Joe Hockey has suggested first home buyers ought to be able to tap into their superannuation for a deposit on a house. Works for me. Super is about retirement and we know people who retire without owning their house are prone to poverty compared to those who do.

Plus over a lifetime most end up with a house worth much more than their super.

Houses are generally heavily geared, giving a high return on equity, at least initially, relieve home owners of the cost of rent, and are tax free on sale. Most people who buy a house in their 20s own it by the time they retire.

And owning property gives you a stronger stake in society and builds habits of care and thrift.

I can't see any downside with it, but others like Paul Keating see it as an attack on the poor http://www.smh.com.au/comment/hockey-plans-to-smash-a-worldclass-superannuation-system-20150309-13z1gc.html

Interested in what you all think.

Graham, it's something I've been suggesting for years but, it must be strictly controlled.

My suggests are.
1. Super contributions can only make up 10% of the purchase price, capped at say $70,000. For those born prior to say 1965 this percentage could be increased as they generally have less in super given super didn't start until 1990 or so.
2. Once used, the super money must be repaid to the fund if (a) the property is leveraged in any way and (b) if the property is used to earn income, including renting out a bed room or working from home, (c) if the property is sold.

Once repaid, it must be paid with interest, calculated at the rate of CPI for the time of use.

It should also be limited to a ONCE ONLY option which would help to address the price bubble that would follow as people would not be able to use their super to speculate in the property market, tax free.

Apart from that I see no problem.

sorry, wont work, if you have $70k as a deposit (and so would hundreds of others), house prices would increase. (Supply and demand)

The state governments, councils, property builders and real estate agents, all have a vested interest in increasing house prices.

So you are just adding fuel to the fire, no one benefits

Well, there are already a limited number of exceptions whereby you can access your Super early, such as a medical crisis.

Thereafter, if in the instance of say the so called "working poor," wherein the financial hardship of an individual or family unit was quite plain, and there existed no real prospect for them to own their own home, then on balance the tapping of their retirement savings could well be a positive decision.

In the alternative, if it were to be an open slather run on Super accounts, it would in all likelihood end up a in a situation wherein more people end up wholly dependent on the inadequate Australian Pension system.

But this question really goes to avoid the issue of the real problem, that being the underpinning regulatory environment which has allowed a situation of hyper inflation in the property market to develop.

Whilst the outer chains of slavery may have gone, something of the economic model most certainly remains. Negative gearing has to go and the very manner which allows the state guvments to price and on sell land needs to be fundamentally reformed.

What is important is that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," and in that regard everyone needing to be housed, as opposed to a very few will be ultra rich at the expense of some people going without.

Now officially cited for both child abuse and torture, Australians need to wake up to the fact of how twisted and evil main stream politicians are, and give someone else a go.

DreamOn, "Now officially cited for both child abuse and torture"

Along with the UK, US and others who have welcomed extensive diversity through large scale migration. They must be mugs in the eyes of other UN members.

The UN doesn't want First World countries to control their borders, or to exercise their right to decide who enters the country and is awarded citizenship. What is the UN's solution, particularly where criminal people smuggling gangs, economic migrants and country shopping are concerned?

The UN would solve(sic) the housing crisis though. Australia would rapidly be diminished to Third World status, with the transported millions living on the street and off the proceeds of begging and crime.

The government is onto a winner (for government) because when the surviving empty nester is no longer suitable for employment and is judged a non-productive burden to the economy, the government will be forcing her to sell the asset to fund her aged care.

To be expected of government (both sides) that takes a damned good bite out of superannuation contributions even before the deposits have even earned anything.

The main reason I might tilt the scales towards Hockey's idea is because it is inevitable that one day the feds are going to get their hands on those superannuation funds anyway - for the claimed 'good purposes of government in a budget emergency' (most know how that works). So the poor SOB who earned the dough in the first place should be able to make use of it for shelter in the interim.