Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Here we are at the tail end of yet another sitting week and at the tail end of yet another matter of public importance. Variety is the spice of life, and we have had a bit of respite from the MPI on energy prices—I think the last one was 1 June. Those opposite want to come into this place to talk about high energy. We see at the helm what they must believe to be an example of high energy: the member for Fairfax.

We hear the same tired lines from those opposite and see the same tired faces. But when you look at those opposite who are here just to soak in the atmosphere, you can truly see the ennui setting in. It settles like sediment on the spirits of those occupying the benches on that side of the chamber. Many of those opposite served in a government that hated the idea of having an energy policy so much that they rolled a Prime Minister because of it. Some of the newer faces here, much like myself, who were playing along at home when all that was happening, were at least in this place when they voted against the Albanese Labor government's mandate to fix nine years of policy inaction on energy.

Even now, as they lick their wounds after their attempts at blocking legislation in this place—a move by the government that was tailored to provide energy price relief to Australian families—we had the Leader of the Opposition, almost one month ago, pledging to repeal legislation that provides energy price relief. This wasn't a leak from shadow cabinet or a live mic mishap. He fronted up to deliver a keynote speech and was probably very proud of himself. Just like Reagan. He said, 'It is almost refreshing, to a small degree, to see those opposite try to dial back progress in the area of public policy by 40 years, instead of the real good-old days.' I think this really needs to be highlighted.

This is the agenda those opposite have prepared for working families, if allowed to form government again. It's an opposition that went out of its way to be a void on energy policy as a government. It is almost as if it's a game to them, a game that brings back some perverse nostalgia to the high school debating days. This is why we have to respond to the arguments of those opposite in debates like this, so they aren't allowed a free pass at ignoring facts, ignoring the details, ignoring the bigger picture and, indeed, ignoring a lot of the nuances in this policy space.

We cannot expect much sophistication from photocopy talking points that likely include some parts that are several months old. I keep holding on to the hope that the continuation of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine—an illegal war that has seen the most significant shock to world energy markets in 50 years—isn't something the opposition blames the government for, the fact that it continues to this very day. Yet they do. They actually have the gall to argue that—every time they mention the word '$275 election promise', one which refers to an outcome in 2025, from modelling that was conducted in 2021, prior to the event. This illegal war has been responsible for the biggest shock to global energy markets in 50 years.

When those opposite call this a broken promise, frankly, they should look at both a calendar and a mirror. They cannot be that naive to continue to stall basic facts. Those opposite might call it 'lies, damn lies', the statistics or perhaps even the fourth category, which is whatever error of basic maths that caused the member for Hume to come into the chamber and butcher inflation statistics. It sounds bad when you attribute it to the member for Hume but it's even worse when it's attributed to the shadow Treasurer.

The member for Hume comes up a lot in this area. His last dying act as minister before the election was to hide default market offer prices from the Australian people before they voted for a change in government. It was an offer that saw prices go up and up and up. This contrasts with the last 2023 default market offer, one that saw prices 27 per cent lower in my home state of South Australia. I know whose side I would rather be on, a side that has an energy policy more sophisticated than just no, one that brings about targeted cost-of-living relief to families, not one that takes great pride in saying they're going to repeal a policy that brings about energy price relief the very moment they can.

I guess it is true, what they say about conservatives: very little changes—their ideals, approaches to policy, the topics they bring up at MPI time. Maybe next week. But I won't hold my breath.

See this speech in context