Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Top broker weighs in on super debate

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 20 Mar 2015, 07:36 AM Agree 0
First home buyers should be able to dip into their superannuation to help buy a property if it is restricted to new housing, according to a leading broker
  • Kym | 20 Mar 2015, 09:03 AM Agree 0
    First Home Buyers dont have much in super anyway!
  • Well informed | 20 Mar 2015, 09:19 AM Agree 0
    I agree with the idea of permitting a first home buyer to dip into super to help buy their first home. However, I disagree with a lot of the comments from this broker.. Surely if the objective is to help first home buyers to get on the property rung, then why limit their opportunities to new property only? Sounds like comments from a property developer who has their own self interests at heart.. A retiree who owns their property will not require rent assistance from the government. Financially they will be far better off than the person who has rented their whole life and continues to do so in retirement. I don't believe their should be any requirement to "pay back" their own money drawn from super. This is ridiculous!! It is their money, and they have just moved it from one investment strategy to another.. Imposing requirements to "pay back" the money could cause hardship. In my opinion, this should be kept simple; release of monies controlled to ensure they are genuinely invested into property. Must be owner occupied for min 12 months commencing within 6 months of settlement (like FHOG). Allow a maximum withdrawal of 50% of the fund value at any time. Make it a one off shot, no second chances at it.
  • Goodo | 20 Mar 2015, 09:20 AM Agree 0
    When will people learn to stop artificially inflating the market. The Govt did it via 1st Home owner grants & stamp duty discounts to offset the introduction of GST. In their wisdom the included all property and hence just pushed prices higher.

    Stay out of the market and let it set its own level. As existing property gets more expensive, new housing become the comparatively cheaper option.
  • Steve McClure | 20 Mar 2015, 09:53 AM Agree 0
    Kym's point is relevant, would this scheme solve the problem? And the Canadian plan? It's not limited to first homes and allows for a max $24K, but Canada doesn't have a FHOG. In Aus, those concessions already can mean more than a $25,000 saving to FHB's.

    My suggestion - replace the FHOG ($15K + SD) into a $30K repayable interest free gov't loan over 15 years, for investment or owner occupied homes, new or used for FHB's. If property sold, loan is repaid along with a pro-rata calculation of capital gain (OO or Inv). This would preserve super, self-fund the scheme and reduce the enormous cost of FHOG's - and put more people into houses.
  • Brado | 20 Mar 2015, 10:25 AM Agree 0
    I still see plenty of first home buyer clients that have been able to save a deposit and get into the market. Super is for retirement as a replacement for the pension, which is being phased out, so don't touch it.
  • SEQ Broker | 20 Mar 2015, 11:46 AM Agree 0
    Instead of Pay Back, why not isolate the amount of super used. If the property is executed then that amount goes back into super. Those funds will have done their investment heavy lifting by way of leverage on the property allowing growth. Surely the titles office is equipped to be able to put another box on a form.
  • Thinker | 20 Mar 2015, 12:06 PM Agree 0
    I agree they should be able to access funds from their Super. I think it is a good idea to restrict the purchase to new property, to avoid adding pressure to housing supply. I also think the only other restriction should be that the withdrawal must take place by age 30. Anyone who is not 30 today should not expect to reach pensionable age before 75 so this still gives them 45 years to top up their Super.
    And although Kym has a valid point that FHB's don't have much in Super, they often don't need much. $4k will do it in WA.
    One other interesting thought - will Banks consider it to be genuine savings?
  • Paul Sheedy | 20 Mar 2015, 02:20 PM Agree 0
    I agree with most of the comments of "Well Informed" particularly the one about keeping it simple. It is their money, & essential housing is critical to the individual & the nation. Align the amount allowable to the "hardship" provision (I believe it is $10k?). No institution would want to manage a "repayment" of the funds. You might put an age cap of 35, that would give the person around 30 yrs to restore the super. Most people contribute additional funds later in life anyway. Keep it simple.
  • John Manciameli | 24 Apr 2015, 03:43 PM Agree 0
    Thanks for reading my article. Appreciate all your comments. Check out my new website at
Post a reply