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

Of course I am acting utterly consistently with the proposition that, when you take money from young Australians and lock it up in super, they can't do other things, like afford private health insurance or homeownership. When you concentrate a huge shift in economic power, it means the choices of young Australians are sacrificed in the process. It doesn't matter whether it's private health or saving to support their family and buy a home; the principle that sits behind it remains the same. That's why it's the biggest shift of economic power in this country's history, away from the many in the favour of the few, forcing the second-most important financial decision—or other important financial choices, like private health insurance—ahead of the most important financial decision that young Australians will make, which is to secure their own home, which is the foundation of their economic security during their working life and through to their retirement, so that, on balance, they have fewer costs in their retirement, so they can do things like support the ongoing payment of private health insurance. It reduces the volume of super that they would then need to be able to do things like afford their living costs and health insurance.

That's why this issue is so critical. We're trying to bridge a gap between one stage of life and another. What this will do is to build a bridge across that gap for Australians across their entire life cycle, to secure their health. Now we need to do the same in other policy areas, to respect the natural progress of life. You're born, you get educated, you're raised; you then go into tertiary education, a trade or a skill or into the workforce; you find a spouse and have children; you wish to buy your own home, as the foundation—the most important financial decision you make in your life—and then, following that, you start to look at issues like how to secure your retirement, because of course you can save for your retirement after you buy a home but you can't afford to save for a home once you're in retirement. It's out of respect for that natural progression of life. This bill, in acknowledging the contribution of private health insurance, helps to bridge that gap on one factor: the security that people need in their life, not just in their working life but in their retirement, and it goes to the heart of their sense of physical security for themselves through their health care. I have consistently said that we need to do the same in other areas.

But of course we have the Labor Party who are quite happy for young Australians' savings to be spent on housing that they can rent from super funds but who do not support young Australians using their own savings to buy their own home. They want Australians to be serfs to their super, like all other government systems. This is not a sustainable way for a country to go forward—unless, of course, you're part of the select few who enjoy the benefits, like IFM Investors, a big financial services firm that pays bonuses in excess of $36 million to single fund members. But we never hear any cries of outrage from members opposite.

It's about time we got serious and a bit honest about what's actually happening in this country, where we're seeing the concentration of power going from individuals to big fund managers, and, of course, the political interests associated with them, and that makes it harder for people to afford private health insurance and to be able to afford their own home. That's why it should be home first, super second. But a critical part of that is private health insurance as well.

See this speech in context