Politics

This MP Is Being Roasted For Telling People To Buy A House If They’re Worried About Homelessness

"Increasing super will stop the homeless buying homes, apparently."

by Rachael Conaghan  7 September 2020
tim wilson

Want more Junkee in your life? Sign up to our newsletter, and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook so you always know where to find us.

In some logic right out of the Millennial/ avocado toast school of thought, a Federal MP is being roasted for saying that people who are worried about being homeless should simply buy a house.

Federal MP Tim Wilson represents Melbourne’s affluent coast electorate of Goldstein (think: Brighton Karen), a place where 70 percent of private dwellings are owned outright or mortgaged.

Over the weekend he got into a spat with author and commentator Jane Caro over superannuation, and whether it’s really that important for people to have savings for their retirement.

As Jane pointed out, superannuation is another area where gender inequality is tangible. Despite statistically living longer than men, women tend to retire with about 47 percent less — that’s what happens when you earn lower wages and spend time out of the workforce to raise a family.

“Not increasing the (superannuation) rate will mean more women end up homeless when they are old. Which do you prefer?” Jane asked Tim, after he shared an article on the possible impacts of raising super contributions.

His response was predictably disappointing.

Wilson has since doubled down on his comments, saying that it’d be easier for people to buy a home if they can access their savings.

“Not owning your home is one of the biggest determinants of poverty in retirement. And it disproportionately impacts women,” he tweeted. “And because we prioritise super over home ownership we fuel it. It is wrong.”

Tim is right on this point — a paper from our Human Rights Commission explains how structural barriers which disadvantage women put them at a higher risk of homelessness when they’re older. One of these structural barriers? Low superannuation.

Related
Paul Keating Slams 'Little Bitchy Liberals' For Messing With Superannuation

But apparently it’s not the ridiculously prohibitive cost of housing that’s the problem; it’s not stagnating wage growth. It’s a planned 0.5 percent increase to the superannuation guarantee that’s really to blame.

Super has turned into a bit of a political hot potato over the last week or so — basically, we’re all due for an increase to our entitlements pretty soon, but the government doesn’t want to give it to us (that’s why our old PM Paul Keating is calling out “little bitchy Liberals” — you can check out our proper explainer here).

Of course it’s not just older women who are affected by unaffordable housing — home ownership has steadily declined over the last few decades, and young people are much less likely to own their own homes than baby boomers were at the same age.

The Reserve Bank of Australia has said that increasing superannuation would most likely lead to employers cutting employee wages to pay for it. Basically, it’s another example of young people getting screwed no matter what happens.

Superannuation has been a cornerstone of Australia’s retirement system since it was introduced in the 90s, but yesterday the Australian Financial Review reported that a growing group of Liberal MPs want to switch the focus onto home ownership.

Interesting, since the LNP weren’t that interested in housing affordability at the last election when they pushed back against Labor’s proposed changes to negative gearing and franking credits.