Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

the industry funds into the public eye. ISFs have performed outstandingly in terms of short-term and long-term returns. So this is not based on any kind of substance. This motion is based upon those opposite trying to use the House economics committee and trying to use this chamber to misrepresent a significant part of our financial services sector, to try to hide the fact that this government has done almost nothing to implement royal commission recommendations that are absolutely essential and overdue when it comes to those parts of the sector that were found to be most in need of reform.

What are they looking at instead? They're looking at this bizarre, fanciful notion of housing instead of super. Those opposite are obsessed with the rhetoric of choice, but what they're really creating is not choice. They're setting up a false choice—that you can have a house or you can have super—when, sensibly, the Australian public understands that they deserve both.

What about public policy experts? What about those who see this as an absolute joke of a policy not founded in any kind of commonsense microeconomic analysis?

What about Sally Loane, CEO of the FSC, who said early release for housing would be 'counterproductive and further inflate house prices' and would 'simply mask the underlying cause of unaffordability'? Is there a holistic approach? Is there a demand side approach? No. What about Michael Sukkar—who I don't usually agree with—who said that this is a classic example? The classic example was the Howard government's $7,000 First Home Owner Grant, which may as well have been given straight to developers. So what we're going to have is those opposite trying to get first homeowners bidding against first homeowners, cashed up to the gills in an economy where there's too much credit. What a joke of a motion. (Time expired)

See this speech in context