Should you be able to take money out of your super to pay for housing? One Nation has recently suggested you should. Liberal senator Andrew Bragg has also revived the idea. The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, tells us the Coalition and One Nation are “coming after super” and want to “vandalise” the retirement savings scheme. He also predicts the next federal election will be a referendum on super.

In the midst of a national cost of living crisis and housing shortage, it would seem reasonable to ask about the balance between how much money we are saving for retirement and how much money we have to use now. It would also seem uncontroversial to discuss whether altering that balance will assist with cost-of-living pressures or add to them.

The idea of using super for housing is hotly contested.

Why is this the case? The answer resides in the history of Australia’s private retirement saving system, the battles over its design and, ultimately, for power over a $4.8tn savings pool.

The national system of compulsory superannuation was legislated in 1992 by the Keating Labor government. Paul Keating and former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty are regarded as the founders of the system and continue to be active voices in the debate more than 30 years after superannuation was introduced.

The 1992 legislation grew out of industrial campaigns by trade unions for a “right” to superannuation. Before the superannuation reforms, most workers received only the government age pension in retirement. Those who also had superannuation were limited to some white-collar workers and government employees, and mostly to men.

As Kelty put it in an interview with me for my book, “before superannuation, when you got the sack, you got........

© The Guardian