Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was saying before the debate was interrupted that the Labor Party will strongly oppose the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill because it represents a fundamental undermining of Australia's superannuation system. It is in breach of the government's own proposed superannuation objective and it will make housing affordability worse, not better, by pushing up demand and overinflating prices, through people accessing their superannuation, and, for those strong reasons, the Labor Party will oppose this bill.

There are also matters of technical difficulty with this bill, which the government has failed to explain. For example, we are told by the government that it is only voluntary contributions that can be accessed under this scheme. But what the government hasn't explained is how those voluntary contributions will be kept separate in superannuation, particularly in the perhaps unlikely but certainly not unthinkable and unfortunate event—it has happened in relatively recent history—that superannuation accounts shrink in a downturn, that people actually have less money in their account. Which part of that account would be able to be accessed? What was voluntary? What was compulsory? How would it be separated? At the very least, it introduces another significant layer of complexity to our superannuation system, which would best be avoided. There is no policy case for this approach. There's no evidence to support it. On the contrary, many commentators have pointed out the folly of the government's approach here.

The government is also being incompetent in its implementation. You might be shocked to learn this, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, but I follow the Treasurer on Facebook. He's a Facebook friend of mine and, for my sins, I see what he has to say on Facebook. I noticed on 1 July that he was out there spruiking that this scheme was wonderful, that it was available and that young people should access it. It might not have escaped you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but today is 17 October and we are debating now a scheme that he was spruiking back on 1 July. It was not the law of the land when he was on Facebook encouraging people to be taking advantage of it. In fact, the ATO said in response to a media inquiry, 'We urge caution for people in making their arrangements based on legislation which has not passed either house of the parliament.' At that stage it hadn't been introduced. So the Treasurer has some explaining to do as to why he was out there misleading people, encouraging people to access a scheme which, at that point, did not exist and may well never exist. It may well not pass the parliament. I dare say it will be pass this House, but it will not necessarily pass the other house because it will not get our support. We will certainly be talking to the crossbenchers about why we believe they should be opposing it. Then I hope that the Treasurer might go back and delete his little 1 July Facebook post encouraging people to participate in a scheme which did not exist then and might not exist going forward. That is typical of the Treasurer—all talk. He is out there operating his spin machine but not engaging in the policy work and the substance.

The second measure in the bill is about contributing the proceeds of downsizing to superannuation. I will say at the outset that there is a legitimate policy issue here at its heart. Enabling people—and we are talking overwhelmingly about older Australians here—to more easily downsize their home is something that is a legitimate area for governments to examine. Older people who have raised a family—a large family, potentially—in a large house and no longer have the family on their hands don't necessarily want the big backyard and big house to maintain but feel they will be penalised if they do downsize. Of course, that is housing stock which could be available. I will make it very, very clear that no older Australian should feel under any obligation or pressure to downsize if they are comfortable in their community and happy to stay in their family home. Of course that not only is their perfect right but should be celebrated. Their continuing ability to live in that house should be celebrated. But if they would downsize if it weren't for the interaction of downsizing with government policy then that is something governments can examine. We in office had a pilot program to look at this. The government abolished that. Now they are coming back late to the party, as is often the case in this policy space of the Treasury portfolio. They are coming very late to the party, saying, 'We think there might be a problem here.'

A former Minister for Mental Health and Ageing is at the table. He was intimately involved in dealing in a very considered way with Labor's policy approach. Labor looked at the interaction of downsizing with the pension. Labor looked at people on low and middle incomes who might consider the need to downsize. The government have taken a different approach. They are concentrating on the superannuation side of things, proposing to allow people aged 65 or over to make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 from the process of selling their home. These contributions would be exempt from the age test, work test and the $1.6 million balance test for non-concessional contributions. This measure would overwhelmingly impact on people at the highest end of the spectrum when it comes to savings, not people who are concerned about the interaction with the age pension.

I do freely acknowledge this is a complex policy area and one on which we should be proceeding carefully. But it is a legitimate area for governments to examine. The government's proposal is not one that we think is the best way forward. I must say that this isn't our primary reason for opposing this legislation. Indeed, if the government wanted to split it out, we would engage in good faith with them and consider how a downsizing measure could best be progressed. We don't think the government's model here is the right one, but we do acknowledge that there are legitimate things for the government of the day to be examining when it comes to downsizing.

I do note that we asked the Treasurer some questions on notice about this measure. We found that the Treasurer did not have an estimate of how many households would be expected to downsize as a result of the measure, or the assumed increase in the effective supply of housing that the measure was expected to generate. I'm not sure how the government can make many claims about reducing pressure on housing affordability, as it does in the title of this bill. But, as I said, if we were in a position where the bill was defeated and the government wanted to come back and talk to the opposition about downsizing measures, we would entertain those discussions and the government's proposed response and consider the best way forward.

But what we make very clear is our strong and strident opposition to undermining superannuation. What we will fight in this House and the other house is this government's repeated attempts to unpick and unwind the hard-fought advances in retirement incomes that have been achieved overwhelmingly, universally, by this side of the House on the introduction of compulsory universal superannuation in the 1990s. What we will oppose are measures dressed up as housing affordability measures that will make the situation worse. I move:

That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“The House declines to give the bill and related bill a second reading as:

(1) the First Home Super Saver Scheme will do nothing to address housing affordability but will instead work to undermine Australia’s world class superannuation system; and

(2) any housing affordability package that does not include reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax is a sham”.

It is a sham, and this policy is a joke. The government has a damp squib of a so-called housing affordability package, which is a grab-bag of ill-thought-out ideas, thought bubbles and half-baked proposals. It is an attempted alibi for real reform to negative gearing and capital gains tax, which that side of the House is incapable of delivering and which this side of the House, if we win the next election, will do. I can feel the member for Port Adelaide champing at the bit to second my second reading amendment, which I commend to the House.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

It's great to be able to rise today, and it gives me great pleasure, to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017. In the May 2017 federal budget, Treasurer Scott Morrison outlined a number of measures to help improve our national property market. Two of those proposed amendments were the First Home Super Saver Scheme and reducing barriers to downsizing. The First Home Super Saver Scheme will allow first home owners to get ahead. It'll give them a great opportunity. It saddens me to hear the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, come into this place and say the opposition won't support it. This man is supposed to be the shadow Treasurer of this nation, and there was not one good reason in his speech for not supporting this bill.

This bill will help young people who haven't bought their first home to get ahead and to keep more of their own cash. Those members opposite should be ashamed of themselves if they don't support this bill. They're just the blind leading the blind. This is good policy. This will help people in every one of our electorates. The member for McMahon is totally wrong, and I would say that he lies when he says that it undermines Australian super. He lies.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are limits, Mr Deputy Speaker!

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree. Can I ask you to withdraw, please, member for Petrie.

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

I withdraw.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know where to start, with the member for Petrie. Not only have we now confirmed he is an apologist for the big banks, an apologist for the multinational companies who he wants to give big tax cuts to; now the evidence he's presented to rip off people with their superannuation, to push up prices, is—his big evidence—we've got to look after real estate agents as real estate agents need defence. I've heard it all, that, somehow, his defence and the government's defence is all about getting people into the home market and protecting superannuation.

I thought I'd better check what the industry is saying about this, what the experts are saying about it. I'm not sure if the member for Petrie read the submissions to the draft legislation and the submissions. I didn't read a lot of support for the government's legislation from experts. There were, of course, the real estate agents the member for Petrie is desperate to look after, not working people in his own electorate. When I read the submission from Industry Super Australia, they said about this bill, this great body of work, that the first-home super saver scheme potentially exacerbates the housing affordability problem; it also undermines the goal of the superannuation system as a provider of adequate retirement income.

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

It doesn't touch their super; the employer's contribution isn't touched.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Petrie indicated in his speech he has spoken to real estate agents who are quite happy about prices being inflated as a result of this policy, but the superannuation companies, the experts, are wrong. But somehow we'll listen to the member for Petrie talk about his extensive consultation with real estate agents and how they love this policy. So you're right—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the member for Petrie—I will be telling constituents in his electorate and every other electorate in Queensland, Australia, that the key objective from the government, courtesy of the member for Petrie, is that we have to look after real estate agents. Not on my watch! We oppose the measures in these bills—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a point of order from the member for Petrie?

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

I seek to make an intervention.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Oxley, you can accept the intervention if you wish.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course; I'm not afraid of any question.

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

The member for Oxley just said that this would push up prices. Real estate agents did not address that with me at all. Real estate agents said that it would address the deposit issue for first home buyers. When I consulted with real estate agents, it was nothing to do with pushing up prices for real estate; it was to do with getting together a deposit for the first home buyers that they see, because the deposit is the biggest barrier for young people, and these bills helps them keep their own money.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish there was a question about what I was saying, but, unfortunately, I'm happy to take the intervention, which was really a rant, as furthering my point that the member for Petrie is interested in defending real estate agents. Nonetheless, we will be opposing these bills for very sound reasons—they do undermine superannuation, and they will push up costs in the housing market.

We know that our superannuation is the envy of the world. If there was ever an example of how the Liberal and National parties in this place, since the beginning of the great labour reform which is superannuation in the modern economy—the example given by the member for Petrie shows that he clearly doesn't support superannuation, just as his own party has not supported superannuation over the last couple of decades. I want to refer to the then Treasurer, John Dawkins. When we introduced the superannuation guarantee administration bill, he said:

The superannuation guarantee levy represents another major step forward in the development of retirement incomes policy. It will lay the foundation for income security and higher standards of living in retirement for future generations…

Before these reforms came in and before there had been attempts to undermine them by those opposite, there was no guaranteed income for seniors in our community. It was something out of reach for most working people in this country, and it was a reform bitterly, bitterly opposed by those opposite. At the time, members spoke in this parliament saying, 'The whole sorry saga that we've seen repeated here this morning has convinced me more than ever that this approach to helping people provide for their retirement is completely wrong and entirely misguided.'

These bills undermine modern-day superannuation. We know that the government does not believe in the integrity of the system of compulsory super. In my opinion, it is not in their DNA. As self-evidenced by the introduction of these bills, they will look for any opportunity to weaken—not strengthen; weaken!—our system of superannuation. This is a government attempting to set the precedent that Australia's $2.3 trillion in retirement savings can be accessed for something other than retirement income. It goes against the core objective of superannuation.

I want to reflect on what the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services said when she introduced the Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2016 to the House, as recommended by David Murray. This is what she said last year:

…there has never been a clear, legislated objective for superannuation. This has meant that it has been too easy for different governments to make ad hoc changes to the superannuation system—and, ultimately, undermine confidence in it.

That's what your own minister said about superannuation. So what are you doing today? It is the complete opposite of what your own minister indicated when she brought that legislation about superannuation into this place.

Let's not forget: this is the third attempt by the government to somehow do something. I give it to the government: this is doing something, even though I'm bitterly opposed to it and mainstream Australia is bitterly opposed to it, apart from the real estate agents, who are delighted that this policy could become law. The then Treasurer, Joe Hockey, talked about how to deal with housing affordability and said, 'You should just get a better job.' Then the Prime Minister of this country, when asked on radio about how to get into the housing market, floated the idea of getting rich parents. Now we're debating a bill before this House today which is about undermining superannuation and ultimately pushing up the costs of housing for people who will not be able to afford to enter the housing market. It's tough now; why is this government making it harder?

We know this bill has been a long time coming. We know from listening to the shadow Treasurer today that we saw the current Treasurer announce through social media in July that this was the panacea to deal with housing affordability in this country—apart from the fact that housing industry experts have said that this does absolutely nothing to deal with supply. We know that from reading through the submissions and doing background checks for this bill. Again, Industry Super Australia says:

… the main risk is that the measure could be used as a Trojan horse by some future government with the scope extended to allow higher withdrawal amounts and the possibility that Superannuation Guarantee balances might be included.

So the industry has real problems with these bills. They have been ill thought out. You only need to read the coverage of the government's policy that we're debating today, not just consulting with real estate agents and seeing their happy faces:

The 'big risk' in the budget's first-home saver accounts

'First-time buyers led up garden path'

That will just simply aggravate the problem …

'Academics and industry express concern'

I think it was a drop in the ocean …

Where's the body of evidence, besides the litany of real estate agents that the member for Petrie has provided? I'm looking forward to members of the government indicating where the expert advice surrounding this legislation lies. What actual input says that, as a result of this legislation, housing prices will drop and housing supply will increase? We know it won't do either of those things.

It will increase housing prices and undermine superannuation. That is why Labor will not support it. I support the shadow Treasurer's amendment, because if we're dealing with affordability and supply, I, alongside my colleagues, am proud to support the policies of a future Shorten Labor government, if we are privileged to serve in this nation, to see a tax cut given to people entering the housing market—not to people buying their seventh or eighth house. How on earth in anyone's language is that fair?

I know when I speak to local families and parents in particular that people are worried about their kids getting into the housing market. I represent a high-growth corridor in the south-west of Brisbane, through suburbs like Springfield, Springfield Lakes, Collingwood Park and Bellbird Park, where terrific new housing is being developed and great infrastructure is being provided across all levels of government. We could do with some more, but when you represent a fast-growing community—and I'm privileged in this place to represent one of the fastest growing communities in Australia—parents come to me and say: 'Will our daughter or son ever be able to enter the housing market? Will they ever be able to see a clear path for their having the great Australian dream of owning their own home?'

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

Support this bill and help them get a deposit.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've just heard from the member for Petrie, who says, 'They just need to get a deposit.' If only it were that simple. I will tell my residents that the government's answer is, once again, confirmed by the member for Petrie, 'Just get a deposit.' If only dreams could come true! If only those unicorns walking around could wave their wands and say, 'You have a magical deposit.' Of course no-one believes the utter rubbish of members opposite when they come to this parliament about housing affordability. They have done nothing, as they now enter their fifth year of government, besides wanting to raid Australia's superannuation. That's their one solution to dealing with the housing affordability crisis in this country.

We listen to stakeholders in the superannuation industry and look to people in the housing industry, not just the real estate agents. The real estate agents are really keen for this policy to go forward—I understand that and I understand that they've got an industry and businesses to run. But we represent middle and working Australians, who are crying out for leadership and simply don't believe the spin and the nonsense that comes from the government about raiding superannuation. The government are undermining retirement income and retirement savings policies for a short-term fix that, ultimately, will lead to a dramatic increase in housing costs.

If the government is serious about wanting support and if they're serious about tackling this issue, they will look at the issue of negative gearing and capital gains tax. It is that simple. We have to have that conversation in the community. Time and time again we have been calling on the government to listen to what the community wants and to listen to what experts are saying in the housing market: instead of dealing with giving a tax break to people who perhaps are lucky enough to be buying their seventh, eighth, ninth or 10th property, we should be looking at those people entering the housing market.

What does this bill achieve? It undermines our system of superannuation in this country and does nothing for housing affordability. I believe it is a serious backward step. For those reasons, I will be joining with my colleagues and advocating with members of the Senate to not pass this bill, to not undermine Australia's superannuation, and to make sure that this government finally takes a step towards dealing with the housing affordability crisis in this country.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. Housing is much more than just having a roof over one's head. It is a basic and essential right that every Australian should have access to. There are three basic essentials for human existence: food, water, and shelter. It is very, very basic. Access to shelter, or lack thereof, is a stressor that often leads to unemployment, substance abuse and mental ill health. I would have thought those opposite would consider that these are very important issues. I think we are all of a like mind in recognising that these are important issues, but this government is seeking to do something about them.

I recently had the very great privilege of representing the government on a mental health tour to Europe over the last couple of weeks. I went to England, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada with a member of the opposition—a member of the other place—and also a Greens senator. We looked at mental health and best practice for research and clinical treatment of those suffering from mental health problems. One of the most common issues that arose in relation to mental health was a lack of affordable housing.

There are thousands of people living homeless in Australia. I can say, with a degree of unfortunate comfort, that there are many, many times that number of people who are living rough and sleeping rough around the world. I recently had an opportunity to take part in the Vinnies corporate sleep out, and I'm sure a number of my colleagues here did as well. I joined the member for Fairfax and the member for Wide Bay and we slept rough for just one night. Admittedly it was only one night, but, from the perspective of my back, it was one night too many! I was asked by many people why I did it and what I learnt from it, and the answer was very simple. For me, it is: don't become homeless. That's very easy for me to say, of course. There are many people around our country who are sleeping rough and living on the streets. Being homeless isn't just about sleeping on the street on a piece of cardboard. There are thousands of people in Australia who couch surf. There are thousands of people in Australia who sleep in cars. This government is committed to doing what it can to ensure that we look after our most disadvantaged.

This issue recently hit home in my own Catholic parish of Stella Maris only a few weeks ago when one of our local homeless people found one of his homeless friends dead in our parish church grounds. We all asked: 'How could this happen on the Sunshine Coast? How could this happen in our very own parish church grounds?' Brett was a 31-year-old dad whose life had taken a turn for the worse. It is a tragic story that is repeated all too often right around this country.

I recently had the privilege of inviting the Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar, to my electorate on 13 April. We held a housing summit. I want to acknowledge the participants of that group. We had: Paul Bidwell, who is the Deputy CEO of Master Builders Queensland; Deb Blakeney, who is the CEO of Lions inPlace; Kelli Dendle from CHASM; Andrew Elvin, who is the CEO of the Coast2Bay Housing Group; Llew Gartrell, who is from Stockland; Helen Glanville from Coast2Bay; Wendy Gleeson from Sunshine Coast Council as the senior social policy adviser there; Shane Goodwin, the Managing Director of HIA; Tony Long, who heads up an affordable housing company; John McNamara, who is a finance broker; Joy Morwood, who is the manager of Sunshine 60 & Better; Shane O'Brien from Vantage Homes; Ben Simpson from Stockland; and Warwick Temby from HIA. So they were people from all walks of life involved in the housing industry in one way, shape or form, whether as a builder or as a community housing group. We met with the Assistant Treasurer and we thrashed it out. Bear in mind this was back in April, prior to the budget. We thrashed it out. We had a session on what the government could do to try to alleviate housing pressures.

One of the many things that came out of those discussions was that one particular group that gets forgotten about when we talk about the homeless and disadvantaged are women who have often gone through a divorce and are in their 60s, often having stopped work. This particular category or age group of people find it very hard to re-enter the workplace. Often after a divorce they're left with nothing and they cannot even afford to rent a home on the Sunshine Coast. This really struck home to me as a result of this housing summit that we held with Michael Sukkar. I want to thank in particular Joy Morwood from Sunshine 60 & Better for opening my eyes to this particular problem with this demographic.

I will turn now to the bill. I know I made a long segue there, but it was very important that I gave it that context. This bill is unlikely to stop homelessness, but what it will do is help Australians, among other things, to purchase their first home. It will enable retirees over 65 to downsize their home and take advantage of the sale of their home, and I will come to that shortly. It will enable the better targeting of deductions relating to residential and investment properties, and it will boost the availability of rental accommodation on the market through a foreign resident vacancy tax.

The first aspect of this bill I would like to address is the First Home Super Saver Scheme. Many of us have kids who are in the age group that is having trouble saving a deposit to buy a home. Three of my four daughters are in this age group, and I really wonder whether they will ever own their own home. Under schedule 1 of this bill, the government will help Australians boost their deposit savings for their first home by allowing them to save for a deposit inside superannuation through the First Home Super Saver Scheme. From 1 July 2017, individuals can make contributions of up to $30,000, with up to $15,000 per year, to their super account. Despite what some members opposite have said, this is in relation to voluntary contributions. It is not in relation to the 9½ per cent that their employers put in their account. The First Home Super Saver Scheme enables people to put additional money, up to $30,000 over two years, into their super. This is not an attack on superannuation. This is a mechanism that enables people to put additional money into their superannuation account, which they can then take out. These voluntary contributions, along with deemed earnings, can be withdrawn for a deposit, with withdrawals taxed at the individual's marginal rates less a 30 per cent offset. Under the First Home Super Saver Scheme, most people will be able to supercharge their deposit saving by around 30 per cent, compared with saving through a standard deposit account—and that's very important.

The second issue I want to address is that of reducing barriers to downsizing. Under this bill, older Australians will be incentivised. When the time is right, people aged over 65 will be able to sell the family home that they have held for more than 10 years and make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 into their super funds. If the property is owned by a couple, each of them can take advantage of this, which equates to $600,000. Far from being an attack on superannuation, this is a vehicle where older Australian couples can put $600,000 into their super accounts. Imagine the impact putting $600,000 into people's superannuation account will have. That will quite possibly set them up for the rest of their lives. This measure will help free up housing stock for younger families. I'm not an economist, but, applying the simple rule of supply and demand, more stock, more supply, equals downward pressure on pricing. It seems to me to be a fairly simple concept.

The third issue I want to raise is that of the vacant property tax. Under this bill, the government will implement an annual vacancy charge on foreign owners of residential real estate where a property is not occupied or available for rent for at least six months of the year. We've all heard stories—each of us in this chamber has heard stories—of international buyers buying up, usually off the plan, units and townhouses and then land-banking them, for want of a better term. They don't put anybody in them; they just land-bank them. Now, that has a drastic impact on the price of housing. It forces housing prices up. Worse still, it makes it more and more difficult for our most disadvantaged Australians to be able to rent units—which is what they usually are, but they could be any type of residential real estate. Now, that's a crying shame. It's criminal that we have got international buyers buying Australian real estate and then locking out Australians, some of whom are our most disadvantaged, from even having the capacity to rent those properties. This vacant property tax will be a disincentive for these international investors to do that. Once again, this will make more homes available for rent. It is supply and demand: the more houses that are available for rent, the greater the pressure on rents, and that can only be a good thing.

The last issue I want to touch on in relation to this bill are the travel expense deduction and plant equipment deductions. From 1 July 2017, the government will no longer allow tax-deductible claims for travel expenses, and it will limit plant and equipment depreciation deductions to new assets only. We've all seen the situation where people have claimed interstate trips, even overseas trips, to inspect their properties, and that's very unfortunate. This law will ensure that property investors can no longer take advantage of those provisions. This will strengthen the integrity of our tax system, and I would have thought that those opposite would have supported it. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm speaking in opposition to these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017, and I want to point out from the outset that the bills contain two measures. The first one allows contributions into superannuation accounts—with concessional treatment in terms of tax—to be later withdrawn for a home deposit. That aspect is opposed by Labor. The second measure is one which allows those over 65 the opportunity to make non-concessional contributions of up to $300,000 from the proceeds of the sale of a home and not be disadvantaged in terms of their treatment associated with the pension and other government payments. That is a measure that Labor is open to considering. In fact, Labor did a similar thing when we were in government, and the Abbott government, when they were elected, cancelled it. So here they are bringing back a measure similar to what they cancelled in the past, which doesn't make any sense. But, because they are coupling it with this disastrous proposal in respect of superannuation, Labor and I are unable to support this reform going forward.

This really is a weak response to what is a huge issue for many Australians at the moment, and that is not being able to afford to purchase or rent a home, particularly in the community that they grew up in. In the electorate that I represent, Kingsford Smith, people are waking up to household prices that literally rise every day. In the last three years, from 2014 to 2017, the price of homes in the suburb of Malabar, just around the corner from where I live, have grown by a whopping 46 per cent to an average of $2 million, adding $635,000 to their value. That equates to an increase of $580 in the value of that property every single day—every single day. It's not confined to that suburb; it's occurring everywhere in the electorate that I represent. Up the road, in Coogee, the average price has increased by $592 every single day to just under $2.4 million.

Particularly in the last five years, property has become so expensive that many young people in our community fear that they'll never be able to afford to buy their own home and be close to family and social support networks, and that is a great shame, because, in my view and in Labor's view, access to housing is not a privilege; it's a human right. Governments and the people of this country, given the high living standards that we enjoy and the wealth of the nation, should be able to provide reasonable and affordable housing for its citizens. And it's not occurring at the moment, because this government is unwilling to do what is necessary to tackle the issue of housing affordability and the distortions in the housing market, fuelled by taxation policies that are the most generous in the world and encourage investment over owner-occupiers. I'm speaking, of course, of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount that was introduced by the Howard government.

It's not just the electorate that I represent where people are doing it tough in terms of housing. Home ownership in Australia is at a 60-year low. Home ownership rates for 25- to 35-year-olds have collapsed from around 60 per cent to less than 40 per cent in the last 30 years. Rental stress is on the rise, with the proportion of low-income households in rental stress now at more than 40 per cent—and you see it every day. I was in Melbourne on the weekend. While walking through the streets I saw there was, unfortunately, an alarming number of people who are now homeless and literally living on the streets, particularly in our major cities, because they can't get access to public housing, because they can't afford rents or because they can't afford to buy their own property.

For Sydneysiders, the issue of housing affordability and the sad fact that many homes are completely out of reach for so many has now become a topic in all conversations around our community, bar none. Literally not a week goes by in the electorate of Kingsford Smith when someone doesn't come up to me and complain about housing affordability and their anxiety and their stress and worry that their kids will not be able to afford to buy a home in the future—and I'm not talking about children in their 20s or 30s; I'm talking about children in their 50s and 60s—in the community that they grew up in and alongside family.

These measures that we're debating here today don't do anything to deal with the heart of the problem, and that is the overly generous tax concessions that exist around negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts in this country at the moment. Basically, if you are not tackling those issues, if you are not talking about reducing the generous negative gearing concessions and capital gains tax discounts that exist at the moment, you are not fair dinkum about housing affordability in Australia. These bills don't do that; they don't go to that measure. Again, they're tinkering around the edges. These bills seek to introduce two measures that the government introduced in this year's budget. The first is the super home saver scheme, and the second is the contributing of proceeds from downsizing to superannuation. The government's first home saver super scheme plan would mean that first home savers who make voluntary contributions into their superannuation system can withdraw these contributions up to certain limits, and an amount of associated earnings, for the purpose of purchasing their first home. Concessional tax treatment applies to amounts that are withdrawn under the scheme.

I and my Labor colleagues feel that this sets a very, very dangerous precedent. You're setting a dangerous precedent by seeking to tinker and chip away at the foundations of the universality of our superannuation system. Superannuation accounts are meant to be working-life savings accounts that generate retirement incomes, not to be used at the whim of governments to try and tackle problems that don't actually do that and be accessed for whatever they wish. At the moment, quite a large proportion of Australians, on the trajectories that we have at the moment with the compulsory superannuation contribution level at 9½ per cent and very few people contributing on top of that, won't be able to afford to retire on their own. They'll have to rely on at least a part-pension or the full pension into the future.

Basically we're not saving enough as it is at the moment, through the current superannuation system, and this government wants to allow people to tinker with that and to potentially reduce it over the course of their lifetime by getting concessional treatment for contributions up to $30,000. Now, I can tell you, $30,000, in the context of where I live in Kingsford Smith, doesn't buy you a window pane. What an affront to young people to say, if you're going out to try and buy your first unit—which in reality is at least $800,000 to $1 million, in the area that I represent, for a one- or two-bedroom unit—that we'll give you a leg-up with 30,000 bucks, which you'll have to save yourself through the superannuation system. What an affront to young people, while at the same time they allow massive tax concessions to the wealthiest property investors in the country. Someone who's seeking to negatively gear their seventh or eighth investment property gets more support from this government than that first home buyer who they're asking to put 30,000 bucks into their superannuation when they go to an auction on the weekend to try to buy their first home unit or their first townhouse. What an affront to Australians who are seeking to get into the housing market.

And of course we all know that with superannuation those who miss out the most in this country are, unfortunately, women. If there is a category of people who are going to be defined as those who will have inadequate savings to fund their own retirements when they reach retirement age, it is women, because women have intermittent breaks from the workforce, and unfortunately we still have a gender pay gap in this country. Policies such as this are blind to issues associated with superannuation and saving for adequate retirement among women.

The other measure in this bill is about contributing proceeds of downsizing to superannuation. The government proposes to allow people aged over 65 to make a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 from the proceeds of selling their home. These contributions will be exempt from the age test, the work test and the $1.6 million balance test for non-concessional superannuation contributions. Labor doesn't have any objections to this measure. If it were split from this bill and put up on its own—and if you look at the full title of this bill, they are two separate measures, but the government has played politics with this and sought to bring them together, just to try to wedge the Labor Party—then this is something that I and my Labor colleagues would be of a mind to support. The reason is that we did a similar thing when we were in government. In the 2013-14 budget we instituted a pilot program that had the aim of doing just that: trialling a means-test exemption for aged pension recipients who were downsizing from their family home. Our threshold was that up to $200,000 of proceeds was to be put in a fund which would have been exempt from the pensions means test for up to 10 years.

So, when Labor was in government, we actually did this; we did something like this. And what did the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, do when he was elected as Prime Minister, and his government? They got rid of it. And here they are trying to bring it back? I mean, what sorts of fools do they think the Australian people are? The waste of all that time and effort, the bureaucracy that was undertaken to get rid of this measure, purely because, I suspect, the member for Warringah didn't support it, because it was introduced by the Labor Party—no other reason; he wouldn't have looked at the sense associated with it. Purely because it was introduced by the Labor Party, they got rid of it, and here they are bringing it back. It makes no sense whatsoever. And they've sought to couple it with this disastrous amendment to our superannuation laws. That's the reason Labor is not supporting this.

This bill comes on the back of much spruiking by this government. Indeed, they've been very enthusiastic about their so-called housing affordability plan—out there, like used car salesmen, spruiking just how good this will be for housing affordability in this country, when really what they're trying to offload is a lemon. The assistant Treasurer promised and proclaimed in the 2017 budget:

The housing package will be extraordinarily large … It will be an impressive package. It will be a well-received package.

What we got was a hotchpotch and a shambolic mess of measures that have done nothing to address the key drivers of housing affordability that are in Commonwealth control. I'm speaking, of course, of the negative gearing and the capital gains tax concessions. This is an issue that Labor takes very seriously. In fact, for the last three years we've had a policy of reducing these excessively large concessions that exist for people. Labor will seek to reduce those concessions, because they're overly generous and don't benefit those whom they should.

Currently 50 per cent of the benefit of negative gearing goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners in this country. That says it all about what is wrong with housing affordability in this country. The wealthiest Australians are armed with this tax concession through negative gearing and may be going to invest in their seventh or eighth investment property. They're armed with the support of the government. They have the support of the government when they go to an auction on the weekend and seek to buy an investment property, and the poor old little first-home buyer, who has no support from the government whatsoever, is battling against someone that's getting a massive tax concession from the Commonwealth government—a housing tax concession, by the way, that is the most generous in the Western world. Fifty per cent of that negative gearing benefit goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners.

For capital gains tax discounts, it gets even worse, because 70 per cent of the benefit of capital gains tax concessions goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners, and 30 per cent of the benefit of superannuation concessions goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners. That is unfair, that is what's wrong with the system and that's why Labor will reform negative gearing. We will reform capital gains tax discounts by reducing them by a half, because we are fair dinkum about tackling housing affordability in this country, taking the pressure off the housing market and ensuring particularly that first-home buyers can get a leg up into the market, can establish themselves either with a rental property or with housing and set themselves up for a better life around the family that they grew up with and in the community that they love so much.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me a lot of pleasure to talk about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, because I want to bring out some key principles. A society remains stable when people believe that there are greater opportunities for their children than there were for themselves. I think about an example where I was once in a very remote part of China, standing in the house of our interpreter, who was very poor. Quite a contrast here: the farmer said to me: 'I have been able to double the size of my house. My children have a better opportunity than what I had. I am happy.' That is something that I think that creates a strong society.

You might ask why I am pointing out that at the start, but I think the issue of housing affordability harks very much back to that key principle. There are many Australians now who feel that they are unable to achieve the standard of living that perhaps their parents had, who feel that they may never be able to own a house. I want to say to them that that is not the case, it should not be the case and the government that I am part of is contributing towards ensuring that won't be the case. The two things that make a great and stable society are if a person has a job and a person has a house, a roof, something over their head, somewhere they can make a home, somewhere they can raise a family. If you want to get your economy right, you get those two things right and things have a way of falling into place. You get up, you work, you have purpose, you have somewhere you can invest, you have stability and you have a family life, and that is something that I think makes a great society.

But increasingly we're seeing it's becoming more difficult for young Australians, particularly, to save for that deposit. I do find it quite remarkable that the Labor Party would be against the first part of this measure. I understand that it is very close to super. It holds it to its heart as a dear reform and says we shouldn't touch it. But if you think about what the key purpose of superannuation is, it is to provide or increase your net financial worth in order to be able to self-provide in your senior years. If you are unable to own a house, that does draw on your ability to self-provide in your senior years. In fact, the sooner you can enter the housing market, the sooner you can grow your net worth, which therefore does contribute to your ability to self-provide in your senior years. I think the first part of this schedule of this bill actually is in line with the aims of providing for your retirement, allowing Australians to use the superannuation vehicle to make voluntary contributions of up to $15,000 per year to get to a contribution of $30,000 as a first start to get a deposit.

Often in my patch, which is rural Australia, there are opportunities to purchase houses that are somewhere in line with what you would pay in rent. Mildura, to give an example, has a population of 50,000. It's a place where I live—a wonderful place where I can look out the window and see the vineyards. It has everything: private schools, good infrastructure and community infrastructure. It's a beautiful place to live. It is possible to purchase a house there for about $200,000—and quite a reasonable house, I might say. For a person living in Mildura, for example, one of the things they are finding if they are paying rent is their rental repayments are higher than what their home loan repayments would be if they were able to get a deposit. To provide a mechanism to allow a person to accelerate their capacity to get a deposit actually puts them in an opportunity where their weekly outgoings would be the same. But instead of paying rent to an investor who is building up their net worth, they're paying it to themselves to pay off a home that will eventually build up and eventually be theirs, and they will no longer have to make that repayment in the fullness of time. I think a tax incentive around savings is very worthwhile and a very good policy, and I would encourage the Labor Party not to be so opposed to it because it actually is in line with their super reforms.

I have a view that we should be accelerating that opportunity even more. I believe that in some regards the banks put too high a threshold on the level of deposit that a person has to have as proof of their capacity to pay. I'll give you a consideration that I would ask the banks to look more favourably at. If a person has a three-year rental history and they've had the capacity to pay rent and have not dropped a payment for three years, I think that too should be a consideration as to eligibility for a loan. Instead of requiring as much as a 10 per cent deposit before they are able to purchase that property, if they've been renting for three years and they've clearly demonstrated that they've got the ability to manage money and that they've been able to earn and make rental payments, then, if those rental payments are somewhere near what they would pay in repayments, I think the deposit amount that a bank asks should be somewhat less. I think that is another way of accelerating the opportunity for someone to become a purchaser rather than a renter.

I see the challenge that a lot of young Australians have at the moment, where they're paying rents and those rents are going up at the same time as they're trying to save deposits, and the requirement for a deposit is going up at the same time as house prices are going up. They feel that the more they swim, the further away the shore is getting from them. I think that is heartbreaking for a lot of Australians. If we can address some of those things that allow them to get on that first rung of the ladder, that certainly is an advantage. I know from my personal experience. I didn't go to university; I worked in shearing sheds. The hardest dollars you ever earn are the first dollars you earn. When I was able to save enough of a deposit to get started on a farm, then I could actually make some money. Saving that deposit and getting started as well as trying to pay rent, as well as having the price running away from you, is something that we do need to be addressing, and this bill is a pretty good first attempt at addressing that.

Can I just touch on negative gearing. I do think negative gearing has a real role to play in encouraging investment in housing. The government doesn't build enough public housing across the country. As a result of that, we incentivise investment for Australians to buy houses that will be available for people who want to rent, but I do think there is an argument that there should be a cap on the amount that you can deduct through the property purchases and rental return through negative gearing. It might be in the vicinity of a tax deductibility of $30,000 a year. I do think that, like anything, there are never two extremes of policy—there is always somewhere in the middle. I do believe that there should be consideration given to incentivising the person to be able to buy one, maybe two, investment properties to make provision for their self-funded retirement, but I don't think there should be a tax benefit if you are up to seven, eight, nine, 10—that is just a personal view which I want to put on the record here.

Schedule 2 of this bill is very, very wise, and I'm pleased to hear that the Labor Party are supportive of it, because it will actually facilitate growth in regional Australia. Increasingly, we are seeing people who are in their senior years living in cold old Melbourne. Now, Melbourne is a wonderful place to visit, but not a wonderful place to be—not a wonderful place where you want to live out your winter. Why would you want to live winter in Melbourne? It's freezing. It's only worth being in Melbourne in wintertime when it happens to be the year when the Western Bulldogs win the grand final! But, apart from that, you do not want to be in Melbourne at wintertime. What we are seeing is many Australians from Melbourne now selling their houses for pretty good money, and they are using that money to build a new house in regional Victoria where the sun shines and where it is warmer. For example, this last year there has been over $100 million worth of new housing go up in Mildura, and largely the people who are going there are Australians who are 65-plus; they come and build a new house. They can sell a house for $1 million, build a house for $300,000 and have $700,000. They can have their caravan. They can have their overseas trips. They can have a quality of life that they never thought possible. They can go fishing down the river. They are 38 minutes in a 737 from Mildura airport to Melbourne if they want to go down and watch the Western Bulldogs win another premiership, hopefully, in 2018! It goes to show that there are people making these decisions.

With schedule 2 of this bill, we are allowing people who are going to sell a property to still be able to put a non-concessional contribution of up to $300,000 into their superannuation after selling their main residential home. This will actually incentivise them to downsize, which does make a property available for another young Australian who wants to live in Melbourne, for example. This does a lot of other things that are not just a financial benefit for these people but also a great thing for our country towns. I want to touch on this. We love to harness the skills and the passion of Australians. I'm a strong believer that our grey-haired Australians and our no-haired Australians—I have to encompass everyone—have so many skills and so much to offer. What we want to do is use them in regional Australia. We are increasingly seeing these people who have had international careers, who have had very successful careers in the cities, shifting to regional Australia. They are active and they are getting out because, frankly, they don't need to sit in front of the heater in Mildura. It was 33 degrees today. They are warmer—no arthritis—and they are contributing to making our towns vibrant and strong. I think this is such a wonderful thing, so I would encourage the opposition to think broadly about just how important schedule 2 of this bill is. This is about incentivising our senior Australians to go out and live life in an area where they can downsize and shift out to the regions.

In order for this to happen, there is, of course, a strong argument for good public transport links. If you talk to those senior Australians who have downsized and shifted to the regions, the things they look for are adequate health services, communications services so they can make contact with those they love and also public transport. One of the great concerns for me in my patch, which is north-west Victoria, is that there certainly is not adequate public transport to Horsham, to Stawell or—with the exception of air transport—to Mildura. Addressing those three things—adequate health services, public transport and telecommunications—will facilitate the greater decentralisation of our cities. It will also increase the opportunities for these people with skills to come to our regions.

Giving a financial incentive to people to put some money into their superannuation is a welcome thing. When we lift the wealth of average Australians, we lift the wealth of Australia. Sometimes we lose sight of that fact in this place. Sometimes we spend too much time thinking the government's got to do it. But if you can actually incentivise Australians to make good financial decisions, if you can lift their individual wealth, then ultimately, collectively, we are a wealthier country as a result.

This bill really is about that. It's really about a first step in helping young Australians into the property market: it's clear that we believe that you've got a future; it's clear we want your standard of living to be equal to or better than that of the generation that came before you; we want you to have a house; we want to help you. It's our government that's delivering that in this bill, and I'm very pleased to be able to speak about this very important bill in this parliament.

Debate adjourned.