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.

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

Mr DICK: 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—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ): Is there a point of order from the member for Petrie?

Mr Howarth: I seek to make an intervention.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Oxley, you can accept the intervention if you wish.

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

Mr Howarth: 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.

Mr DICK: 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?'

Mr Howarth: Support this bill and help them get a deposit.

Mr DICK: 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.