Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I say that the truth is being stretched considerably when the member for McMahon says that the coalition is undermining Australian super. It is just not true—just not true—and not one thing that that man said, as he walks out of the chamber now, made any sense at all. This policy is good policy for Australians wanting to buy their first home. I will come back to that.

I want to express my enthusiasm for this amendment, because in my opinion it addresses the biggest barrier that young Australians face when buying their first home, and that is the deposit. That's the biggest barrier that they face—getting together that deposit for their first home. With low interest rates, and house repayments in many cases just a bit higher than rent, now is a good time to buy. If we're able to help Australians secure their deposit, I say that that is a win for first home buyers.

Importantly, the First Home Super Saver Scheme isn't a handout, a free ride or a new tax. It's not a new tax. It's a commonsense economic policy that helps young people keep more of their own money. This is their money. I say to every member of this House and to every senator: we are talking here in this bill about these people keeping their own money. All this bill does is stop the Australian government taking a greater share of tax, so that people can keep their money for a deposit on their own home. What's the matter with that? There's nothing the matter with that. It's good policy. It'll help young people in my electorate of Petrie and in Oxley and right around this country. It really will.

I'd hoped that the opposition, the Labor Party, would support it, and it's really disappointing that the shadow Treasurer isn't, but without one decent argument at all—nothing. He says, 'Well, how would you separate it?' Quite simply, you could put it straight into cash into your super saver scheme. This does not touch employer contributions—not at all. This is additional salary sacrifice money that goes in and is taxed at a lower rate of 15 per cent, as opposed to the 32½c minimum for anyone earning between $37,000 and $87,000 a year. It does not undermine Australian super at all. And I will come back to why I believe in super.

Let me read this case study. This could be anyone in any one of our electorates or any one of our states. Lisa earns $60,000 per year and wants to buy her first home. She salary-sacrifices $10,000 of her pre-tax income into her superannuation account, increasing her balance by $8,500, because it's taxed at 15 per cent. If she put it into her Commonwealth savings account, she'd end up with $6,750, at 32½c. Straight up, Lisa is doing better. After three years, she is able to withdraw $27,380, which is three contributions of $8,500 plus deemed earnings. Her withdrawal is taxed at a marginal rate, less a 30 per cent offset. After paying $1,620 in withdrawal tax, she has $25,760 that she can use for her first home deposit. By putting money into her superannuation account through a voluntary—voluntary—salary sacrifice commitment of her own money, not touching employer contributions, Lisa has saved $6,240 more for a deposit than if she had saved in a standard deposit account. But the shadow Treasurer doesn't support this bill. It's just outrageous. If Lisa's partner, Todd, decides to salary-sacrifice exactly the same amount of his wage, they end up with $12,480 more of their own money than if they'd put it into a bank account. But the shadow Treasurer doesn't support it, and we will hear that from every one of the Labor members who get up to speak and who won't be offering this to people in their electorates.

I will be going back to Petrie and talking to young couples and saying, 'You know what? I want you to keep 12,000 bucks, between the two of you, of your own money. I don't want you to give it to me and the government; this is your money. It's a lower tax rate for you to get into your first home.' By moving first home deposits into their superannuation accounts, individuals, as well, will not be tempted to dip into their savings for an impulse buy or a quick getaway. It's a forced way of saving—a voluntary forced way of saving. Funds will be allowed to be withdrawn only for the primary purpose of purchasing their first home. So it's a great voluntary scheme for those who want to save for a deposit to do so.

There is concern that the average age for first home ownership is increasing, but I think we also have to correlate this data with having a partner and getting married at a later time, for many people. My mum and dad married when they were 21 and 19, so they bought their home when very young. I didn't get married until I was 27—I did it a bit older. Nowadays, we see a lot more people in their 30s settling down with their partner or marriage partner. So people are getting older before buying.

I was lucky enough to have a good financial mentor in my father. And do you know what? In relation to superannuation—and this is why I take great exception to what the member for McMahon says when he comes into this place—when I was 19 my father encouraged me to put $50 a month away into a super account. I said, 'What do I want to do that for?' I think I was earning $250 or $280 a week at the time—whatever the minimum wage was back then. He encouraged me to put away $50 a month. I was living at home, so I thought: okay, let's do it. But the point is that I had $600 a year extra in my super and after 10 years I had another $6,000, plus compound interest.

This man comes in here and says that we don't support super. My family supports super. My father and mother support super. I support super. The member for Oxley should stop interjecting and just grow a brain! He's got a big mouth on him. He comes into this place mouthing off all the time. Just be quiet and stick up for the first home buyers in your electorate, mate. Let them keep their own money, instead of you wanting to grab it. We know that Labor always wants to tax higher.

I recently did a Facebook video with Steph from Ubiquitous Realty, a young woman in my electorate who bought her first home at 21. She is now 27. She has great tips for Australians buying their first home. She said, 'Have a goal—if that is what you want to do. Talk to a mortgage broker and don't overcapitalise. You don't have to spend $500,000 on your first home. You can buy a fixer-upper up for $350,000. No problem. That way you are not paying as much in interest and repayments.' It is great advice from her. I will tell you that the Super Saver Scheme for first home buyers will really benefit people in Queensland and people in South Australia, where property is a little bit cheaper than in, say, Victoria and New South Wales. I jumped on realestate.com.au and looked for a three-bedroom, one-bathroom house in my electorate. I found 2 Cater Street, Brackenridge on offer now for $360,000; 13 Chamomile St, Griffin—$389,000; 557 Anzac Ave, Rothwell—$319,000; 19 Knights Terrace, Margate—$360,000; and 2 Cornwall St, Deception Bay—$299,000. Sold! Mate, if you were a first home buyer, $299,000, and this scheme, will give a young couple $12,000 between the two of them, which is additional money over three years that would normally be given to the federal government. All we are doing is allowing them to keep it in their own pocket and get their deposit together. I say that we are mugs if we don't support this. If members of parliament and senators don't support it, they are mugs, because we are allowing first home owners to get ahead. It does not dip into the superannuation savings that employers contribute—the 9.5 per cent, or whatever it is, that employers contribute. It can be put into cash, so it's separate and ready to be used when they want it.

We are not the only ones saying this will be of benefit. I talked about Stephanie from Ubiquitous Real Estate. Andrew Reibelt from RealWay Property in Redcliffe also said it's a great idea. Corelogic, a financial services company, said, 'First home buyers will be better off with the First Home Super Saver Scheme.' And Dixon Advisory is calling for bipartisan support for passing the First Home Super Saver Scheme legislation to give certainty to first home buyers. Australians are sick of this parliament not giving bipartisan support for a lot of issues. For the members opposite not to support it is really disappointing. Don't follow your leaders on this issue—talk to them. It is not too late to vote yes on this issue. It's good policy and it won't weaken superannuation. It won't weaken industry super funds or any type of superannuation; it will benefit and give people a leg-up.

I'm not going to criticise the policies of those opposite. They want to reduce negative gearing and everything else, which I think will encourage more people to positively gear and will push up rents, for those who can least afford it, in places like Deception Bay. That's fine; you can implement that policy, but don't stop this one that gives people a leg-up now to get a deposit for their first home. It just shows that this shadow Treasurer is really just playing politics on this issue. It's very disappointing.

I will quickly touch as well on the government's proposed scheme for reducing barriers to downsizing. It will help free up larger homes for more growing families. They might not be first-home buyers; they might be families getting into their second or third home, if they've moved. But for those aged over 65 and who would like to move into a smaller apartment they will be given flexibility, by the Turnbull government, to contribute up to $300,000 per person from the sale of their home as a non-concessional contribution into their superannuation. That's great news. That means a couple from Scarborough, in my electorate, are able to sell their family home worth a million dollars and purchase a flat or a smaller home and put the difference into their super account.

I just think this is really good policy. I would encourage every member and senator not to listen to those negative people opposite but to say it's okay for young Australians to keep more of their own money, to not pay as much tax if they haven't bought their first home, to put it into their super. It doesn't weaken superannuation in any way. I say to those opposite who get up and say that it does: it's clearly wrong. Read the bill. It also gives a great opportunity for older Australians who want to downsize to put extra non-concessional contributions straight into their superannuation, over and above current limits. That is good news for them, too, freeing up extra stock for growing families.

I support this bill wholeheartedly and I, once again, encourage all members of the coalition to support this bill, all members of the Labor Party to support this bill, and all Independents and crossbenchers to support this bill.

See this speech in context