PETER VAN ONSELEN: Pauline Hanson, the moderate: One Nation leader's superannuation plan makes Labor and the Liberals look like extremists

Your browser does not support iframes. The major parties like to dismiss One Nation as a policy-free zone of radical grievances. It's a comforting caricature for entrenched political interests. But when Pauline Hanson starts releasing detailed, moderate policies, the label becomes a little silly. Especially when the Coalition and Labor are offering polarised alternatives that lack nuance. I'm talking about superannuation. Hanson wants workers to have the option of receiving the equivalent of three percentage points of their future compulsory super contributions as a concessionally taxed pay boost, for up to three years. Employers would still pay the full 12 per cent into the worker's super fund, which would administer the payment. At least 9 per cent would remain invested and existing balances would remain untouched. That's all. She's not saying you should be allowed to access all of your super, or even a portion of it indefinitely. The proposal is modest and tailored to the challenges of our time. For a worker on $90,000, it's an extra $44 a week. For a couple on $168,000, it's $82. It's a temporary, voluntary pressure valve during a cost of living crisis. It's hardly an invitation to raid the piggy bank and blow the lot at the pub. Hanson has parked herself in the sensible centre on this issue, leaving the major parties looking like absolutist cranks. On the right, Liberal frontbencher Andrew Bragg wants to dynamite the entire super system. The Coalition hasn't adopted his position, yet. But that's the radical alternative being promoted from the opposition's frontbench. Pauline Hanson's superannuation policy is detailed - and moderate. Above with Victorian leader Warren Pickering On the left, Labor treats any deviation from locked-box orthodoxy as an assault on the concept of retirement itself. Tanya Plibersek claims One Nation wants Australians to 'raid' their super, a thoroughly dishonest interpretation of the policy. I support compulsory super. I've written in defence of it many times. Forcing people to save for their retirement is sound public policy. But I can also afford to like it, without needing early access to a portion of what I've got stored away. I'm not choosing between electricity and groceries or watching every rate rise push the family budget towards the abyss. Many Australians are in that position, and this policy is thinking about their plight. It's ignorantly easy for comfortable politicians like Tanya (earning ministerial wages no less) to lecture struggling families about preserving every last cent for 2055. Yes, compounding returns mean withdrawing money today costs more tomorrow. But adults make brutal trade-offs every day. Losing your home carries a pretty severe long-term financial consequence too. Why should team Albo automatically know which risk matters more to a specific Australian family? Super is our deferred wages, not a government gift. Labor insists it's irresponsible to provide modest relief today if it imposes costs tomorrow. This, from a government presiding over structural deficits and a gross federal debt north of $1 trillion and rising. An economic straitjacket for the future. The hypocrisy is staggering. Public debt and private super are different debates, obviously. But Labor is the party invoking the principle of intergenerational responsibility in one sphere while showing no such care in the other. Anthony Albanese's ministers were quick to defend the status quo on superannuation It's perfectly happy to collectively mortgage the nation's future to spend up big now, leaving the interest bill to children not yet old enough to vote, while denying adults a modest say over their own financial survival by accessing a small portion of their own super savings. Then there is the PM's new rhetoric about Australia's $4.5 trillion superannuation pool. Albo recently waxed lyrical about its 'real potential' as a 'national asset' capable of benefiting 'the nation'. No, Prime Minister, it's millions of privately owned assets held for individual Australians. It's not your money! There is nothing wrong with super funds investing in infrastructure, housing or renewable energy when those investments deliver competitive returns for members. But the purpose of super is to finance the retirements of the people who own it, not to advance the political priorities of the government of the day. Albo doesn't seem to understand the difference. Labor celebrates flexibility when politicians urge where your money should be invested, but demands absolute rigidity when you need to pay the rent and might want to access a small portion of your super savings now. It's embarrassingly out of touch. Albo's national slush fund plan for our super is a far greater evil than Hanson's moderate idea for early individual access. The political class insists that One Nation has no serious ideas. Well, here is one. You can disagree with it, you can argue that the full 12 per cent must remain sacred. But you can't pretend that a temporary, modest diversion of future savings is a wild assault on Australia's retirement system, because it's not. As One Nation's support surges, the major parties might want to try assessing Hanson's ideas on their merits, instead of reaching for the same tired insults, as Plibersek did this morning.