Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If those opposite thought this was a really important MPI, they'd be here in droves. The shadow minister is standing there. The member for Longman is leaving. There are three backbenchers and a person on duty. That's how concerned they are with mortgage costs and power bills. Where is the Leader of the Opposition, the bloke that tried to put in a $7 GP tax to try to cut $50 billion out of the health budget in 2014? He then put on a Medicare freeze, for year after year after year, to increase the cost of seeing a doctor. So don't come in here and give us lectures about the cost of living.

The coalition left us a trillion dollars in debt. They had low wages, stagnant productivity and energy chaos. According to Malcolm Turnbull, the former Prime Minister, his own government's right wing sabotaged and caused energy chaos. He blamed the right wing in the Liberal Party. That's what he did. The National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, was one of 22 policies. It was dead, according to Prime Minister Morrison, the member for Cook. They couldn't get the policy right, but they went ring-a-ring-a-rosie, holding each other, clapping each other, cheering each other, for getting rid of a price on carbon, which would have meant cleaner, cheaper renewable energy to help people in terms of power costs. But these people over here, who couldn't land an energy policy when they were in government for nine years, presume to give us lectures about that.

When they had a chance to help people with energy prices and cost of living last year, in December, with $1.5 billion of energy relief in the budget—and they'll get that again in the May budget—what did they do? They voted against it. So don't believe what they say; look at their actions. They have four people here and someone on duty. They're really concerned about mortgage costs and power bills, but they can't even bother turning up! It's their MPI. It's not ours. We're here in large numbers. It's their MPI. It's not ours. It's vain and false concern for people's cost-of-living pressures and their mortgage bills. It's vain and it's not real, because those opposite had a chance to do something about it.

It's as if COVID never existed in terms of supply chain pressures. It's as if the war in Ukraine had never happened. But, if you go to Europe, if you speak to the leaders in Europe, the politicians there, they will tell you that the war in Ukraine is affecting their energy costs. They're having to be innovative and creative in relation to that. In terms of energy, those opposite think you can do anything. Nuclear seems to be their obsession now. I look forward to them campaigning for nuclear power plants on the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast, around Ipswich and up in Cairns and Townsville. I look forward to them campaigning on that policy at the next election, because that's not the answer. It's renewables. It's solar. It's wind. That's what they should have been doing. They should never, ever have got rid of the carbon price. They should never have done that. The Productivity Commission said that.

When it comes to a policy that would make a difference in housing, the Housing Australia Future Fund, they say no. Like the Greens, they've said no. It would provide tens of thousands of extra social and community housing. And they presume to give us lectures. The member for Riverina, whom I actually like personally, presumes to give us a lecture on ideology. They have an ideological position that the Commonwealth government should not be involved in social and community housing, public housing, because that's a matter for the states. So they won't vote for it. That's why they won't support people. Veterans would get help. Single mothers would get help. Emergency workers, the heroes of the pandemic, would get help. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people would get help. People who need help would get it, in terms of cheaper housing, social and community housing. The coalition are worried about mortgage bills. There is an opportunity for them to vote to change things, to help people.

When given an opportunity to address the supply chain issues with the National Reconstruction Fund, they voted against it. So everything they say is at odds with what they do and how they vote. Look at what they do, not what they say. If they were ever concerned about this issue at all, they'd be here on the front bench and the back bench in multitudes, but they're not. There are 57 of them who sit over there, and five of them are here now. So, to those opposite: don't give us a lecture, don't give us platitudes, about this issue at all.

See this speech in context