Allowing first home buyers access to their super isn't the answer
GUEST OBSERVATION
The draft proposal to allow first home buyers to access up to $25,000 from their superannuation to buy their first home is absolutely ridiculous.
The whole concept of superannuation itself is to provide compulsory savings for people who are working, so they have a fund tofall back on when they retire.
At some stage in the future, Australia will not have a pension. Superannuation is a forced saving scheme, so people who are working now become self-funded retirees.
If first home buyers are able to access their superannuation in the first stage of their working lives - and most of them are under 30 years of age - they'll be taking a large lump sum of money that will take away massive growth from the early stages of their fund's growth.
What's appears to be a little problem now will turn into a catastrophic event when it's time to retire. It will just create another push on affordability, from a different angle.
If the policy goes through and it sees a big take up, we could see house prices go up, through greedy developers.
When there was the full switch over to first home owner grants for only new properties, you saw prices increase overnight for new house and land packages. One day they were $310,000, and the next day they were $330,000.
Superannuation is a very heavily governed industry. So I'm sure the take-up will not be as big, initially, as ASIC oversees the superannuation industry and it will be heavily regulated. But if it does
take off, you will definitely see the sharks out there taking advantage and putting prices up.
Rather than dipping into their funds, and trying to outstretch themselves, first home buyers should rethink where they want to buy. If you can't afford to buy in an area, you shouldn't be trying to live there. If you can't afford to save a deposit for a home after paying rent, that also says you probably can't afford to live there.
Instead of taking money out of their super, first home buyers should think about changing their spending behaviours.
As a society, we have people to mow our lawns, we buy a coffee each day, we have our clothes dry cleaned, we're having our cars washed. We even have our dogs washed! 20 years ago, that never happened. It's about getting back to basics.
Every week, when you get paid, you should be putting some money aside. Some say, "that money simply isn't there". If that's the case, you're probably living in an area out of your budget. You should be able to save some money, even if it means you can't live in the most desirable part of Sydney or Melbourne. People are certainly living beyond their means.
You might need to live in the outer suburbs. Sydney is the worst location for affordability, even in the outer suburbs - so it might mean you need to consider moving to Melbourne. On the outskirts of Melbourne, there are plenty of new houses available for $300,000.
When I bought my first property, it was a little one bedder, and certainly not ideal. I saved by bum off to get a deposit together. And there wasn't a first home owners grant either. Homes are a lot more expensive today, but incomes are also a lot higher.
Of course, some industry organisations will support the proposal. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone wants to see a "good" property market. The developers want to sell properties. The real estate agents have to sell properties. They're obviously going to support it. The building associations obviously support it as well.
In reality, first home buyers need to rethink how they save for their first property.
TODD HUNTER is buyer’s agent, director and location researcher for Sydney-based wHeregroup.
He reached a personal investment portfolio of 50 properties in 2006 and has also started building an SMSF portfolio.
