Pauline Hanson has launched an extraordinary attack on Treasurer Jim Chalmers, declaring he is “full of shit” as One Nation rejects Labor claims it wants to dismantle superannuation and points to more than $2.6 billion being withdrawn early by Australians under financial pressure.
The One Nation leader says her party does not want to abolish Australia’s compulsory superannuation system.
Instead, she wants Australians experiencing serious financial distress to have greater freedom to access money sitting in their retirement accounts — including when doing so could prevent them from losing their homes.
The distinction has triggered an increasingly bitter political battle between One Nation and Labor.
“It’s Pauline Hanson here. Jim Chalmers is full of shit,” Hanson said in a blunt message responding to the Treasurer’s attack.
Labor accused One Nation of threatening super
The confrontation followed a Labor fundraising campaign warning supporters about the future of Australia’s superannuation system.
Chalmers has sought to link One Nation with Coalition politicians questioning elements of compulsory super, arguing Australians’ retirement savings face their greatest political threat in decades.
Labor’s message asked supporters for campaign donations as it portrayed itself as the defender of universal superannuation.
Hanson responded by accusing Chalmers of misrepresenting her position.
“One Nation doesn’t support scrapping superannuation,” she said.
Hanson says people shouldn’t lose their homes while they have super
The One Nation leader says the principle behind her position is simple.
Australians can accumulate tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in superannuation while simultaneously struggling to pay bills, mortgage repayments or basic living expenses.
Under existing law, those savings are generally preserved until retirement, although several early-release provisions already exist.
Hanson wants those provisions broadened.
“We simply believe people should be able to access their super when they’re in financial distress, rather than lose their homes,” she said.
Hanson tells Labor: ‘You’d rather they end up homeless’
One Nation is attempting to frame the dispute as one of ownership.
The party argues superannuation ultimately belongs to the worker whose employment generated the contributions.
That has become the central rhetorical dividing line.
Labor views super primarily as protected retirement savings that should remain preserved except under tightly controlled circumstances.
One Nation places greater emphasis on an individual’s ability to use those savings during an immediate crisis.
Hanson accused Labor of effectively preferring Australians to face homelessness rather than allowing broader access to their own retirement money.
More than $2.6bn was accessed early
Hanson has supported her argument with striking figures from the existing early-release system.
According to figures cited by One Nation, more than $2.6 billion was withdrawn from approximately 183,000 superannuation accounts during 2024–25 under compassionate or severe financial hardship provisions.
Hanson says that amount was more than double the comparable figure in 2021–22.
For One Nation, the growth is evidence that large numbers of Australians are already being forced to reach into retirement savings because their immediate finances are under pressure.
The underlying compassionate-release numbers have surged
Other available figures reinforce the broader trend.
Applications for early release on compassionate grounds rose from about 45,300 in 2020–21 to approximately 112,400 in 2024–25.
Medical expenses have become a particularly significant reason for early withdrawal.
Reported withdrawals for medical purposes reached about $1.369 billion in 2024–25, compared with $447.4 million several years earlier.
The amount released to prevent foreclosure or the forced sale of homes also rose from about $7.2 million to $20.9 million over the same period.
Those numbers do not by themselves prove the cause is Labor’s economic management, as Hanson argues, but they do demonstrate rapidly growing use of compassionate early access.
Australians can already access super early
There is an important qualification to One Nation’s campaign.
Australian law already allows people to withdraw superannuation before retirement under limited circumstances.
That includes severe financial hardship.
Compassionate grounds can also permit early release for certain medical expenses, mortgage difficulties threatening a person’s principal home, palliative care, disability-related modifications and funeral costs.
The argument is therefore not really about whether early access should exist. It already does.
The fight is about how restrictive those rules should be.
Severe financial hardship has strict conditions
Accessing super because someone is struggling financially is not as simple as demonstrating that household bills have become expensive.
Applicants generally need to satisfy legislated conditions for severe financial hardship, including requirements connected with receiving eligible Commonwealth income-support payments.
Super funds make determinations under those rules.
For people below preservation age plus 39 weeks, withdrawals under severe financial hardship are generally limited to a single payment within a 12-month period.
The maximum is ordinarily $10,000 before tax, with a minimum withdrawal of $1,000 unless the person’s account contains less than that.
That is where One Nation wants change
One Nation argues the current definition of hardship does not adequately capture Australians who are working but still cannot meet basic expenses.
A household can be under severe mortgage stress without satisfying every existing eligibility requirement.
A worker can have a substantial super balance while struggling to buy food.
Someone can be approaching foreclosure while being unable to freely deploy savings accumulated in their own name.
Hanson and Barnaby Joyce argue the rules should recognise those situations more readily.
Joyce says: ‘It’s their money’
Barnaby Joyce has become one of the strongest advocates for the proposal.
The One Nation MP clashed publicly with Labor minister Tanya Plibersek while arguing workers should have more control over their superannuation.
Joyce has asked why someone struggling to feed themselves should have large savings effectively locked away for decades.
His answer is encapsulated in three words.
“It’s their money.”
Plibersek says super is supposed to fund retirement
Labor rejects the premise that retirement savings should function as an ordinary emergency bank account.
Plibersek argued that superannuation exists for a specific purpose: providing Australians with financial resources after they finish working.
From Labor’s perspective, weakening preservation rules may solve an immediate financial problem by creating a larger future one.
A person who withdraws $10,000 or $20,000 at 35 does not merely lose that amount from retirement.
They also lose the investment returns and compound growth that money could have generated over another three decades.
That compound-growth argument is powerful
This is one of the strongest economic objections to widespread early access.
Superannuation is designed to compound over long periods.
Returns generated in one year become part of the balance producing returns in later years.
Removing money early therefore has an effect that can become much larger by retirement.
A withdrawal that saves a household today can potentially cost that same household considerably more in retirement income later.
But losing a home also has long-term consequences
One Nation’s response is that retirement cannot be considered in isolation from what happens before retirement.
Home ownership itself is one of the most important pillars of financial security in old age.
An Australian who reaches retirement owning a home outright occupies a dramatically different financial position from someone still paying rent.
If accessing super prevents a forced sale during temporary financial distress, supporters argue it may protect rather than undermine long-term security.
The difficult policy question is whether early access actually saves the home or merely delays an unavoidable financial crisis while also depleting retirement savings.
There is no final One Nation policy yet
This point is crucial.
One Nation has established its political direction, but many of the detailed rules are still being developed.
The party has not yet settled every eligibility threshold, withdrawal limit or safeguard that would govern expanded access.
Joyce has acknowledged the policy remains a work in progress.
That means claims about precisely how much every Australian would be allowed to withdraw should currently be treated cautiously.
One Nation says compulsory employer contributions will remain
Reporting on the developing policy indicates One Nation is not proposing to reduce the compulsory employer superannuation contribution rate.
That is an important distinction from suggestions that the party wants to abolish compulsory super altogether.
Hanson has strongly denied that characterisation.
Her present position is that contributions should continue while workers receive greater flexibility over accessing accumulated balances.
The debate is therefore increasingly about preservation rather than abolition.
Why did Labor say super was under threat?
Labor’s attack did not emerge from nowhere.
Hanson has described the current superannuation system as “broken” and previously entertained much broader criticism of compulsory retirement savings.
Meanwhile, Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg has questioned compulsory super and Coalition figures have proposed allowing first-home buyers to use retirement savings for housing.
Labor has bundled these different arguments into a broader warning about the future of the system.
Chalmers says political opponents are progressively weakening the principle that super should remain protected until retirement.
Chalmers wants an election fight over super
The Treasurer has made clear he believes Labor can win politically on the issue.
He has described the emerging contest as potentially a “referendum on superannuation”.
For Labor, the issue carries powerful historical symbolism.
The compulsory superannuation system is closely associated with Labor governments and the union movement.
Defending it allows the party to campaign on retirement security while portraying its opponents as willing to raid workers’ future savings.
Hanson’s intervention has therefore handed Chalmers both a policy argument and an election message.
Hanson says Labor is running a scare campaign
One Nation sees the strategy very differently.
Hanson says Labor is deliberately converting a proposal for greater flexibility into a claim that One Nation wants to destroy superannuation.
She has compared the approach with familiar election campaigns warning voters that political opponents will dismantle major social institutions.
The Labor fundraising element added another dimension to her attack.
Hanson emphasised that One Nation’s response was not accompanied by a request for supporters to contribute money to its campaign.
The argument has become intensely personal
Australian debates over superannuation are normally filled with contribution rates, tax concessions, preservation ages and actuarial projections.
This one has quickly become considerably less restrained.
Hanson’s declaration that the Treasurer was “full of shit” stripped away any pretence that this would be a technocratic policy dispute.
Chalmers has meanwhile portrayed One Nation and Coalition critics as presenting the most serious political threat to super in decades.
Both sides clearly believe the issue can move voters.
Hanson blames Labor’s economy for early withdrawals
One Nation is attempting to connect rising early-release figures directly to cost-of-living pressure.
Hanson argues households are being squeezed by housing costs, bills and declining purchasing power to such an extent that increasing numbers are tapping retirement savings simply to survive.
“Jim Chalmers and Labor are smashing the economy and sending Australians backwards,” she said.
“People are accessing their super just to get by.”
The first sentence is political attribution. The second is supported in part by the growth in hardship access, although the underlying reasons for every withdrawal vary substantially.
Compassionate withdrawals are not all ordinary living expenses
This distinction matters when interpreting the $2.6 billion figure.
Compassionate grounds cover significant expenses that are not simply grocery bills or rising electricity costs.
Medical treatment accounts for a large share of withdrawals.
Other eligible circumstances include palliative care, funeral expenses, disability-related needs and preventing the loss of a principal home.
It would therefore be inaccurate to treat the entire $2.6 billion as money withdrawn because Australians could not afford everyday cost-of-living expenses.
But the surge still deserves attention
That does not make the increase irrelevant.
Australians do not generally access preserved retirement savings casually.
When compassionate applications more than double within several years, something significant is happening in household finances, medical expenditure or both.
The rapid increase in medical withdrawals is particularly striking.
It raises questions not only about superannuation but about the affordability and availability of healthcare outside the retirement system.
Hanson wants newer figures from APRA
One Nation says it is now seeking further evidence about the scale of the problem.
Hanson announced that the party had lodged a Freedom of Information request with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
The aim is to obtain more recent information showing how early access has changed since Chalmers’ latest Budget.
If the figures show another substantial increase, One Nation will almost certainly use them to strengthen its case for broader access.
The FOI request may become politically important
The raw numbers alone will not settle the policy debate.
But they can tell Australians whether early withdrawals are accelerating.
More detailed data could also help distinguish compassionate medical withdrawals from severe financial hardship and mortgage-related releases.
That breakdown is important because each category points towards a different policy problem.
A surge caused by medical costs requires a different response from a surge caused by mortgage arrears or inability to meet basic living expenses.
COVID showed what large-scale early access can do
Australia has already conducted an enormous real-world experiment with easier access to superannuation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, eligible Australians were temporarily permitted to withdraw up to $20,000 across two financial years.
Billions flowed out of retirement accounts.
The program provided immediate cash to households during an extraordinary economic shock.
But it also reignited debate about how much those withdrawals would ultimately cost participants through lost investment growth.
Some people later regretted withdrawing — many did not
Research into the COVID experience presents a more complicated picture than either side’s slogans suggest.
Some Australians later reported regret over accessing their retirement savings.
Others said the money had been essential and did not regret the decision.
The difference often comes down to what the withdrawal prevented or enabled.
Money used to survive a genuine emergency can have a very different value to the individual than the theoretical future balance shown on a retirement calculator.
Economists warn housing access could push prices higher
One Nation has also supported allowing super to play a greater role in home ownership.
That raises another economic concern.
If thousands of buyers suddenly receive access to larger deposits without a corresponding increase in housing supply, they may simply bid against each other for the same homes.
Economists including Saul Eslake have warned that demand-side measures using super can therefore increase property prices.
In that scenario, some of the benefit intended for buyers could ultimately flow to existing property owners through higher sale prices.
One Nation sees housing differently
Hanson’s broader argument is that retirement policy should recognise the importance of owning a home.
A large super balance is valuable, but so is entering retirement without rent or mortgage payments.
One Nation has previously advocated allowing Australians to use superannuation towards their primary residence under arrangements designed to return money to the retirement system when the property is eventually sold.
The party therefore views housing and superannuation as interconnected components of retirement security rather than entirely separate systems.
Labor fears super will become a general-purpose savings account
The government’s concern is what happens once preservation is progressively weakened.
If housing is permitted, why not mortgage stress?
If mortgage stress qualifies, why not rent?
If rent qualifies, why not food, electricity bills or other everyday costs?
Each individual case can appear compelling.
But collectively, Labor argues, they risk transforming super from protected retirement savings into an account repeatedly tapped throughout working life.
That could eventually increase Age Pension costs
There is also a taxpayer consequence.
Australians who reach retirement with smaller super balances may become more dependent on the Age Pension.
That means part of the cost of early access can eventually shift back to future taxpayers.
The individual gets more money today.
The Commonwealth may pay more decades later.
This intergenerational effect is one reason superannuation rules have traditionally placed substantial restrictions on early withdrawals.
But financial ruin today can also cost taxpayers tomorrow
The counterargument is equally important.
A household that loses its home, falls into severe debt or experiences deteriorating health because it cannot afford treatment can also impose long-term costs on government.
Preventing a financial crisis may preserve employment, housing stability and physical or mental health.
There is therefore no universal rule that leaving every dollar untouched until retirement always produces the best economic outcome.
The challenge is distinguishing genuine emergencies from withdrawals that simply shift consumption forward.
The policy details will determine whether One Nation’s idea works
This is why the final design matters more than the slogan.
Broad, unrestricted access could seriously erode retirement balances.
A narrowly designed expansion targeted at temporary but severe hardship could have very different consequences.
Withdrawal limits matter.
Eligibility matters.
Frequency matters.
Whether financial counselling is required matters.
And safeguards against people repeatedly exhausting their retirement savings will matter enormously.
Labor will demand those answers
Chalmers has every incentive to force One Nation to move from principle to detailed policy.
It is easier to say Australians should control their own money than to determine exactly when a 30-year-old should be permitted to remove it from a retirement account.
One Nation will eventually have to establish where financial difficulty becomes severe enough to qualify.
It will also have to explain what happens when someone exhausts their super and remains in hardship.
Those questions will determine whether the policy is a targeted safety valve or a fundamental weakening of preservation.
One Nation will demand Labor explain the existing surge
But Chalmers faces difficult questions of his own.
The number of Australians seeking compassionate access has risen substantially.
Medical withdrawals have surged.
Money released to prevent forced home sales has increased.
And Australians continue reporting intense housing and household-budget pressure.
Simply defending the existing super system does not explain why so many people need emergency access to it in the first place.
The political battle is really about what super is for
Behind the insults lies a fundamental philosophical disagreement.
Is superannuation money primarily the individual’s property to deploy when life goes badly wrong?
Or is it protected retirement capital whose purpose requires government to prevent individuals from consuming it too early?
Australian law already answers: both, to a degree.
Super is preserved for retirement but can be released under specified exceptional circumstances.
The new political fight is about where Australia should draw that line.
Hanson has forced Labor onto one of its favourite battlegrounds
Chalmers appears comfortable fighting on superannuation.
Labor regards compulsory super as one of its defining economic achievements.
It can campaign as the party protecting workers’ retirement balances while warning that opponents will drain them.
But One Nation believes the cost-of-living environment has changed the politics.
For someone worried about losing their home next month, a warning about their account balance in 30 years may not carry the same force it once did.
The next figures could decide who wins the argument
Hanson’s APRA FOI request could therefore become more important than the profanity that launched the latest confrontation.
If early withdrawals have continued accelerating, One Nation will argue that Australia’s preservation rules are increasingly colliding with financial reality.
If the growth is concentrated overwhelmingly in specific medical categories rather than ordinary financial hardship, Labor will have grounds to challenge Hanson’s cost-of-living narrative.
Good policy requires knowing not merely how much money is coming out of super, but why Australians are taking it out.
For now, Hanson has drawn a clear line
She says One Nation does not want to scrap compulsory superannuation.
She says it wants to preserve employer contributions while giving Australians more flexibility during serious financial distress.
Chalmers says weakening preservation threatens retirement security and risks undermining a system built over decades.
Both arguments contain genuine trade-offs.
But after more than $2.6 billion was accessed under compassionate and hardship provisions in a single financial year, the question of when Australians should be allowed to use their own retirement savings is no longer theoretical.
Hanson has turned it into an election fight.
And with Chalmers declaring superannuation itself could become a referendum at the next election, Labor appears more than willing to have it.
