Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

The government scrupulously avoided talking about the economy during the election campaign, and we've seen why since they've come into government. This is a government without a plan, without any knowledge, with a group of L-plate Treasury ministers who have got no idea what they're doing and with a Prime Minister who has never held an economic portfolio. We are seeing quite early how lacking his experience, in his very long time in parliament, has been. The government has already broken faith with the Australian people, at a time when the Australian people are facing cost-of-living pressures on a range of fronts like high inflation. I would agree with and accept the assistant minister's statement that global factors are predominantly responsible.

We're seeing high fuel prices, now with increasing interest rates and an environment of tightening monetary policy. What is the answer from the government to the Australian people on one of the solemn commitments they made prior to the election to give some cost-of-living relief, which was that they would reduce power prices by $275? What is the outcome of that? They have walked away from that commitment within weeks. The government would like to hope that we will forget about that commitment, that we will forget about the endless array of Facebook tiles that we saw from members opposite and candidates that they would deliver a $275 reduction. They will not deliver it. The Prime Minister won't even say the words '$275'—won't even utter the words. At a time when Australians are facing such cost-of-living pressures, the Labor Party are now walking away from the only source of relief that they promised.

In addition, they've got a very critical decision to make. In response to those cost-of-living pressures, when I was around the ERC table, we took a decision to pause the fuel excise. It was a very big decision and one that we thought about deeply. There were two factors in our minds when we took that decision to reduce the excise to save people about 24c a litre when you include the GST. That's 24c a litre that Australians have been enjoying since we took that decision. There were two primary factors: the price of oil, largely as a response to the war in Ukraine; and, of course, the cost-of-living pressures that Australians were facing in a tightening environment of monetary policy. Those two factors are still in play and indeed are worse now. There is no end in sight—sadly and regrettably—to the conflict in the Ukraine and no requisite outcome on oil prices in sight. Monetary policy is tightening even further. The two factors that caused us to take that decision are worse now than they were then. So the government have got a very big decision to make. Do they say to Australians, 'We will reinstate that fuel excise, that additional 22c'—or 24c once you take into account the GST—'per litre'? Will members opposite go back to their electorates and tell their people: 'I'm sorry; bad luck. Whatever you see now, add another 24c'? Or will they extend it? That's a decision for the government, ultimately. That's a decision that governments have to make, and blaming the former government, the opposition, cannot be a substitute for a very critical decision that they will have to take.

We are in an environment where we've got tightening monetary policy. Again we have had a rise of 50 basis points today, or $700 a month in additional payments for a household with a mortgage of $800,000. The Prime Minister didn't know that number. That's in addition to what people were already facing with higher fuel costs and higher prices at the supermarket. Will this government say, 'You can pay an extra 22c plus GST per litre on your fuel,' or will they take a contrary decision? That's a very big decision for them, but I would suggest that the government are all at sea on that question, as they are with every question around the economy. They didn't want to mention it before the election, and we now see why.

See this speech in context