than the alternative from Anthony Albanese because the Labor leader offers a scheme that is limited to 10,000 buyers a year and comes with caps on the value of the homes as well as the complications of an equity stake held by the government.
What is missing from both sides is greater ambition on supply. Morrison offers a ‘‘downsizing’’ scheme to encourage older people to sell their homes, and Albanese promises a council that will talk to the states and others about building more homes.
The truth is that the proposals on housing supply are incredibly modest. It would take much greater federal action, whether on social housing or private development or both, and most likely with cooperation from the states on planning laws and land release, to make more housing available and help young Australians without pushing up prices.
Morrison calls his new policy a ‘‘game-changer’’ and is right in one essential way. He has detonated a new debate over super whether he wins or loses this Saturday. In victory, he would claim a mandate for the policy. In defeat, the Liberals would probably keep the idea because it aligns with their core objections to compulsory super, a Labor legacy from former prime minister Paul Keating.