View from The Hill: Pauline Hanson sets new hares running on super

Pauline Hanson’s attention-grabbing policy to give mortgage holders and renters greater access to their super is high populism while being – according to its many critics – low economics and bad for people’s retirement.

That said, one “teal” independent, Kate Chaney, says it’s worth examining.

And Liberal maverick frontbencher Andrew Bragg doesn’t seem to be entirely writing off the idea either.

Once again, One Nation is out in front, leaving the Liberals in particular in its dust.

The Coalition was gazumped on tobacco excise policy.

Now the Liberals are having to argue why the Hanson prescription for helping people with their cost of living is flawed.

Under the Hanson proposal, renters and those with mortgages could choose to receive a quarter of their future superannuation contributions in their take-home pay for up to three years.

Employers would continue to pay the full current contribution, which is 12% of wages.

“If you take the boost, one quarter of this contribution will be paid directly to you by your super fund,” Hanson said in a statement.

This money would receive the same concessional tax treatment as if it had stayed in the fund.

“For most Australians, that means it will be taxed at 15% rather than their higher personal income tax rate.” Hanson says a full-time worker on $90,500 would receive about $2,300 a year after tax ($44 a week).

Pauline Hanson’s proposed change to Super access The policy would not apply to investment properties.

Nor would it apply to past super contributions.

At present there is some provision for access to superannuation in cases of “severe financial hardship” but it is very limited.