Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'll start on a genuinely meant positive note: I want to thank the Assistant Treasurer for his opening conversation on APRA's proposed changes to capital and liquidity requirements for the customer owned banks. In a cost-of-living crisis, it is clear that, if there is an increase in those requirements and that results, as is unfortunately expected, in a reduction of competition in the banking sector, those additional costs—the higher costs of capital—will be passed on to consumers. For customer owned bank customers, we are talking about mums and dads who are living through some very difficult times. These costs will be passed on. That is clear. So I thank the Assistant Treasurer for his conversation. I look forward to further conversation. My question is: will he seriously consider the concerns raised and commit to increasing competition in the banking sector, which was, I point out, a very strong finding of the Standing Committee on Economics report into economic dynamism, which the member for Parramatta was a part of?

To slightly change speed, Labor's third budget ensures that inflation will remain higher for longer, and that is the view of most economists, of the bond markets and of the Australian people, who have overwhelmingly expressed how underwhelming this budget has been. In the AFR, Phil Coorey wrote:

The poll showed just 11 per cent—

of respondents—

thought the budget decreased the prospect of another rate rise while 39 per cent … feared it could push up rates.

Does the minister accept that the budget has raised expectations of an interest rate rise in the Australian community, and does the minister accept that this budget has painted a grim picture for Australians who have been going through difficult times and now look ahead with slightly more trepidation?

Labor's third budget is a typical high-taxing, high-spending budget. In the AFR under the headline 'Spending addiction fuels a new decade of deficits', Coorey writes:

… the … Treasurer … relied on a late tax revenue surge to forecast a $9.3 billion surplus for this financial year … before embarking on a spending spree that drives the budget headlong into deficit for the next decade.

Why did the Treasurer have to rely upon a windfall surplus rather than do the hard work of delivering a structural surplus, which is the right response in these fiscal times? Does the minister accept that taxpayers are again carrying the weight of Labor's high-spending agenda? And does the minister think that it is fair in a cost-of-living crisis, which has been spoken about by almost everybody here and acknowledged, that taxpayers should be carrying that burden, and that the taxpayer revenue should be spent so frivolously and immediately by the government?

In the same article Phillip Coorey said, 'The Albanese government has increased net spending by more than $24 billion over the next four years.' How does this additional spending align with the Treasurer's claims of spending restraint? Given the total increase in spending of over $300 billion the government has committed since coming to office, can the minister confirm a standard definition of the word 'restraint' has been used when applied? There is no evidence whatsoever that restraint has been applied to Labor's spending; it has increased and increased.

On energy rebates, again, in the AFR Steven Hamilton—no relation—writes, 'Energy rebates do not lower inflation.' If anything, they increase it by boosting aggregate demand. End of story. Does the government accept that the deployment of $300 energy rebates is both inflationary and a clear acknowledgement that its pre-election promise of reducing energy bills by $275 has failed?

Cherelle Murphy, the chief economist at EY, in her budget analysis wrote:

With billions being spilled into the economy from 1 July, and without offsetting new spending with cuts elsewhere, the Budget has thwarted the task of tightening the structural deficit.

It also undermines the government's inflation forecast—

Does the minister accept this budget has ensured inflation will stay higher for longer? Does the minister accept the financial pain many Australians are now feeling will be drawn out for longer because this government refused to rein in its spending?

Prior to the 2022 election, Jim Chalmers said there were plenty of things they could do to reduce cost-of-living pressures, specifically mentioning reducing grocery prices. Can the minister point to any element of the budget or the previous two Labor budgets that led to a reduction in grocery prices, or point to a single grocery item that has gone down as a result of policies deployed by this government? After three failed attempts, is the government still trying to reduce grocery prices or has it given up? I note that, since coming to government, Labor have overseen an average rising in food prices of 11 per cent.

The Treasurer in his 6,000-word essay in TheMonthly previously promised to remake capitalism. Does the predicted decade of deficits that this budget costs align with the Treasurer's vision? Is that what remade capitalism is—a decade of deficits? If there was a comparison made previously by the member for Parramatta to getting surpluses, we delivered 10 surpluses in a row; the government is guaranteeing 10 deficits in a row. Is that acceptable?

See this speech in context