Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I might just pick up on the last point from the opposition, and that is this question about the Future Fund and it being for the government's 'own political agenda'. Yes, it is part of our agenda to make sure that we have more housing. It is our agenda to make sure that we have investment in the future. Senator McKenzie was suggesting that we should raid super, against the advice of a large majority of economists right across the economy that the effect of raiding super funds on housing would be a disaster. The Future Fund is, particularly and specifically with the new mandate, given the opportunity, if the returns are there, to make sure that it has a laser view on the importance of our kids and our families having an opportunity to own a home. If the maths adds up, the investment will take place. That's pretty logical.

When you start talking about housing with those opposite, we saw the opposition and Mr Dutton turn around and make a decision to oppose the sorts of housing initiatives that we've taken and, in a disgraceful chapter, to block Labor's international student caps. We've said quite clearly that changing the international student caps is an opportunity to turn around and make sure we take pressure off housing for many communities. This is part of the housing approach. Why are they opposed to what we're saying? We saw it in the paper today. What we saw today was Senator Henderson getting caught with her hand in the cookie jar but saying it's not her hand. That's what happened.

They're against housing in the Future Fund. They're against student caps being put in place. They're against relief. They're against every program that this government has put forward to make sure that ordinary Australians, their kids and their families are protected and given opportunities in the future. Every program is squandered or opposed by them—and constantly supported by the Greens; this green-blue alliance. The algae of politics. That's how they carry on. It's toxic. The toxicity goes to the Future Fund and to student caps.

When you start raising questions about why they're in this position, you have to go back to the reasons why. Why are they opposed to housing in so many areas? When you go to areas such as the international student caps, you only have to go as far as a secretary of the Rouse Hill Liberal Party. He funds the programs and policies for the views that he holds, and he reaches out to all the shonky, exploitative immigration and migration agents, in the case on international student cap usage. Of course, Senator Henderson has supported those agents. She has not only supported this agent but also supported those agents that fund the Liberal Party, fund Senate campaigns and fund campaigns right across the Liberal and National parties. They've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. At the same time they're turning around and saying, 'No, we want to go further, but then we're going to the fundraiser.' You're calling a dog whistle on overseas students and trying to turn around and undermine what's happening. You've got one hand on the whistle and the other hand in the jar! One hand is on the whistle to call it out and the other hand is in the jar, getting maximum benefit, which turns around and has a negative effect on housing across this community.

This is a pattern of behaviour: oppose the Future Fund, oppose international caps, oppose the initiatives that we've put up time and time again. What we have seen, quite clearly, is that these migration agents are pushing so many buttons on those opposite, and the net effect is on housing right across this community. Those migration agents are getting their money's worth out of Senator Henderson. It's her hand in the jar, because it is in the jar of making sure that housing policy, whether it be through the Future Fund or anything else, is turned around and not effective policy that they will support. When you start looking at the critical things we should be doing in getting positive returns from the Future Fund, why wouldn't you say it would be housing? If it's international caps, why wouldn't you say it be housing? If it's putting more investment to buy and own your own— (Time expired)