Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Werriwa for her question. Indeed, my government has been very focused, given global inflation, on impacting cost-of-living pressures that we know people have been under. I'm asked what measures we've taken and also what opposition there's been—and there's something in common between those lists, because every single one of the measures we've put in place has been opposed by those opposite, whether it's tax cuts for taxpayers, tripling of the Medicare bulk-billing incentive, student debt relief, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, energy bill relief, free TAFE, more money for public and affordable housing, the Help to Buy Scheme to get more people into homeownership, a pay rise for childcare workers, a pay rise for aged-care workers, or the three consecutive submissions we have made that have resulted in the minimum wage being increased three times since we've been in government.

As a direct result of those measures, whilst putting that downward pressure on inflation—which is why it's been designed that way—we've seen inflation drop from a six per cent figure, and rising, to 2.8 per cent and falling, under our watch. At the same time that we're seeing that occurring, we're seeing real wages increase so that people are earning more and getting to keep more of what they earn. And we know that those opposite voted 48 times against our IR reforms which have got wages moving again.

But this week we saw the quiet bit said out loud by the deputy leader regarding the philosophical underpinnings of this.

The deputy leader said, 'It's a key principle and tenet of the Liberal Party. If you don't pay for something, you don't value it'. That's what goes to explain the opposition to free TAFE. The bizarre position that they have from those opposite that somehow free TAFE—giving people skills and opportunity in life—is negative is just extraordinary.

Then of course there's Medicare. We know that they don't like people seeing a doctor for free. We know that is against their philosophy, and it certainly was against the practice when this guy was the health minister. It might also explain their opposition to renewables, because the sun is free. They'd much rather have a nuclear reactor sometime in the 2040s—the most expensive form possible.

They want people to pay more for medicine, more to see a doctor, more for the emergency room, more for uni and more for childcare. There is a consistency to their approach, and we know why that's the case.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

See this speech in context