Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. How does the budget help make a future in Australia by investing in the jobs, industries and opportunities of tomorrow? What hurdles were overcome?

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

Thank you to the member for Hasluck for her question and for the way that she represents the great community from out west here in the people's house. As we said a moment ago, the primary purpose, in the near term, in this budget is to help people who are doing it tough and to get the budget in much better nick as well. But one of the really important things about last night's budget is that it doesn't neglect our responsibilities to the future. The budget was all about a vision for making the most of this remarkable opportunity that we have as a country in our industry, in our energy, in our resources, in our skills base and as an attractive place for investment.

The world is changing, and the pace of that change is accelerating, and we need to change with it if our people are to be the primary beneficiaries, not victims, of all of that churn and change. The global transition, the transformation, to net zero is the biggest change in the global economy since the industrial revolution. Our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package is all about maximising the opportunities that that will bring for every single part of the country, whether it's out west in the honourable member's community or, indeed, right around Australia.

We want to make ourselves an indispensable part of the global net zero economy, and the Future Made in Australia investments in the budget last night will help us do it. They will help us maximise the opportunities and secure Australia's place in the world, with an overwhelming focus not on replacing private investment in our economy but on facilitating more private investment. Our plan for a Future Made in Australia is all about attracting that investment. It's all about making Australia a renewable energy superpower. It's about value-adding to our resources and strengthening our economic security. It's about improving our innovation, our science and our digital capabilities, and it's about investing in our people and places.

This is how we modernise our economy and maximise the opportunities of the future, not for its own sake but so that we can deliver a new generation of prosperity for more of our people, a future defined by good, secure, well-paid jobs, not just in some parts of our country but right around our country, in our suburbs and regions. That's why a Future Made in Australia is a big priority of this government, not at the expense of our efforts to ease cost of living or to get the budget in better nick but in addition to that. That's because we understand, on this side of the House, that we have generational responsibilities to our people to create a new generation of prosperity which is just as good as the past one but which recognises the way that the world is changing and that we need to change with it.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Under Labor's budgets to date, the typical Australian household with a mortgage is more than $35,000 worse off. Why is the Prime Minister spending $13.7 billion on tax credits for billionaires at a time when ordinary Australian battlers are struggling to make ends meet?

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

Spare us the questions about billionaires when those opposite called for an election because we wanted to give Gina Rinehart a $4½ thousand tax cut instead of a $9,000 tax cut. The Leader of the Opposition was so furious on behalf of his mate that he called for an election over the changes that we made to the tax cuts in January of this year. Spare us the faux outrage. Spare us the faux class warfare over there.

They've had a lot to say about class warfare in the past, and this just goes to the shambolic response that we have seen to last night's budget. They're casting around for all kinds of excuses to oppose energy bill relief like they voted against it last time. They're looking around for all kinds of excuses to prevent the renewable energy superpower ambitions of this country being realised in the years and the decades ahead.

This is now two questions that the member for Hume has asked the Prime Minister, and it's hard to work out which one was worse. The first one, which quoted hundreds of billions of dollars in spending, and that spending contains the indexation of the age pension, for example. So the member for Hume thinks the indexation of the age pension is overspending. And now in this question, he is all of a sudden—

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

The Treasurer will pause. I want to hear from the member for Hume on a point of order.

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

Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was about billions for billionaires. Will you answer the question?

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! I want to make sure the—

The member for Lingiari is warned. It is not the time to interject when I'm dealing with a point of order. If that continues, people won't get warned. The question contained 'relief for billionaires when average Australians are worse off'. That was the question. I'm just going to make sure. If the Treasurer is comparing and contrasting—

An honourable member interjecting—

Okay, 'spending' for billionaires. I just want to make sure he's relevant and make sure he's doing the compare and contrast to that part of the question and not straying into other matters.

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

Well, first of all, I remind the House again that those opposite called for an election over the changes to the tax cut which provided a tax cut for every taxpayer. Secondly, I haven't been here that long, but I've been here long enough to remember when they used to believe in tax cuts to incentivise business investment. But they seem to have turned their back on that. It is, again, evidence of the shambolic approach they have taken. Thirdly, if they want to talk about battlers, it's a very good day for them to ask that question. I want to tell you why. A couple of hours ago, we got new data on the wage price index, didn't we? We got new data on the wage price index, which showed that real wages in annual terms are growing by half a per cent—

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! Members on my left will cease. The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.

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

It's not funny; he's funny. The reason he's funny is that, when we came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent. They are now growing again for the first time in years, and that's because this Prime Minister and this government want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and those opposite want people to work longer for less.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering on a future made in Australia and rebuilding Australian manufacturing? Why is this support so desperately needed, and what is standing in the way of this support being delivered?

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

Order! The member for Barker knows the rules, particularly about interjecting, more than anyone.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Swan for that question from someone who gets that strong, modern economies need strong, modern manufacturing capability because it makes our economies more resilient and creates secure, well-paid blue collar jobs in our regions and our outer suburbs. It's why manufacturing sits at the heart of our Future Made in Australia plans, released last night.

Our $23 billion Future Made in Australia package is about mobilising Australian manufacturing to make the things that will help us to get to net zero, such as investments to boost the refining of our critical minerals that then go into making batteries. Under our plan more batteries will be made right here by the Battery Breakthrough Initiative. Investing in green hydrogen will help fuel a green metals future. Our Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund will advance next generation Aussie manufacturing know-how. Our plan guarantees a strong, secure future for working families in our industrial heartlands. For example, in the Illawarra, there will be work in the manufacture of industrial-scale hydrogen electrolysers at Hysata and at Gladstone, where we backed electrolyser manufacturing at FFI. In south-west WA, we're investing in new battery and minerals processing know-how.

Blue-collar workers in those regions can see our plans for the future. When they look to those opposite, there's no plan and no future. In fact, everything that the coalition believes about Australian manufacturing can be written on a white flag. They always give up on Australian manufacturing. They drove out Aussie car manufacturers nearly 10 years ago, and, even today, the Manager of Opposition Business declared that that was absolutely the right decision. The deputy opposition leader calls Australian manufacturing a 'graveyard'. Ironically, she's the shadow minister for industry. The shadow Treasurer, because we should never forget him, described the very idea of backing manufacturing and manufacturing workers as 'bizarre'. That was from the shadow Treasurer.

Tomorrow, the Leader of the Opposition has got a chance to lay out a plan to back Australian manufacturing and blue-collar workers. Is he going to do something to grow manufacturing, or will he do what Liberals normally do, which is surrender and give up on Australian manufacturing? Or will he come up with another shoddy coalition grants program that manufactures colour-coded spreadsheets that slosh cash around in marginal seats? His political interests are always prioritised above the national interest. He needs to come up with a plan for manufacturing tomorrow, and we'll be waiting to see what he says. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister and concerns the energy rebate announced in the budget. If we take a typical Australian—let's call him Andrew—who recently had to relocate from Bellevue Hill to Parramatta for work reasons and happens to own five houses, including a newly acquired $12 million beach house at Palm Beach, will he be eligible to receive the rebate on all five houses?

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

Order! The member for Barker is now warned.

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

I'm asked about our energy policy, and this is—

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

No; you were asked about Andrew.

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

He's full of hubris and anger today—a very bad combination. It's a very bad combination, because, when we had the previous energy price relief plan, they opposed it. They voted against it when it went just to people who were on payments—when it went to low-income earners. Now that we have an energy price relief plan that goes to all Australians, they're going to vote against that as well! They are now against that.

Late last night, I watched the shadow Treasurer. I wanted to see the Treasurer on 7.30, and he was on afterwards. They gave him 30 seconds afterwards on 7.30, and there he made it very clear that he was opposed to the Future Made in Australia plan, opposed to manufacturing, but I thought that he did actually say that he supported some of the measures of support. It was in there. But now today they are finding a way to crab walk away from giving any support to Australians—just like when we announced our tax cuts for every Australian. First of all, they said that they hadn't seen it, but they were against it. Then they said that they'd roll it back. Then they said that we should go to an election on it, and then they voted for it. But they're still bagging it.