I rise to enter the debate today, and I want to thank the member for Petrie for confirming exactly what Labor's policy will deliver, when he said, 'If Labor's policy was adopted, prices would go down.' We know that at the moment that, for young people to get into the housing market, it is not the Australian dream; it is the Australian nightmare. We know from listening to middle Australia and listening to people who want to own their own home that the best way and the fairest way is to make sure there is a government in this nation that recognises and gives a tax break to people who want to enter the housing market, not one that rewards those who are looking at buying their eighth, ninth or 10th property. As we heard from the member for Kingsford Smith, Australia has the most generous negative gearing in the world when it comes to taxation.

The government continues to dance around the issue of housing affordability whilst a generation of Australians face the prospect of simply being locked out of the housing market. Before the House tonight, we have the Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017 and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Vacancy Fees) Bill 2017, both of which will do nothing to address the housing affordability that this government likes to claim it is doing something about—but which, by the way, are opening the door for young Australians to reduce their own superannuation savings. That was a debate we had last night in this chamber, so it's a bit like groundhog day when it comes to talking about housing affordability. But it is a really important issue for the constituents I represent in this place.

I know, from representing one of the fastest growing corridors in Australia, the battle—and it is a battle—that young people face to get into the housing market. I mentioned last night, here in this place, the submission from Industry Super Australia, in which they say that the First Home Super Saver Scheme—which we just heard about from the member for Petrie—'potentially exacerbates the housing affordability problem' rather than does anything to address it, and 'also undermines the important goal of the superannuation system as a provider of adequate retirement income'. I said in my address to the House last night when dealing with this scheme that, since superannuation came into force—since the legislation was first enacted under the leadership of the Keating government, under the leadership of John Dawkins—the coalition have opposed it, and now they are undermining it.

The government continues to tiptoe around the issue and put forward bills such as these. Make no mistake; these measures have nothing to do with housing affordability. Any housing affordability package that does not deal with negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount is a sham. That's why I am a strong supporter of the member for McMahon's amendment, which we will be voting on. I will be strongly supporting it, and I will be asking members of the government to think about and consider the measures before us tonight, but, more importantly, the amendment, which says:

"whilst not declining to give the bill and related bill a second reading, the House notes that any housing affordability package that does not include reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax is a sham".

I say that very deliberately because, within the community I represent, I see the struggle that young people have with housing affordability. I note that, when my friend the member for Lindsay is out in her community, when any single Labor member is out in their community, and they talk to residents at shopping malls, markets, cafes, community groups and town halls—just as the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, does week in, week out, sitting down, rolling his sleeves up and listening to middle Australia—the issue of housing affordability comes through crystal clear. We've heard the message on this side of the House but, sadly, the government, with its tin ear and its out-of-touch Prime Minister, is sitting on its hands. We just heard about Tom and Lisa, constituents of the member for Petrie. I want to imagine that it's four years from now and, as a 22-year-old who maybe recently graduated with a degree in engineering, they've worked hard, their parents have supported them, and they can't wait to take the skills and knowledge that they learned, perhaps through university, a trade or TAFE, and now apply it to the real world. Maybe the last four years of study has been tough. Since moving out of home they've had to fork out for the expensive rents that come with living near enough to perhaps the closest capital city university or regional centre. They've been working more than 20 hours casually to support themselves through study, but it's all made tougher, we know, since the government has cut penalty rates. Sundays used to bring in that bit of extra cash to help with the groceries and increasing rents, or maybe the electricity costs or paying off your car or just getting out and about with your friends.

Nonetheless, you have graduated from university and you're ready to take on the world. However, you quickly learn that the job market is very tough and finding employment in your field isn't as easy as you thought. The youth unemployment rate for people aged 15-24 is still double that of the national average. You're desperately keen to get your foot in the door, so you take an admin role, perhaps in a leading engineering firm, until something opens up for you. The starting pay is just $48,000 a year, but it's better than nothing. You soon learn that, because the government has cut the threshold for HELP repayments, your take-home pay is now even less. On top of that, you're hoping to land an entry-level engineering job. You also have hopes of saving up for the elusive home deposit.

The government are proud to say that they're happy to do nothing about negative gearing. House prices have continued to rise, and the average home on the outskirts of a capital city has an asking price, if you're lucky, of $500,000. This issue has been bubbling around since the government, now in its fifth year, came to power. The previous Treasurer, Mr Hockey, said, 'Well, you should just go out and get a good job.' Moving forward, when the Prime Minister was asked on radio about how to get a deposit and own your home, the Prime Minister, straight from Point Piper, said, 'Well, have you thought about getting rich parents?'

We know that in the real world that simply doesn't happen. With tight budgeting and maybe not eating any smashed avos, you're able to save $50 per week. The bank will require a 20 per cent deposit, meaning you have to save $100,000. At the current rate, this will take around 2,000 weeks to save—the next 38 years of your life. It's a sobering situation, but this is the one issue facing thousands and thousands of young people right across the country. I know from talking to mums and dads and grandparents in the suburbs that I represent that they talk about this. They deal with this issue: how do you get the 20 per cent deposit, with prices rising up and up?

I understand it and members on this side of the chamber understand it. But, if you've never heard it or you've never lived in the real world, or perhaps you're not walking down the same shopping centre aisles or going to the same cafes or community meetings that I go to, you don't understand it. You don't understand what it's like being forced to scrape and save every single day just in order to own your own home. In doing so, young people are forced to take on record levels of debt that were unimaginable just two decades ago. For those who have been able to buy a home, mortgage debt among 18 to 39-year-olds doubled between 2002 and 2014, jumping from $169,000 to $336,000. This is not sustainable and cannot continue, which makes the government's one silver bullet—raiding your own super scheme—all the more crazy. They want young people to take on more debt and more risk to get into the housing market, so when you do finish your working life you're less prepared to have a guaranteed income. Their entry scheme, which we've just heard about from members of the government, would see demand for housing increase and push up prices even further.

As we heard from the shadow Treasurer, what we must do is address the issue of negative gearing and the impact that it is having on homeownership rates. The recent report from the Grattan Institute highlighted that negative gearing has many undesirable consequences. It reduces rates of homeownership, it reduces the availability of long-term rentals and it increases the volatility of housing markets, increasing the risks to the Australian financial system. The Grattan Institute summed it up best when it said:

The most obvious thing the Commonwealth Government could do is reduce the capital gains discount and abolish negative gearing. It wouldn't solve the problem but it would help.

Everybody seems to get this and everybody seems to understand it, except the government. I've said it in this place before and I'll say it again: what will it take for this government to realise that it must follow Labor's lead and act on negative gearing and housing affordability? We on this side of the House understand it. We represent middle and working Australians proudly. They are crying out for leadership. They are crying out for someone to stand up for them. They simply don't believe the spin and the nonsense that comes from the government about raiding superannuation. It is not the answer; it will only make it worse. That's what they want to do—tinker at the edges with bills like the ones we're debating today and raid the superannuation accounts of young Australians to increase demand and push up property prices.

We know the government doesn't believe in the integrity of the system of compulsory super. The government will look for any opportunity to weaken—not strengthen, but weaken—our system of superannuation. This is a government attempting to set a precedent that Australia's $2.3 trillion in retirement savings can be accessed for something other than what it was intended for—retirement income. It goes against the core objective of superannuation. We know from speaker after speaker from the government that they're not interested. They're not committed to dealing with the issue of housing affordability. When I speak to local families and mums and dads and grandparents, I know that they are worried—people in suburbs like Springfield Lakes, Springfield, Collingwood and Bellbird Park, which are seeing a huge amount of demand coming online. But the prices are being pushed up and up, and the government refuses to do anything when it comes to the supply side issue.

I could go on about some of the other suburbs I represent, but I am no different from any other member in this House. Right across Australia, people are hearing the same message about housing affordability. Right across Australia, people want to see action so that their kids and grandkids have the same opportunity that everyone else had—the great Australian dream. The government simply aren't speaking with everyday Australians. They certainly aren't talking with potential first home buyers.

Earlier today I was speaking in the Federation Chamber about the government's other pet issue—its other set obsession—which is giving a $65 billion tax cut, of which we know billions of dollars will go offshore and also to large multinational companies. If the government is serious about wanting our support for housing affordability and if it is serious about tackling these issues, it must, and it has to, look at the issue of negative gearing and capital gains tax. It's that simple.

We have to have that conversation in the community, because the community is demanding it. Time and time again we've been calling on the government to listen to what the community is saying. Time and time again we have been calling on the government to listen to the superannuation industry, which is not supportive of what the government is doing to undermine our retirement income planning for this nation. If you're lucky enough to buy your seventh, eighth or ninth property, good luck to you—you've done well and you've been a success. All we're simply saying on this side of the chamber is that everyone deserves the opportunity to enter the market as a homeowner. But, more importantly, every young person in this country deserves the opportunity of owning their own home.