Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Over the last two years, the Albanese government has brought almost one million people into our country. Only 265,000 homes have been built. In fact, building activity is at an 11-year low. We have people who are living in cars or tents at a record level, and yet nothing in this budget provides support to those people. At the same time, the Prime Minister is giving billions of dollars to billionaires. Why does this government have the wrong priorities, and why is this Prime Minister so weak that he can't provide support to Australians in need?

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right! The Minister for Home Affairs will cease interjecting.

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

The only thing that is broader than our support for cost-of-living relief is that question from the Leader of the Opposition, because it was all over the shop. On the first issue, of migration, the population statement of 2023 says this: by 2030-31, the expected population is 600,000 people below what was projected prior to the onset of the pandemic in 2019-20. And guess who championed the higher migration intake. See if you can guess who said this:

We do need an increase in the migration numbers … it's clear the number needs to be higher …

That's the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, in his first budget reply he said, 'I brought in record numbers of people from India, China and many other countries.' They were all out there, not just him, promoting—you know it's coming!—'Help us spread the word about studying here to help us overtake the UK as the world's second-most popular study destination.' That was the member for Wannon. And the deputy leader: 'We know that urgently business needs a workforce and much of that workforce needs to come from overseas.' And we know that they left an absolute mess when it came to migration, because Dr Martin Parkinson, the person appointed by the coalition to be head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Deakin will cease having a conversation. Interjections are okay but—

Order! Having a conversation and interjecting—both—just so I'm clear.

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

Dr Parkinson, in his report, said that this is a 10-year rebuild, not something you do quickly, because it is so badly broken. It was a deliberate decision to neglect the system. And the Leader of the National Party had this to say—we don't want to leave the Nats out—'We've got to acknowledge some of the challenges that we left behind. You've got to put your hand up. You've got to be honest with people.' That is what he had to say about the migration mess that was left behind.

They then go on to speak about the centrepiece of our budget last night, which they just referred to, which is our tax cuts for every taxpayer, something that this bloke— (Time expired)

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question as to the Treasurer. How does the Albanese Labor government's responsible budget help ease cost-of-living pressures? And what approaches were rejected?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to the wonderful member for Gilmore for her question and for all her work in our team and on behalf of her community. We on this side of the House know that a lot of Australians are under pressure, and, because of the budget last night, more help is on the way. This is a responsible budget which is all about easing cost-of-living pressures, fighting inflation and investing in the future of our people and their economy.

The cost-of-living relief in the budget is both substantial and responsible. There is a tax cut in the budget for every Australian taxpayer. There is energy bill relief in the budget for every Australian household. There is a second round of Commonwealth rent assistance in the budget as well, because we know that renters are under pressure. And there are billions of dollars set aside in the budget to make medicines cheaper for our people, particularly for our concession card holders. And there are other measures in the budget as well—$7.8 billion in cost-of-living relief, in addition to a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer.

As I said, that cost-of-living relief is substantial, but it's also responsible. One of the defining features of this Albanese Labor government and the budget we handed down from this dispatch box last night is responsible economic management, which has helped us to clean up the mess that those opposite left behind in the budget. That's how we are delivering a second surplus, which would mean the first back-to-back surpluses in almost two decades. That's how we're finding savings. That's how we're paying down debt. That's how we're avoiding interest cost on the Liberal debt that we inherited from those opposite. We're getting the budget in much better nick, not instead of helping people doing it tough but as well as helping people doing it tough. That's what we were able to do last night—get the budget in better nick—and provide cost-of-living relief for people at the same time as we invest in the future. This is a key reason we have turned the inflation from those opposite that had a six in front of it into inflation with a three in front of it.

But it's not mission accomplished. We know that people are still under pressure, and that's why people under pressure were the defining influence on the budget that we handed down last night. Inflation is still the No. 1 near-term concern that we have in the economy, and that's why the budget is so responsible. That's why the budget is so attentive to cost-of-living pressures that people are under, and we found a way to provide that cost-of-living relief at the same time as we serve our intergenerational responsibilities to build the next generation of prosperity.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. After three Labor budgets, this government has added $315 billion in spending, throwing more fuel on the inflationary fire. Rating agency Standard & Poor's has confirmed that, as a result of this budget, there is almost no chance of an interest rate cut for struggling families this year. Why are Australians paying the price for this Prime Minister's weak economic leadership?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's got a lot of nerve asking about responsible economic management, after the mess that they left us to clean up in the budget. We won't be lectured about debt, spending or responsible economic management by the party that left us with more than a trillion dollars in Liberal Party debt, which we have spent our two years in office trying to clean up. They would not know the first thing about responsible economic management. The least familiar word in the budget last night, to those opposite, was the word 'surplus'. They had nine cracks at it. They promised a surplus in their first year and every year thereafter, and they came up with doughnuts—none from nine. We've been here for two years, and we're delivering two surpluses at the same time as we provide cost-of-living relief for people and invest in the future of our economy. If they had their way, inflation would be higher, debt and deficits would be bigger, wages growth would be lower and tax cuts for middle Australia would be smaller.

The reason I'm so grateful that the Prime Minister has given me the opportunity to answer the question from the member for Hume is it allows me to point out to those opposite that what matters here is real spending growth in the economy, and real spending growth under this side of the House has been 1.4 per cent. Do you know what it was under those opposite? It was 4.1 per cent. There's hypocrisy in asking us about spending in the budget, when what they spent, in real spending growth, was—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hume has asked his question.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a multiple of the real spending growth that we have seen in our budgets so far. We have been cleaning up the mess that they left us in the budget at the same time as we've been providing cost-of-living relief for people. So I hope that the member for Hume asks many more questions today. Whenever they ask these questions, it gives us an opportunity to point to the shameful mess that they left behind in the budget and the diligent, considered and methodical way that we have been cleaning that mess up, not instead of helping people or investing in the future but as well as doing those things.

I want to say about those two surpluses in the budget that, if it was easy, even the member for Hume could do it, but they were unable to do it in their nine years in office. When the member for Hume was the most embarrassing part of a bad government, they were unable to get anywhere near the kinds of outcomes that we are seeing in the budget as a consequence of our diligence and the responsible way that we have come at this difficult task.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's far too much noise on both sides of the chamber. If that continues, people will be warned, and there will be consequences.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government's budget delivering for all Australians, not just some?

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

I thank the member for Cunningham for her question and for her diligence. She knows that the Illawarra, for example, is a great manufacturing centre in Australia. What we want is for Australians to make more things here, and we know that that has happened in the great regions of the Illawarra, the Hunter Valley, Geelong, the Latrobe Valley, in Western Australia and right around the country. Whilst we've had our eye on the immediate need to address the cost-of-living pressures which families are under, we've always had our eye on the future. How do we build a secure future for our nation? How do we make more things here? How do we ensure that there are good, secure, high-wage jobs going forward as well?

At the centre of this budget is support for Australians, all Australians—a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some; energy bill relief for every Australian household, not just some; stronger Medicare for every single community, including the 29 additional urgent care clinics added to our 58 that have seen over 400,000 Australians, stopping them from clogging up the emergency departments of our public hospitals; and, of course, more homes in every part of the country. There is $32 billion to make a difference for housing supply.

In addition to that, we've made sure that it's a responsible budget and that we've seen something that is foreign to those opposite, which is a creation of not one but two budget surpluses. Last year, we turned a $78 billion deficit that we inherited into a $22 billion surplus, and this year we are projecting a $9.3 billion surplus, making sure that we have those responsible measures in place.

Our cost-of-living policies are also designed to take pressure off inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in the current financial year and half a percentage point in the next financial year, which is why we've designed things like the tax cuts, the energy price relief plan, fee-free TAFE and cheaper child care—all of these measures designed in a calibrated way to make a positive impact on the economy at the same time as they're having a positive impact on household budgets.