It would be as if someone had decided to invest part of their superannuation money in housing rather than whatever the fund manager has decided.

It would be easy to enforce. It would be posted on the title, just like a mortgage. 

Upon sale, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority would calculate the pay-back figure, just like a bank calculating a mortgage pay out figure, and provide a discharge upon settlement on receipt of a bank cheque to a nominated superannuation fund.

With the advent of electronic conveyancing it should be fairly straightforward to organise. 

But even with paper conveyancing, it should not be too difficult.

Owning your own home is perhaps the most important element of a comfortable retirement, even more important than superannuation. So as a matter of principle why shouldn’t superannuation money be invested in a person’s own home?

The superannuation pay-back would have to rank after the mortgage pay-back, otherwise the banks would increase their interest rates and deposit levels, defeating the purpose of making it easier for someone to buy their own home. 

So there would be a small leakage from the superannuation pool. But defaults by first homebuyers are fairly rare.

The critical difficulty for young people is getting a deposit together. Once that is done people will live on sausages and mash to make sure the mortgage is paid.

It typically takes about four years for a couple to save for a deposit. Meanwhile, house prices continue to rise putting their dream further out of reach. Once they get over the deposit hurdle, they get a ticket to perhaps the best ride to more comfortable retirement – owning your own home.

Sure, there is a macro-economic argument here. Is it wise as a nation to take money from the superannuation pool which is generally invested in shares, bonds and some infrastructure and put it in housing?

And if more money is put into housing, wouldn’t it inflate house prices, just like the first-homebuyers’ grant? 

On the first macro point, we are not talking large amounts of money here. The average superannuation saving of the first-homebuying group is about $15,000. 

Housing statistics are notoriously difficult because they are blurred by the financing of non-housing acitivities through house mortages. But first homebuyers make up just 14% of purchases. And they usually buy at the cheap end.

Many have likened Hockey’s idea to the first homebuyers’ scheme which was known to have inflated house prices, almost defeating the aims of the scheme.

But this is different. The first homebuyers’ grant was free, and when something is advertised as “free” people flock to it, especially if it is cash, and more especially if it is coming from the Government. So housing demand was pushed up by all those people seeking a freebie.

But this is people using their own money. And why shouldn’t they use their own money to, in effect, provide for their own retirement?

Any housing bubble would further be made smaller and the superannuation pool be secured by the requirement that the superannuation element be returned upon sale. Not many people live in their first home for the rest of their lives.

So Hockey’s idea is at least a thought bubble. But it needs fleshing out and regulating, something this government does not like doing. But without regulation life would be an unworkable misery. 

There would be one further advantage to the scheme. It would provide a mental link between home ownership, retirement and pensions. It would invite the question why can people who own often very pricey homes still be eligible for the pension? Shouldn’t ownership of a dwelling of more than, say, $2 million disqualify someone from the pension? That alone would fund the administration of the first homebuyer superannuation scheme.