Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

My son, when he was three, really liked helping me bake cakes. When I say 'help' I use that term very loosely because, when cracking an egg, there was often more eggshell than egg; measuring out milk, the quantities were all over the shop; and when he was helping to stir the batter, most of the batter ended up outside of the bowl. So when I think about the coalition's policies to help Australians, I often think about my son helping me bake a cake, because maybe the helping was more hindrance than help.

But let's go through some of the things those opposite thought were going to be helpful. On the matter of wages, those opposite had as a deliberate design feature—so they chose to do this; it was deliberate—to keep wages low. When asked to back an increase in the minimum wage for our lowest-paid workers, what did those opposite say? 'No thank you'. We on this side of the House have backed our lowest-paid workers by advocating for increases in the minimum wage not once, not twice but three times now. So a full-time worker, say a cleaner, on minimum wage has now seen their wage go up by $143 a week. Over a year, that is more than $7,000 in pay rises in just over two years for that worker. And that worker who is on a minimum wage earning about $45,000 a year is also going to get a tax cut thanks to the Albanese Labor government.

Under those opposite—remember, they were trying to help here—that cleaner on a minimum wage would have got nothing. So if you are in Australian on the minimum wage, who would you think is helping? Would it be those opposite who tried to suppress your wages, wouldn't back an increase in minimum wage, didn't want to give you a tax cut, or those on this side of the House, who have backed an increase in the minimum wage, and we have already delivered you a tax cut as of 1 July?

On energy prices: let's have a look at how those opposite were trying to help Australians who use energy. They made it near impossible for industry to invest in cheaper renewable energy by having 22 different energy policies, none of which they could land. They gave it a good red-hot go to try to help but could not land one. And now the one energy policy they have finally landed is the most expensive form of energy—nuclear. The other thing they did was vote against energy bill relief for Australian households. What are we on this side of the House doing? We are providing investors certainty by having good, quality policies on addressing climate change but encouraging investment in renewable energy. We have also voted for energy bill relief for households, and this week Australians will start to see some of that energy bill relief. If you are one of the 10 million Australian households who use energy, who do you think is helping here?

Let's move on to Australians that take medication. Those on the other side of the House voted against 60-day prescriptions—reform that would have made medicines cheaper. We on this side of the House have voted for 60-day prescription reform, and we have also implemented the largest cut in the maximum patient co-payment in the 75-year history of the PBS. If you are one of the five million Australians who has saved more than $400 million on your medicines, who would you say is helping?

Let's summarise here. If you are an Australian on minimum wage or an Australian who pays taxes or an Australian who takes medication or uses energy, who do you think is helping? I think the answer would be, resoundingly: those on this side of the House.

See this speech in context