Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish there was a question about what I was saying, but, unfortunately, I'm happy to take the intervention, which was really a rant, as furthering my point that the member for Petrie is interested in defending real estate agents. Nonetheless, we will be opposing these bills for very sound reasons—they do undermine superannuation, and they will push up costs in the housing market.

We know that our superannuation is the envy of the world. If there was ever an example of how the Liberal and National parties in this place, since the beginning of the great labour reform which is superannuation in the modern economy—the example given by the member for Petrie shows that he clearly doesn't support superannuation, just as his own party has not supported superannuation over the last couple of decades. I want to refer to the then Treasurer, John Dawkins. When we introduced the superannuation guarantee administration bill, he said:

The superannuation guarantee levy represents another major step forward in the development of retirement incomes policy. It will lay the foundation for income security and higher standards of living in retirement for future generations…

Before these reforms came in and before there had been attempts to undermine them by those opposite, there was no guaranteed income for seniors in our community. It was something out of reach for most working people in this country, and it was a reform bitterly, bitterly opposed by those opposite. At the time, members spoke in this parliament saying, 'The whole sorry saga that we've seen repeated here this morning has convinced me more than ever that this approach to helping people provide for their retirement is completely wrong and entirely misguided.'

These bills undermine modern-day superannuation. We know that the government does not believe in the integrity of the system of compulsory super. In my opinion, it is not in their DNA. As self-evidenced by the introduction of these bills, they will look for any opportunity to weaken—not strengthen; weaken!—our system of superannuation. This is a government attempting to set the precedent that Australia's $2.3 trillion in retirement savings can be accessed for something other than retirement income. It goes against the core objective of superannuation.

I want to reflect on what the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services said when she introduced the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016 to the House, as recommended by David Murray. This is what she said last year:

…there has never been a clear, legislated objective for superannuation. This has meant that it has been too easy for different governments to make ad hoc changes to the superannuation system—and, ultimately, undermine confidence in it.

That's what your own minister said about superannuation. So what are you doing today? It is the complete opposite of what your own minister indicated when she brought that legislation about superannuation into this place.

Let's not forget: this is the third attempt by the government to somehow do something. I give it to the government: this is doing something, even though I'm bitterly opposed to it and mainstream Australia is bitterly opposed to it, apart from the real estate agents, who are delighted that this policy could become law. The then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, talked about how to deal with housing affordability and said, 'You should just get a better job.' Then the Prime Minister of this country, when asked on radio about how to get into the housing market, floated the idea of getting rich parents. Now we're debating a bill before this House today which is about undermining superannuation and ultimately pushing up the costs of housing for people who will not be able to afford to enter the housing market. It's tough now; why is this government making it harder?

We know this bill has been a long time coming. We know from listening to the shadow Treasurer today that we saw the current Treasurer announce through social media in July that this was the panacea to deal with housing affordability in this country—apart from the fact that housing industry experts have said that this does absolutely nothing to deal with supply. We know that from reading through the submissions and doing background checks for this bill. Again, Industry Super Australia says:

… the main risk is that the measure could be used as a Trojan horse by some future government with the scope extended to allow higher withdrawal amounts and the possibility that Superannuation Guarantee balances might be included.

So the industry has real problems with these bills. They have been ill thought out. You only need to read the coverage of the government's policy that we're debating today, not just consulting with real estate agents and seeing their happy faces:

The 'big risk' in the budget's first-home saver accounts

'First-time buyers led up garden path'

That will just simply aggravate the problem …

'Academics and industry express concern'

I think it was a drop in the ocean …

Where's the body of evidence, besides the litany of real estate agents that the member for Petrie has provided? I'm looking forward to members of the government indicating where the expert advice surrounding this legislation lies. What actual input says that, as a result of this legislation, housing prices will drop and housing supply will increase? We know it won't do either of those things.

It will increase housing prices and undermine superannuation. That is why Labor will not support it. I support the shadow Treasurer's amendment, because if we're dealing with affordability and supply, I, alongside my colleagues, am proud to support the policies of a future Shorten Labor government, if we are privileged to serve in this nation, to see a tax cut given to people entering the housing market—not to people buying their seventh or eighth house. How on earth in anyone's language is that fair?

I know when I speak to local families and parents in particular that people are worried about their kids getting into the housing market. I represent a high-growth corridor in the south-west of Brisbane, through suburbs like Springfield, Springfield Lakes, Collingwood Park and Bellbird Park, where terrific new housing is being developed and great infrastructure is being provided across all levels of government. We could do with some more, but when you represent a fast-growing community—and I'm privileged in this place to represent one of the fastest growing communities in Australia—parents come to me and say: 'Will our daughter or son ever be able to enter the housing market? Will they ever be able to see a clear path for their having the great Australian dream of owning their own home?'

See this speech in context