Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the benefits of home ownership are enjoyed during the working life of Australians, and in retirement;

(b) home ownership is more critical for a secure retirement than a large superannuation balance, as income can be supplemented by the pension;

(c) there is a disturbing rise of Australians who are entering retirement in poverty because of a lack of home ownership, particularly amongst separated and divorced women;

(d) currently Australians are forced to save for superannuation first and a home second;

(e) young Australians are struggling to save enough for a home deposit because their savings are locked away in superannuation;

(f) Australians only benefit from superannuation for about 20 years; and

(g) Australians draw the benefits of home ownership for around 50 years—both while working and in retirement; and

(2) recognises and acknowledges that:

(a) the order should be reversed: home first, super second;

(b) if young Australians could use their superannuation with other savings for a home deposit, they could buy a home both earlier and more cheaply; and

(c) by owning a home, young Australians will have a better life and a better retirement.

Currently, Australians are being forced to put superannuation before homeownership. It should be home first, super second. The recent Retirement Income Review highlighted how critical homeownership is for retirement. It mentioned the importance of homeownership 300 times. Research from the Grattan Institute shows a typical homeowner aged over 65 spends just five per cent of their income on housing compared with nearly 30 per cent—and rising—for renters. Until the 1990s, it was conventional practice that Australians saved for a home deposit first, because it was the ultimate form of financial security for them and their families throughout people's working lives and into their retirement. Saving for retirement income then followed. Many corporates didn't even compel young workers to contribute to their superannuation until about the age of 30, knowing they needed to save for a home. They understood the decision had to be made to fit into the slipstream of people's lives. You get the benefits of homeownership for around 50 years: when you're working and in retirement. Super is only for retirement.

Compulsory superannuation reversed these priorities. It introduced a form of social engineering. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating articulated it best in his 2007 speech on the history of modern superannuation. Keating said:

… had employers not paid nine percentage points of wages as superannuation contributions to employee superannuation accounts, they would have paid it in cash as wages.

And, of course, they could have used it for a home deposit. Australians' wages were taken from them for super first, and any savings for a home came second. The legacy has been a significant accumulation of wealth in superannuation and a decline in homeownership in our great country.

In 1992, the Australian superannuation system held $221 billion. Today, it is $3.1 trillion. It has increased almost 14 times. Concurrently, the biggest decline has been in the home ownership rate of those who have always been under compulsory super. Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows home ownership for Australians aged between 25 and 34 has gone from 52.2 per cent in 1995-96 to 36.8 per cent by 2017-18. The challenge has become so serious that the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has projected that only half of Australians between 25 and 55 will own their own home by 2040.

The biggest barrier for young Australians to buying their own home is saving a deposit. And, with the price of homes increasing by $23,000 a year on average since 2000, enabling them to buy a home earlier also means buying a home more cheaply. The longer it takes to buy a home, the more expensive it becomes. Since 2000, the price of a home has increased, as I said, by $23,000 a year. Demand influences house prices, but so does delay.

Sadly, these points seem to be lost on the Labor Party and the self-interested superannuation sector, who will say anything to get more of your money. They only want more access to rivers of gold. The response from the super industry and their ecosystem of representative bodies has been fierce. But they're absolute hypocrites. Super funds invest in build-to-rent housing. That means super funds are taking your superannuation to build housing that they own, that you can rent from them. In June, AustralianSuper took a 25 per cent stake in a build-to-rent company. Other super funds are now following suit. In August of this year, First State Super said they wanted to expand their investments in this build-to-rent sector and see the barriers removed to make way for the market to grow. The industry doesn't mind the superannuation savings of Australians being used for housing—so long as they own it, not you. They're the modern equivalent of wannabe feudal lords.

Ultimately, this debate is absolutely about power. Home ownership is about empowering Australians and families, and we can empower individuals and families through that process or we can empower fund managers. I know whose side I am on, and I know whose side the coalition government is on. And soon we will see whose side the Labor Party is on: individual Australians and families, or super fund managers.

Currently, the law says: Super first, home second. It should be the other way around: home first, super second. If young Australians could own their own home, they'd have a better life—but an even better retirement.

See this speech in context