Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Cowper proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to adequately address the impact of rising costs on struggling families.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important matter that we are discussing today. The cost of living has been affecting families right around the country. During the entire election campaign in 2007, we heard the now Prime Minister and the now Treasurer wandering the countryside talking endlessly about the cost of living and the cost of petrol. But once the election was over there was an eerie silence. They went back into their shells. They pulled down the hatches. There was an eerie silence. We went from a moral crusade about the cost of petrol and the cost of groceries to one of virtual inaction. I say ‘virtual’—I will pay them a small, ever so small, degree of credit—inaction. And what did they do? They announced an inquiry—just for something different! It was really unexpected, I thought, that they would announce an inquiry! And then they appointed a bureaucrat. So, true to form, true to type, they announced an inquiry and they appointed a bureaucrat.

The real problem is that the cost of living is vitally important to Australian families. They feel they need more than just another inquiry; they feel they need more than just another bureaucrat, because the cost of living affects every family. It affects every single parent and it affects every pensioner and self-funded retiree. Every time they visit the shops, every time they fill their plastic shopping bag with goodies, they know that the cost of living is going up, and they judge their pension, their allowance or their wage against what they can buy for the money that they have. We are not talking about luxuries; we are talking about the necessities. We are talking about putting food on the table and putting petrol in the car. We are talking about a car that has to get people to work or kids to school. We are talking about the cost of keeping a roof over people’s heads. These are questions that people are really concerned about. They are far too concerned about these questions for the government to just appoint a bureaucrat. They are far too concerned about them for the government to just start another inquiry.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The buck stops with the Prime Minister.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. Where does the buck stop? The buck stops with the people to the right of Madam Deputy Speaker. They made the promises during the election campaign, and we on this side of the House are going to be keeping them accountable during this term of the parliament for the promises they made.

For those people who are living on limited incomes it is not necessarily an option to increase their income. Many of them are ill. Many of them are on a very low income—perhaps they are pensioners—and they just have to do what they can to manage their resources and their budgets to meet the day-to-day costs of living. They depend on the government to manage the economy well. They depend on those opposite. They depend on the Assistant Treasurer.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be sadly disappointed.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be sadly disappointed, because the government pulled down the hatches on the cost of living and then started talking up interest rates. How is the Treasurer of this parliament, who is wandering the countryside talking up interest rates, going to take the pressure off struggling families? How is he going to help them in any way whatsoever? We believe that families should have the lowest possible interest rates. We do not believe it is the role of the Treasurer to wander the countryside talking up interest rates and causing Australian families to pay higher mortgage repayments than they should need to pay. The families that I have talked to have an ominous feeling about the future.

We have seen business confidence collapse. We have seen consumer confidence collapse. A large part of that collapse has to be due to the lack of confidence in our Treasurer and the way in which he wanders the countryside talking up interest rates. We see that consumers are now facing a world oil price of $110 a barrel. People know that oil at $110 a barrel is going to translate and is translating into a higher cost at the bowser. It is going to mean that they have to think about taking that extra trip. It means that they are going to have to think about whether they can take the kids to soccer on a Saturday morning. They are looking to the government for a solution. They are looking to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer, who are wandering the countryside, claiming they have the solutions for the problems facing the people of Australia—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He promised prices would go down.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He promised prices would go down. That is right, member for Moncrieff: he promised that he would put downward pressure on prices. But what do people feel? They feel they have been the victim of a cruel hoax. A cruel hoax has been played on the Australian people. As I go around the country and talk to people, they tell me that they can feel the higher petrol prices and that they feel deserted. They were expecting action and, instead, they got a bureaucrat and an inquiry.

It is interesting to look at some of the quotes from the media about this issue. One Labor media statement on 10 June said that their sole purpose was to ensure ‘that Australian families are not paying one cent more to fill up their car than they should’. As with much that comes out of the Labor Party, we were left wondering what was meant by ‘pay no more than they should’. There is no detail about what people should pay or how the petrol commissioner would decide what they should pay or how he might enforce what they should pay. The clear implication is that, as soon as elected, the members opposite deserted the battlements on this fight and merely appointed this petrol commissioner.

We now have a petrol commissioner: Pat Walker, the former Western Australian Commissioner for Consumer Protection and Prices. I wish him well, I really do. The motorists throughout regional, rural and metropolitan Australia also wish the petrol commissioner well. They hope that he will be able to do what the Prime Minister and Treasurer imply—wave a magic wand and somehow give relief to these rising fuel prices. Unfortunately, I have to say to motorists, ‘Don’t hold your breath.’ At the time of his appointment, Mr Walker said:

I don’t underestimate the degree of difficulty in this assignment but I believe I can make a difference ... It’s not an easy task.

This guy is sounding a lot less like the high-octane superman promised by the Prime Minister. It was interesting to note the testimony given to the ACCC inquiry into fuel prices by an organisation called Informed Sources. They said that they had made an analysis of the average price in Perth before and after the introduction of FuelWatch. FuelWatch was a scheme introduced by Patrick Walker. At the time of the introduction of FuelWatch, Informed Sources said that this analysis indicated that the introduction of FuelWatch increased the price of petrol in Western Australia by an average of 1c to 1.5c a litre. How is that going to affect consumers and motorists in Western Australia?

We have also heard a lot about the issue of climate change. We have heard members opposite being very vocal about climate change. It is an important issue, but there are some cost of living ramifications for families. There are some very big ramifications from it. There is a potential increase in the cost of electricity. There is a potential increase in many of the products that families buy. There is also a potential increase in the cost of petrol. It was interesting to see a report, which states:

The federal government has refused to rule out the possibility that its proposed emissions trading scheme will force up prices.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More price rises.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More price rises courtesy of the members opposite. The report goes on to say:

Asked today whether the scheme would force up petrol prices, Senator Wong today refused to rule it out.

She refused to rule out higher petrol prices. The report continues:

The Australian people recognise the scheme would not be painless, she said.

I find that those remarks offer very little solace and very little comfort to Australian families trying to put fuel in their car and trying to go about their business.

I also came across a document from Caltex which looks at the carbon trading regime and what impact that might have on the price of fuel for motorists. Here are some of the examples that were given in the document: at a carbon price of $10 a tonne, the increase in the cost of fuel would be some 2.4c a litre for unleaded petrol; at $20 a tonne, 4.8c; at $30 a tonne, 7.2c; and at $50 a tonne, 12c a litre. I think it is imperative that the members opposite come clean with struggling families and give them some indication of the carbon regime they plan to introduce and what it will do to the budgets of families.

Then of course there are groceries. We are all aware of the magical wand that is going to be waved by the grocery inquiry. But it is interesting to look at the action of the government in relation to grocery prices. What was the thing they did most recently to reduce grocery prices?

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Put up the fuel tax!

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They put up the fuel tax on trucks and they increased the cost of truck registration. As far as we on this side of the chamber can see, that is going to have an upward impact on the price of groceries; it is not going to have a downward impact. But with their perverse economics the members opposite seem to have a different slant on things. If this government are keen to put downward pressure on grocery prices, why not at least keep the cost of fuel excise for trucks the same? Instigating an inquiry is no substitute for putting up fuel prices—

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More taxes!

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or registration taxes, indeed. It is more money in government coffers and more money out of the pockets of the consumers feeding into inflation. Wasn’t it the Treasurer that said inflation is our No. 1 priority—amongst a number of No. 1 priorities, I would admit? And what do they do? We hear the rhetoric. We see what they are doing. They are pushing up the cost of motoring; they are pushing up the cost of the inputs to the grocery industry.

This increase in fuel prices is not only going to have an impact on road transport. Increased fuel prices are having an effect right across the production chain, as it were, and that is flowing through as rising grocery prices to consumers. So really it is up to the government to take the lead by not increasing fuel prices. I call on the Assistant Treasurer to reverse this ridiculous decision. You cannot stand at the dispatch box and say that you are serious about pushing down the price of groceries to consumers and then push up the cost of the inputs. It is just not credible. The people of Australia will not believe you; certainly no-one on this side of the House is going to believe you. You are an absolute disgrace to the people of Australia—that you should push up those taxes and that you should push up the cost of groceries—because people are struggling out there.

We only recently had the issue of carers, a very deserving group in our society looking after their loved ones. What do the government members do? They propose to cut the carer bonus. How are they helping a struggling household by cutting the carer bonus? How is cutting payments to seniors going to take pressure off struggling families?

There is an incredible hypocrisy with those opposite. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. They feign concern for families, and all they can come up with is a petrol commissioner and another inquiry. That is all they can do. The people of Australia are looking for real leadership and real policies in this area—not hot air, not rhetoric and not excuses. We have had the Treasurer, as I said, talking up interest rates. We have the Assistant Treasurer pushing up the price of excise on fuel for trucks. Their rhetoric is not being matched by action and the Australian people are demanding more.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They know the truth.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They very much know the truth. They are very quickly seeing through the rhetoric of Rudd. They are really calling on him to do a Rudd-flip with a pike and to reduce the fuel excise.

This is a very important issue indeed. It is one that the people of Australia are very concerned about. It is one that is very much front-of-mind and it is one that the people will be keeping the Australian government to account on over the months to come. We will certainly be reminding them of that fact. We believe that no appointment of a petrol commissioner or inquiry is going to take the place of good policy and real action. We will be expecting real action out of this government, and I know that the people of Australia will be speaking up very loudly on this subject in the weeks and months to come.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the great mysteries of the 42nd Parliament is why, oh why, is the member for Cowper on the opposition front bench. We are no closer to an elucidation on that particular point after that contribution. But we have to give credit where it is due. This MPI does get an award. It gets an award for chutzpah; it gets an award for hide and hypocrisy. For a member of the previous government to have the hide to propose a matter of public importance criticising this government for not adequately addressing the impact of rising costs on struggling families is simply breathtaking. He was a member of the government whose official policy was to shoulder shrug—to shrug their shoulders and say, ‘Australian working families have never been better off, therefore there is nothing we can or should do about rising prices.’ The official policy of the Howard government was to shrug their shoulders. That was the best they could do over 11 years.

At the crux of this MPI is inflation. Inflation is the enemy of families struggling to make ends meet. That is why we have signalled that we will be taking a very tough approach to the upcoming budget. That is why we have signalled that we will be taking some tough spending decisions which escaped the previous government, because we are dealing with the highest underlying inflation in 16 years. It is the highest inflation rate in 16 years which has been causing the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates. Inflation affects working families in two ways: it increases their costs directly and it increases their costs indirectly through interest rate increases.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the $84 billion of state debt contribute to inflation and interest rates?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! That is not a point of order.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just today the minutes released by the Reserve Bank show that inflation is what has been concerning them, if anybody needed that clarified. If the member for Wentworth needed an explanation, if he needed a little bit more evidence, the Reserve Bank minutes released a few hours ago show that. But of course these are members of a government that said inflation was right where we wanted it. What an insult to working families, to seniors and to other Australians to say inflation is right where we want it when the Reserve Bank just today released its minutes showing that the CPI was expected to top four per cent. Inflation is right where we want it! And they have not learned their lesson. Yesterday the alternative Treasurer in this chamber, standing at that dispatch box, said when it comes to inflation under the Howard government: ‘Mission accomplished.’ What an insult to the intelligence of Australians and an insult to the intelligence of families who are struggling with rising costs, which this opposition is apparently so concerned about.

But within inflation there is further cause for concern when the price of goods that are unavoidable purchases, such as groceries and petrol, goes up more than the average inflation rate—which is what happened for more than 11 years. Australia’s food price inflation at 43 per cent has been amongst the highest in the world. Those opposite let that happen. When it comes to inflation, and to petrol prices in particular, we are hearing a lot from the opposition; we just heard a lot about petrol prices from the member for Cowper. But it is a concern that dawned on the previous government on 25 November. As the sun set on the Howard government, it suddenly had this concern with petrol prices in this country. Suddenly it was concerned about the impact of petrol prices on struggling families and seniors. Up until then, it was okay. Up until then, the ACCC had enough powers. Up until then, there was nothing further that the Howard government could have done!

On 28 May, the former Deputy Prime Minister said:

... the ACCC already has significant powers of monitoring and being able to take action.

On 7 June, the former Treasurer said:

The ACCC has extensive powers. It can demand people give evidence, it can demand documents, upon a search warrant it can go into anybody’s premises and seize books.

The ACCC has those powers now, but it did not have them under the Howard government until formal monitoring powers were granted to the ACCC. If the ACCC has any concerns at all at any point in the supply chain, it now has those powers. But they were not powers that it had under the previous government in relation to petrol generally.

We heard again just then the member for Cowper claiming that the Labor Party, when in opposition, said, ‘We have a magic solution; we are going to drive down prices.’ We know what those opposite are trying to do. They are trying to pin us for their bad policy and for their mistake, when they said in 2004, ‘We will keep interest rates at record lows.’ They misled the Australian people, because that was a promise they could not keep—and they paid the price for it on 24 November. But the facts do not bear out their little equation. They do not bear out their story.

Let us have a look at what the Labor Party said in the election campaign; let us have a look at what the now Prime Minister said. On 8 August 2007, on ABC Radio AM, he was asked by Chris Uhlmann about Labor’s policy:

Could you guarantee to lower the cost of any grocery item on any supermarket shelf in Australia by a dollar?

KEVIN RUDD: I couldn’t guarantee that for the reason being that what I have said is that we need to have a robust competition policy watchdog on the beat.

We are about introducing more competition and more transparency to put downward pressure on prices. What did the now Treasurer say on 15 July, when being interviewed by Laurie Oakes? The transcript reads:

OAKES: Can you guarantee if Labor wins the election grocery prices will fall?

SWAN: No, but what I can certainly guarantee is we will make consumer information widely available so people can scrutinise the prices in an accessible way.

The transcript continues:

OAKES: Can you guarantee if you win government petrol prices will fall?

SWAN: No, I can’t guarantee that, but I can guarantee that we will do the maximum amount possible to make sure that people aren’t being ripped off.

As though that evidence was not clear enough, our old friend the member for Higgins, the then Treasurer, raced down to a hold a press conference to draw attention to Wayne Swan’s comments earlier that morning—to point out that the then shadow Treasurer had said that there was no formal guarantee that, under a Labor government, we could reduce petrol or grocery prices. But the then shadow Treasurer had added that what we would do was take every step possible to introduce more competition and more transparency into the market, which those opposite had failed to do for 11 years. We now constantly get this cheap grab for a headline from the opposition, but it is not borne out by the facts.

But the confusion continues. It goes to where those opposite stand now. It goes to where they stand on petrol prices. It goes to where they stand on grocery prices. It goes to where they stand on being honest with people. Just after the election, our old friend the Leader of the National Party made comments to the Courier-Mail and said that he had a plan to reduce petrol prices. After 11 years, he suddenly had a plan to reduce petrol prices. What was it? It was to take the GST off petrol. It just dawned on him on 25 November. He said: ‘I’ve got a good idea. It just escaped me for the last 11 years. We’ll take the GST off petrol. That’s what will do it.’ But then the shadow Treasurer, when asked recently whether he supported that policy, said, ‘No, I think that would be a very bad idea.’ So we do not know where they stand on anything. They stand for nothing. They cannot develop or agree on a policy on petrol or grocery prices—in contrast to the government, which has a plan in place which says: ‘There are no magic solutions here, no easy answers. There are a lot of impacts on the rising cost of living, but we will do whatever we can and we will put these concerns at the forefront of government thinking.’

But the confusion goes on. Last weekend we had the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Stirling complaining that the petrol commissioner had not yet officially started at work. There were two points of confusion. Firstly, they do not understand how the law works and what the Trade Practices Act says about appointments to the ACCC—that, when the Commonwealth recommends an appointment to the ACCC, there is a statutory period of consultation with the states and that a majority of states must agree. That has now happened. A majority of the states have agreed to the appointment of Patrick Walker and, subject to the agreement of His Excellency the Governor-General, Mr Walker will start on 31 March.

But the second point of confusion is this: they claim that the petrol commissioner will not make a difference. They say that they do not support the petrol commissioner—but they are very disappointed that he has not started work yet. They are very disappointed that an officer that they do not believe in has not yet started work. This is their cheap attempt at a headline. This their cheap grab for a headline, because they do not know where they stand. They have criticised the decision to appoint a petrol commissioner. They do not support a petrol commissioner. They did not appoint one for 11 years. I agree with them: the petrol commissioner is starting a little bit late—about 11 years too late, because those opposite never got around to appointing one.

Those opposite do not believe in competition. They do not believe in transparency. They do not believe in the regulator having the power to ensure that consumers are not being ripped off. They sat by and watched for 11 years while Australian consumers did not have a petrol commissioner looking out for their interests. That is what they did. They did not give the ACCC extra powers; they claimed it had enough. They have the hide, the hypocrisy and the chutzpah to come into this chamber and lecture us about the cost of living on ordinary, everyday Australians. Shame on you. Shame on you for taking the Australian people as mugs. Shame on you for pretending that you could get away with that.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Assistant Treasurer will direct his remarks through the chair.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not intend to criticise you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think there should be shame on you. There should be shame on other members of the opposition because they have zero credibility.

As far as our actions since the election go, they have been at the heart of our election commitment to put the views and interests of Australian consumers at the forefront of our policy. What is their alternative? The Leader of the Opposition is fond of saying that he leads the alternative government of Australia. What is their alternative? What is their alternative to the petrol commissioner? To do nothing. What is their alternative to the increased investigatory powers for the ACCC? To do nothing. What is their alternative to the other steps we have taken to introduce more transparency in the banking industry, to allow people to change their banks more regularly with fewer penalties and to encourage and to allow bank switching? Nothing. What is their alternative to criminalising cartels? We do not know where they stand on that measure either. They promised to do it and then reneged on their commitment. The member for Higgins, the then Treasurer, let the Australian people down by going back on his word and failing to meet his commitment to do it. We are doing it. We released draft legislation within two months of taking office, something they could not do even though it was recommended by their inquiry in 2003. What is their alternative to the first home owners scheme? Nothing. What is their alternative to the teen dental scheme? Nothing. What is their alternative to the increase in the utilities bonus? What is their alternative to the National Rental Affordability Scheme? What is their alternative to the steps that the government has taken to improve housing affordability in this country? They sit there and they carp and they whinge and they complain that they no longer have the chance to do anything about it, when, for the last 11 years, they did nothing about it.

This MPI is what you call a fill-in. The member for Cowper first proposed this MPI on 18 February, I think it was. It was a Monday, of course, and it was a stunt. He got up and said: ‘It’s a Monday. I want to have an MPI on the cost of living.’ It was a stunt because he knows that the standing orders do not allow MPIs on Mondays. I said to my office, ‘We’d better get ready, because they’re clearly going to do an MPI on the cost of living on the Tuesday.’ But they did not get around to it. And they did not get around to it on the Wednesday, and they did not get around to it on the Thursday. Now, three weeks later, they have gotten around to it. That is how important it is. And why? Because usually the MPI is lodged by the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer. That has been the pattern.

Why isn’t the shadow Treasurer doing it today? Because he is embarrassed. He is too embarrassed to come in here and propose an MPI because he knows that we will point out his record over the last few weeks. There was his question to the Treasurer: ‘Why aren’t you chairing the ERC?’ Well, he is chairing the ERC, actually. There was his question: ‘Why did you reject the advice of the Treasury on the minimum wage?’ Actually, we accepted the advice of the Treasury on the minimum wage. I am not in the habit of giving free political advice to the opposition, but I will make this exception: when you get a leak, verify it before you get up in the chamber and say it is a fact. Check your facts before you make allegations. That is where Malcolm has gone wrong. That is where the member for Wentworth has gone wrong. That is why his leadership campaign has received such a dent in the last few days—because in this House you have two commodities: your integrity and your credibility. You have nothing else.

Now, I do not question the integrity of the member for Wentworth but, by God, I question his credibility. It has gone in the last couple of days. It has evaporated as he has made serious accusations against this government which have evaporated into thin air. What has been his response? It was to say: ‘The Secretary to the Treasury is covering up for the government.’ What an outrageous response. We all make mistakes from time to time. We all make errors. We are all human. When you make an error, fess up. Be man enough to get up and say: ‘Well, I got that one wrong. The Secretary of the Treasury did not give that advice to the government. I accept I was wrong.’ We all have to do that from time to time. It is not pleasant, but it is what you do. You do not then blame the bureaucrat. You do not then blame a respected Secretary to the Treasury who was appointed by that government and kept by us because he is the best in the country at his job. You do not do that. That shows why the member for Wentworth is unfit to hold the office of Treasurer of this country, and it shows why we have got the B team doing an MPI on this day—because we are covering up for the incompetence of the shadow Treasurer of Australia, the member for Wentworth. Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously as the alternative government of this country, you have to do better than that. You cannot have 11 years of inaction and then come in today and say— (Time expired)

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI addresses the government’s failure to address the impact of rising costs on struggling families. This is an important matter to be discussing because it is the government which has raised the expectations on this matter. It is the government which, when in opposition, went out there and created a very real expectation on the part of the Australian people that it was going to do things about the cost of living, that it was going to do things about petrol prices, that it was going to do things about grocery prices, that these things were actually going to produce a result and that people would not have to face rising costs under a Labor government. In that same election campaign, the opposition, as it then was, made a range of claims about what the government at the time was saying about interest rates. You could argue that it was somewhat successful in prosecuting an argument that, if interest rates were to rise, the government should be accountable for those things and, as a result, the government should not be elected.

If it is good for this government, it is good for us. The government has created the expectation out there in the Australian community that it can control the revolution of the planets, that it can go out there and it can control the universe. It can control petrol prices. It can control grocery prices. We will come to how it actually plans to do this, but this is the expectation that the Prime Minister in particular has created. He has created it knowingly, he has created it willingly, and he has created it enthusiastically. So it is a fair thing—a very fair thing—for the people of Australia to hold this government to account for that pledge. Government members can come in here and argue the toss on words, but one thing is very clear: as I walk the streets of my electorate, people tell me that the government—as it is now known—made a pledge to control petrol prices and grocery prices. The price of everything from Weet-Bix to Chupa Chups is going to be controlled by this government, so it is very important that we discuss this matter today.

I also want to add that we are talking specifically about struggling families. The government likes to talk about working families, but a number of people have come to me, particularly from my own electorate, and said, ‘Who are these working families?’ Small businesses ask the question: ‘Am I a working family?’ Under the government’s definition, they are not. They are not a working family. Small businesses are not working families. And what about single working people? What about pensioners? What about self-funded retirees? Do these not fit into the spectrum of people who are the target of this government’s policies, or do they just have to wait their turn until the government is finished trashing our economy?

Let us examine what the government actually has done and make a few comments. Firstly, the government makes a lot of noise about inflation. It says it has a five-point plan on inflation—a plan whose features, as the shadow Treasurer revealed yesterday in question time, failed to receive acknowledgement by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. There was no mention of at least three of the five points. My maths may not be the best in this place, but that leads me to believe that the Governor of the Reserve Bank gave the Treasurer two out of five for his inflation plan—which is a fail.

What are those five points? Firstly, there is fiscal restraint. What I think the Treasurer fails to understand is that there were 10 consecutive surplus budgets under the previous government, and consistently in the last three at 1½ per cent of GDP plus. The Prime Minister comes in with the hairy-chested announcement that he is going to be able to bring in a budget surplus at 1½ per cent of GDP. That is like running a four-minute mile today and claiming that you have made some great athletic achievement. It is just nonsense. In addition to that, the fiscal restraint agenda which is outlined by the government opposite is silent on state debt—an $80 billion-plus debt binge on the part of the states. It is silent on tax reform at a state level. It is prepared to bankroll the incompetence of state governments all around this country.

Secondly, the government talks about private savings. I am staggered, because I like to follow what happens in politics, I like to follow what governments do, and if I remember correctly it was actually the government prior to the election of this government that introduced the single greatest reforms to superannuation in our history—unquestioned. That is what I call a private savings initiative. The government might like to take some notes about how to implement its five-point plan based on the success of the previous government in addressing these issues.

Then there is the skills crisis—a skills crisis caused by having the lowest unemployment in over 30 years, now at four per cent. The government’s answer is to close trade schools and drive up unemployment. That is how they are going to fix the skills crisis. They will just have more people out of work, increasing the pool of available workers to the marketplace. There were 418,800 apprentices being trained at the time of the last election. That compares to 154,800 when the previous government came to office.

Then there are the bottlenecks that the government is going to clear. It is the responsibility of the states to develop infrastructure. This was discussed in the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. While I am sure there are many examples in other states, in my home state of New South Wales the state government has made an absolute mockery of state infrastructure planning. For years under Treasurer Egan, the government did nothing to actually reduce the state’s debt. It is a worthy initiative, but if to reduce state debt you do nothing, you spend nothing on infrastructure and you effectively allow the house to fall into disrepair, you build up the desire for a binge of state debt to address the imbalance of previous years’ obfuscation of responsibility.

Then the government talks about the participation rate. This is from a government who when in opposition opposed welfare to work reforms. This is from a government that seems to misunderstand that we have the highest level of workforce participation on record. This is a five-point plan with a five-star blind spot. It says absolutely nothing about containing wage pressures. Something that the shadow Treasurer, remarking in an earlier debate today, made very clear was that different between the mid-1970s and today are the changes in particular in our labour market. We have a more flexible labour market. That is what enabled us to achieve a 21.5 per cent increase in real wages under a government that was prepared to do the right thing in our workplaces and create greater flexibility that enabled people to be employed in this country and enabled businesses to move forward.

The government’s plan says nothing about containing inflationary expectations. The shadow Treasurer has made the point extremely well that the Treasurer of this country stood in this place today and confirmed ‘the genie in a bottle’ comment. It is bad enough for the Treasurer to go recklessly bumbling around our financial markets, making reckless statements on the state of our economy and talking about genies coming out of bottles on the eve of Reserve Bank meetings where they set interest rates, but the Prime Minister also stood in this place today and confirmed the state of our economy in the way he did. Inflationary expectations—I have made the point on a number of occasions—in the December quarter were at 4.3 per cent. After the election of this government, inflationary expectations, while previously sitting on 3.8 per cent, have gone up to 4.3 per cent. I suspect that it will only get worse from there because, while this government continues to talk up inflationary expectations, we will continue to see inflation rise and we will continue to see a claim being made, as is currently being made in New South Wales by Unions New South Wales, for a 4.8 per cent increase in wages. What is that based on? Expectations of inflation. Who is setting those expectations of inflation? Those who sit opposite, who simply do not know how to run a strong economy.

Since the election of the Rudd government, which has created the expectation out there that it will be able to do something about rising petrol prices, petrol prices in Sydney, as the Leader of the Nationals said today, have gone up by 4.8c, in Melbourne by 4.9c and in Adelaide by 7.1c. Grocery prices have also continued to rise. The government’s response on all of these things, as it is to everything, is to establish a review and/or a committee. In fact, there have been 47 reviews established by this government since it took office in November. It has got a bit more work to do because it announced 55, so we can expect more reviews to come from this government. (Time expired)

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sheer hypocrisy of this particular matter is something that I find breathtaking. For those on the other side, it is a short walk from the government benches to the opposition benches, but what a profound change we have seen. Like being struck down by a blinding light on the old road to Damascus, those on the other side who were incapable of seeing the hurt and the pain that working families across this country were facing now bring forward a motion about attending to the needs of struggling families. Those who could not see it—nor could they act on or respond to the policy challenges that faced the former government—now come forward bleating in support of those that are feeling it tough in our local communities throughout this country.

The pain that people are feeling is not new to me; it is something that I had been campaigning about for a considerable amount of time. In campaigning through the last election I encountered scores of families and scores of individuals throughout the community that were feeling the pain of increased mortgage payments and the increased cost of living. Right throughout, the then government’s position was that working families had never been better off. Never, ever forget it: working families had never been better off. But clearly upon the election of a Rudd Labor government things have turned around. That is not the case. Go and talk to families throughout this country and you will know that the pain they have been feeling has progressively been getting worse. It has been getting worse because of the high inflation legacy that the former government has left this country with.

Listening to those on the other side, you would think that there were no problems. The member for Wentworth says there is no inflation problem; it is merely a fairytale. The member for Higgins told us he had inflation right where he wanted it. It is a shame for working families throughout this country that that was not in the Reserve Bank’s target band; it was above it. That is why he and his colleagues left the working families of this nation with the highest inflation rate in 16 years. That is the Liberal legacy that they now seek to expunge from the record. We will not allow it. We will not allow people throughout this country to forget about the disdain with which those on the other side have treated those feeling pain as a result of the rising cost of living that has progressively been getting worse, particularly over the last 11 years. Whenever there was a request for a policy response, a suggestion of how to respond to these challenges, those on the other side said, ‘Working families have never been better off.’ What you see in this government is a government that cares about the needs of working families—‘struggling families’, as those on the other side have put it in this motion. We care about the needs of those families, and that is why we have a platform and why we are implementing changes that will have a marked impact in lifting and improving the quality of life and the living standards of those families.

Clearly the biggest impact on the household budget at the moment is from housing costs, whether you have a mortgage or whether you are paying a rent. Those who have mortgages have seen 12 consecutive increases in interest rates. Surely those on the other side are not going to try and sheet home blame to those of us within the government for those 12 increases in interest rates. They were the ones that went to the 2004 election saying, ‘We will keep interest rates at record lows.’ They were the ones that claimed responsibility for interest rates. Twelve interest rates rises in a row—that is how many increases we have seen. The pressure on working families in my electorate means that many families are now paying $750 a month more in mortgage repayments, and that is on an average mortgage. It is probably on a more modest level than in other parts of Sydney, but that is $750 a month that people have to find from somewhere else.

At the same time, there are those on the other side: the architects of Work Choices. Never has there been a policy more focused towards striking at the very heart of the living standards of working families. We hear the member for Cook talking about the need for wage restraint. It is really code for, ‘We’re still sticking with Work Choices.’ Forget about the mantra of, ‘We neither support it nor oppose it.’ What does that mean? The member for Cook has just let the cat out of the bag. What it really means is: ‘We got caught out. Sure, it wasn’t a very popular policy, but that doesn’t mean we can’t adhere to it. It doesn’t mean we can’t stick with it. It doesn’t mean we can’t breathe a little bit of life back into it when the opportunity next arises.’ That is the position of those on the other side when it comes to Work Choices. How they can come into this place and purport to stand up for working families when they were the architects of, and the ones that implemented, those policies is beyond me.

The high inflation legacy that we have been left with has meant that there has needed to be a very direct and a very immediate policy response. We do have a five-point plan. I hear a lot of talk from those on the other side about how ineffective that plan may prove to be, but I do not hear a lot about what their alternatives might be. They accuse those of us on this side of talking up inflation. I accuse those of you on that side of driving it up. You and your policies have driven up inflation. There is no greater attack upon the living standards of working people than to erode the value of the dollar in their pocket, and that is what inflation does. We have a five-point plan. It is about modernising our economy. To modernise the economy you have to show restraint when it comes to spending.

We have seen a cavalcade of excesses demonstrated time after time in this parliament when we have gone through the spending priorities of the former government. We have seen cheese factories that did not produce cheese. We have seen $10 million rain makers, even though the authorities only suggested and recommended that $2 million would have been a stretch when it came to a funding proposal of that scope. We saw $121 million in expenditure on propaganda for Work Choices. We saw over an 11-year period $2 billion worth of government advertising.

There is not a lot of discussion from those on the other side about spending restraint, because they did not show any. When they were in government they could not help themselves. And the problem was that they got away with it for so long that they lost sight of what they were doing. They spent their way out of trouble in the 2001 election, so they came back for more in 2004. They just kept doing it. And the worse the position for them became in the polls, the more they spent. In doing so, they have left this country with a high inflation legacy. That is the Liberal legacy and it is the legacy that we now attack not just by showing expenditure restraint but also by investing in workforce participation, investing in skills and infrastructure and by boosting national savings.

We talk about boosting national savings. I can only assume from the comments by the member for Cook that he would acknowledge that the introduction of superannuation was the biggest savings measure this country has ever seen. These are the sorts of things that need to occur to modernise the Australian economy to ensure that we are able to keep inflation within manageable limits, that does not strip away at the value of the dollars in the pockets of working people. Labor have brought forward many proposals, many of which we have begun to implement, such as the appointment of a petrol commissioner. This is a very serious initiative that will lead to much more transparency in the setting of petrol prices. Our inquiry, through the ACCC, into grocery prices; our tax cuts; the tax cuts which will deliver improvements in workforce participation; our childcare tax rebate; and our education tax refund are all policies designed to help those struggling families which the opposition has only just discovered.

So I say to the opposition: get out of this place, go around this country and talk to those families. That is something you did not do much of when you were in government. I suggest you go and do it before you stand up purporting to represent them. They had had enough of you. That is why they turfed you out. It is why they are supporting our platform, which is a platform directed towards implementing initiatives which take pressure off families and which gives them some support, as they do the hard work of trying to raise families and build a better future for their children and their grandchildren. (Time expired)

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next member, can I say that I did not interrupt the member for Lindsay, but I encourage him to address his remarks through the chair in future.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to talk on the MPI today about rising prices. I was pleased to hear the members for Prospect and Lindsay both mention a subject dear to my heart, which is housing affordability. The member for Lindsay has made remarks in this place about that topic, which is important to his constituents of Western Sydney.

I want to provide those members and the House with some figures about the cost of developing land and putting a house on it in the growth areas of north-west and south-west Sydney. These figures were released with a big fanfare by the New South Wales government in 2001 but, unfortunately, not one single house has appeared and not one single lot has been developed. I will explain why. The costs for the developer are as follows: to purchase the lot, and 450 square metres is not very big, $50,000; a special infrastructure charge, payable to the New South Wales government, $23,000—a special charge because it is in the growth centre; a section 94 contribution to local council, $30,000; water, energy and gas costs, $20,000; and stamp duty, $2,500. Of course, there are costs that the developers have to pay for architects and their own work and GST of $10,000. But the total cost to a developer of developing one of these blocks of land is $302,000. The market will bear a cost of about $300,000. As a new homeowner, that is what I pay for my block of land. That is the market price. So the developer is not going to go ahead with it, and I am not going to purchase it. And that is why not a single block of land in these growth centres has been developed.

This MPI is important. We talk about the government not adequately addressing the impact of the rising costs on struggling families. Inflation and the increases to mortgage rates are mentioned and of course they are significant. But these housing costs are much more significant. It has been recognised many times today and this week that housing affordability is a problem. If I front up as a new homeowner and get the keys to my new home, I am paying $90,000 to $100,000 in taxes to the state government. If my mortgage was $90,000 to $100,000 less, I would not be suffering from as much mortgage stress as we read about every day. When you look at these costs to deliver an available block to the homeowner, you can see where the problems are. If Labor wants to improve housing affordability, it should force its state Labor mates to drop these imposts on housing, because it is state governments that are actually imposing housing affordability taxes. We cannot even rezone ‘rural’ land to ‘urban’, because the command and control mentality of the state government—and I am talking about New South Wales—has put these developers on the drip feed. I believe the reason for that is that there is not the scope for the government owned utilities to develop the energy and water infrastructure on these blocks that is required. The areas are zoned, but they are still rural. Nothing is happening; meanwhile, homeowners are desperate.

The government has announced a couple of measures in response to the housing affordability crisis. I do not want to pour cold water on all of them, but I wonder how well they will work. The Prime Minister was asked in question time today about the first home saver account. He could not explain to the Leader of the Opposition why a person earning $200,000 a year would receive $1,500 of taxpayers’ money, but an apprentice earning $10,000 would only receive $750 of taxpayers’ money. The Prime Minister could not answer that question. I asked the Minister for Housing that question a few weeks ago and she could not answer that question, either. So, in designing a first home saver account, can we please inject some equity. Can we ensure that we actually help the people whom we are designing a project for.

Another interesting measure that the government has introduced is the Rental Affordability Scheme. This is about giving developers $6,000 in tax relief to build houses in certain regions. The bottom line is that the expectation of any investment scheme launched in a free market economy should be that it delivers a fair level of income and a fair level of return; otherwise, you will not get any investment into it. I am not confident that investors will in fact take up this initiative. I have seen no evidence or indication that they will. The Housing Affordability Fund, likewise, is a bucket of $500 million for state governments and local councils to dip into to fix up the inefficiencies that they should be fixing up. (Time expired)

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have greater respect for the contributions from members opposite if there were some acceptance of their own role and responsibility in the issues facing struggling working families in Australia. It is ironic to me that an opposition whose leader said, but a few months ago, ‘Working families have never been better off,’ now have a new-found concern for struggling working families. It is ironic to me that the opposition, who until literally a few weeks ago, championed extreme industrial relations legislation that put the take-home pay of struggling families at risk, now claim to be concerned about those same struggling families.

They are the same party who had over 11½ long years, more than a decade, to put in place programs, policies and plans to protect struggling families in Australia and they failed. Over a decade of economic growth—with budget surpluses that the opposition, when in government, used to crow about—what did they do to protect struggling working families? What did they do, long term, to keep inflation under control and maintain downward pressure on interest rates? What did they do to deal with the infrastructure bottlenecks creating so much heat in our economy? What planning did they put in place to deal with the skills shortage, to ensure that we had appropriate skills training and development? What did they do to seriously monitor fuel prices or grocery prices? What did they do to tackle housing affordability—both homeownership and rental costs? Not much, not much at all.

The opposition were no nation builders. They had no plan for the future. And guess what: in November 2007, Australian families judged them lacking as well. The member for Lindsay called it what it is: hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy that the party who had over 11½ years in government and failed to protect struggling families now accuses the party that has been in government for 4½ months—just over a hundred days—of not doing enough to assist struggling families. The opposition are a joke. You were judged; you were found to have failed. I think it is only right and proper that you take some responsibility for that.

One of the reasons why you were judged and found lacking was that you did not have a plan for the future—no plan that was sensitive to the pressures on working families. Labor did have a plan for the future and a series of election commitments which we are diligently putting into action. To assist some of the members opposite, I can advise you that the government has now produced a booklet on the actions we have taken in the first 100 days since coming to government. In case you have not seen it, I am prepared to remind members opposite of some of those initiatives.

We have begun the inquiry into grocery prices by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. We have announced the appointment of Pat Walker as petrol commissioner, to monitor the prices that oil companies charge and ensure that prices are not higher than they should be. We have provided references to the Productivity Commission to examine and inquire into paid maternity leave. We have introduced legislation to end AWAs and restore balance and fairness to Australian workplaces, protecting the take-home pay of struggling families. We have provided greater financial support to older Australians. This week we deliver the election commitment of the increase to the utilities allowance to over three million Australians—seniors, carers and people with disabilities—increasing that utilities allowance from $107 to $500 a year for age pensioners and people receiving other concessions. That is just some of what we have done. I have not even begun to talk about the steps in the area of housing affordability and trying to assist people with the skyrocketing rent increases.

We are taking action, not the least of which is introducing legislation to reform personal income tax to provide tax cuts to low- and middle-income earners. About the only thing I can agree with the opposition on in this debate is that the impact of rising costs on struggling families is a matter of public importance. It is a pity members opposite did not use the last decade to properly assist them and address those issues by putting in place plans that would assist ordinary struggling Australian families to make ends meet. (Time expired)

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I encourage the honourable member in future to address her remarks through the chair. This discussion is now concluded.