But is itpossible that there are situations whereit would be better to dip into that if itmeans keeping your home or keepingthe skills that are going to be needed tokeep you in work. And I would say yesto that.But I wouldn’t get too much morespecific than that. Other than to say, wedo need to think about whether there’s aneed for some flexibility.Pauline Vamos: I think that peoplecan dip into their super if they’re inthe situation where they’re about to lose their home.

Despite what theactual rules are I think that particularly,APRA is quite generous about it.Fiona Reynolds: They are supposedto asses whether you could ever actually afford that home you might be about tolose. It can create unfortunate situationsbut you know, there’s a sole purpose testin superannuation for a reason, and weshouldn’t remove it lightly.Colin Tate: Closing comments?Tony Harris: Inventory did drivethe national accounts and I think that’sbecause companies think consumptionhas collapsed.And if you want consumption togrow I don’t think interest rates will doit for you.

I’m very worried about thegovernment’s capacity to spend moneylet alone spend it wisely, and that’s anotheradvantage of having people spend their own money if they want. Paluine Vamos: My concern is stillthat once you go to 6, you’ll never getback. And I haven’t changed that viewdespite all the conversation.Fiona Reynolds: You have to bepractical about this. We’ve said for examplein our submission to the Henryreview that we did with Industry SuperNetwork, that on adequacy you needto have a floor but also a ceiling. And maybe once you’ve hit that ceiling of where you need to get to, then everything after that once you want to pull it out at retirement age, maybe that’s when you decide it’s not tax free. Because the government has givenyou tax incentives to get to a certainlevel but not just for you to keep pumpingmillions of dollars in.