Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so very proud to get up and talk about the environment and water budgets, because no government in Australia's history has done more to support action on the environment, climate change and water than this government, including in this budget. Over coming years, we will invest more than $9 billion in the environment and around $5 billion in water. The Albanese Labor government is doing more than ever to protect our natural world, to fix more of what's been damaged and to care for the places we love. We continue to invest in the environment and water at record levels.

We're expanding our Antarctic science program and spending more than ever to support the wonderful work of Antarctic science. On water, we're taking real action, with record investments in water infrastructure, including to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full—and I know my South Australian colleagues are very interested in this—and to support basin communities as we make these changes. We're investing well over $500 million to manage our precious water resources. I can't disclose some of the dollar figures, for commercial reasons, as we of course will be buying water in coming years. This budget locks in an extra half a billion dollars for Antarctic science, bringing spending to record levels, and $353 million on our Nature Positive Plan to establish our first federal Environment Protection Agency and also Environment Information Australia and to establish the Nature Repair Market. We're also using that investment to speed up environmental approvals for all the projects we know will make a real difference to the Australian economy, like renewable energy projects, transmission, and critical minerals projects.

We've got $65 million extra for threatened species research, $29 million for cultural heritage reform and remediating Jabiru, and $23 million to develop a national circular economy framework and to tackle problematic waste streams. We know how concerned Australians are about plastics, in particular, entering our environment in record amounts.

But that's not all. In recent years we've doubled funding to better look after our national parks, like Kakadu and Uluru. That is a very necessary response to years of neglect from the previous government. We've protected an extra 40 million hectares of Australia's beautiful land and sea. An area bigger than Germany has been added to the Macquarie Island Marine Park. And of course there'll be more to come as we announce our new Indigenous Protected Areas, for example. I'd remind the House that the tripling of the Macquarie Island Marine Park was the biggest addition to conservation anywhere in the world in 2023—bigger than anything else that was done anywhere in the world. We've kept the Great Barrier Reef off the World Heritage in-danger list by better protecting it with a $1.2 billion investment and the doubling of money for the marine scientists who look after it. The work that's being done to better protect and keep the water that's flowing onto the reef in a better state—for example, reducing the nitrogen loads—has been quite transformational. And we're working to provide World Heritage listing for more of our incredible natural treasures, like the Murujuga Cultural Landscape in Western Australia, Cape York, the Flinders Ranges and others.

I was very interested to hear what the member for Riverina was saying about feral horses recently. We are absolutely determined to make sure that feral animals, whether horses, pigs, goats or cats, are properly and humanely dealt with, because they are having a huge impact on our native species. This is a choice between allowing introduced species—feral animals and weeds—to take over our natural landscapes or standing up for Australian plants and animals and landscapes and protecting them from these invasive species. It is literally a choice between the feral horses and the platypuses, echidnas, bilbies and quolls—whether we protect their environments and help them to survive. We're doubling the number of Indigenous Rangers to make sure our special places are better cared for. I will continue my remarks shortly.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the presence of the Minister for the Environment and Water here today. With regard to her opening remarks, I'm sure her South Australian colleagues are very pleased with the fact that her government is taking productive water that provides employment and amenity from the northern basin in my electorate in attempt to gain votes in South Australia, despite the fact that in many cases they are terminal streams and they can't be delivered!

With regard to water buybacks, Minister, we know that in the Macquarie and Gwydir valleys the northern basin review showed that they'd been over-recovered, largely because of the purchase Senator Wong made in the previous Labor government from the Twynam Pastoral Company in those two valleys. The review showed that the Macquarie Valley was about 38½ gigalitres over-recovered, and from memory I think the Gwydir is about nine gigalitres over-recovered. Can the minister tell the House, is that water going to be returned to the productive pool to enable those communities to actually have some sort of economic advantage? Or is that water going to be rolled into the 450 gigalitres that wasn't part of the plan that came in at the 2013 election? The minister's shaking his head. I should point out I did vote for the plan originally. I did not vote for the 450 gigalitres. It was not part of the plan. It's one of the misconceptions that gets put in this place, that the 450 was part of the plan. It is not. What does the minister intend to do with that over-recovered water?

With regard to Wilcannia, I'm sure the minister is well aware of the issue with the new weir. The previous government allocated $15 million and the state government allocated $15 million. Last year, before Christmas, the state government in New South Wales changed the design of that weir so that it's no longer going to raise the water level by an extra metre, despite the fact that the local community, the local land council, the floodplain graziers, the Central Darling Shire Council are all on a unity ticket for the need for this. We hear a lot of words in this place about our care and love and support for Indigenous communities. This is a project that will actually incredibly increase the amenity of that community by giving them a more reliable water supply. Don't get me wrong; I understand it's a state decision. My question is: has the New South Wales government approached the Commonwealth with more funding to build that weir to its original height? If they have, how much money have they asked for? If that was the case, if the New South Wales government did request more funding, would the minister be prepared to support that project?

There has been some clutching at straws in the briefings I've had around environmental impacts of going higher. This will not take the river outside the bank. In actual fact, the normal rise and fall of the river due to flows is probably higher than that extra metre. There was an attempt to find some Indigenous heritage items which did not, and so it does seem that there is some form of policy directive within the New South Wales bureaucracy around putting weirs in rivers. I'd like the minister's opinion on that.

With regard to buybacks in general, how much of the 450 gigalitres that the minister has promised to get is now removing the need for the triple bottom line with the environmental, social and economic disadvantage being removed from that? How much of the 450 gigalitres is the minister hoping to purchase from the northern basin, despite the fact that from the top end of my electorate you'd need to purchase 16 megalitres of water to get one megalitre of water across the border into South Australia?

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like all Australians, I'm interested to hear from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy about how the budget continues to deliver what's required to support Australia's energy transition. That's because people in my community are in no doubt about the importance of bringing our energy system into the 21st century, which has to occur if we want to avoid missing out on the massive opportunities of a global energy and industrial transformation.

It seems to me that's why this budget follows previous work on legislating net zero by 2050 by funding the essential transmission upgrades necessary to reach 82 per cent renewables by 2030, through the Rewiring the Nation program, with new investment in renewable hydrogen. I understand the budget includes $6.7 billion over the decade for a new production tax incentive of $2 per kilogram starting in 2027-28 and then $2 billion for a new round of the successful Hydrogen Headstart Program.

Renewable hydrogen on a commercial scale at the right price can deliver a triple benefit: firstly, as an option for renewable energy storage; secondly, as a means of exporting renewable energy; and, thirdly, as a renewable transport fuel, particularly for areas like shipping. So I would certainly be interested in hearing from the minister about how Australia can be a leader in renewable hydrogen, allowing us to convert our world-leading sun and wind resources into a new zero-emission energy export trade. That's what we mean by 'the potential for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower'.

Meanwhile, the only energy plan we've heard from those opposite in response to the budget is in the form of a deep and delusional desire to go nuclear, and I would be interested in hearing the minister's views on that. I'm not sure you can call the coalition's approach a plan, because we still don't know how many nuclear reactors there will be, where they'll go, when they'll be delivered, who will build them or how much they'll cost, but presumably we're going to hear that pretty soon. Nuclear energy is not part of our plan, because all the evidence, expertise and inquiries over several decades have made it clear that nuclear just doesn't make sense for Australia. It's the most expensive form of new energy generation, it takes ages and ages to build, it's fundamentally uncommercial and uninsurable, and it presents grave risks to environmental and human health.

Having noted the false and misleading claims the opposition have made in relation to the health of the nuclear industry worldwide, I think it's worth considering the facts courtesy of the most recent World nuclear industry status report. Nuclear power peaked as a proportion of global energy back in 1996. It's now half of its peak level. The number of nuclear reactors peaked in 2002. In the last 20 years, there were 99 reactor startups and 105 reactor closures. Forty-nine of those start-ups were in China, so, if you remove China, you have a net decline of 55 reactors over the last two decades. It is worth noting, too, that solar alone outstripped nuclear energy in China for the first time in 2022 and that non-hydro renewables in China already produce three times the energy of nuclear in that country. In France, which is often cited as the leading example of nuclear energy reliance, total generation last year dropped below the level achieved in 1990. In the US, the largest producer of nuclear energy, generation declined last year to its lowest level in 25 years.

In terms of the commercial viability of nuclear projects, it's worth noting that only three countries build nuclear reactors for other countries: Russia, France and South Korea. The French constructor EDF was renationalised last year after record losses and massive debt put it on the brink of bankruptcy. The South Korean constructor is already a state owned utility, and in 2022 it booked a record US$25 billion loss. Of course, in Japan, which last year began a 30-year process of discharging contaminated water from the Fukushima disaster into the ocean, there are still 27,000 people displaced and the government has estimated the clean-up cost is estimated at US$223 billion.

In terms of the international comparison between nuclear and renewables, 2022 saw a record US$495 billion invested in renewables, a 35 per cent increase from the previous year and representing 74 per cent of all new energy investment. New nuclear in that year only amounted to $US35 billion. Renewables added 348 gigawatts of new capacity; nuclear added 4.3 gigawatts in net operating capacity. After 70 years, nuclear now accounts for 9.2 per cent of global energy, yet non-hydro renewables are already at 14.4 per cent. Does that make nuclear sound like a technology that's on the rise? Absolutely not. It's the opposite. Nuclear is 70-year-old technology in decline, and I'd ask the minister: how ridiculous and harmful is this secret, delusional plan?

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we proceed, I remind the Federation Chamber that anyone seated in the galleries should refrain from speaking during the proceedings.

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two hundred and seventy-five dollars—I'm sure the Minister for Climate Change and Energy would like Australians to forget that figure. But we can't, because it is etched in our memories, having been said almost 100 times, and in our hearts, which are breaking across the country right now because of this broken promise. In response to a journalist asking if the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was going to be able to achieve the $275 reduction in energy prices, the minister said:

Well, of course, that was what we indicated would be the impact by 2025.

Well, we're now in 2024, and prices are nowhere near dropping by $275. In fact, Western Sydney residents, where I'm from, need the Default Market Offer's reference price for the next financial year to drop by more than $1,000 to reach the Albanese Labor government's promise. Instead, Endeavour energy customers on a controlled loan will pay almost $3,000 a year for their electricity. This is extraordinary.

Ausgrid customers across the Central Coast, the Hunter and parts of Sydney have seen a cumulative price increase of more than 30 per cent under this government in just two years. Essential energy users across regional New South Wales in Albury, Grafton, Dubbo and Taree have had an increase of around $650 on their bills. South-east Queenslanders who use Energex are paying almost 40 per cent more on their bills, and South Australian households are paying 32 per cent more.

Higher energy costs are sending some families absolutely broke, and they are in distress. Tens of thousands of households are spiralling further into the cost-of-living abyss thanks to the Albanese Labor government's energy policies. Hundreds of families are going onto hardship payments with energy providers each week. I understand there is a 59 per cent increase on hardship payments for electricity and a 70 per cent increase for those on hardship payments with gas providers. These are alarming figures. Does the minister admit that a $275 reduction in energy prices, as promised when they came into government, will not be realised by 2025? Will the minister let this place know whether or not the government's $300 rebate for household energy bills is an attempt to hoodwink the Australian public and try to make them forget about their original commitment on energy prices?

There are many factories in my electorate with energy bills up 100 per cent. They are under threat of closing. These are industries that we need for our sovereign capability for our manufacturing future. There is a small business in Lindsay that has had its energy bills more than double to $27,500. Minister, how is the $325 rebate they might receive going to assist small and family businesses in the long run when their energy bills have gone up so much since the Albanese Labor government took office?

The government made an announcement last year regarding the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. Minister, has any of the $1.3 billion of funding gone out the door for the Household Energy Upgrades Fund, and, if yes, how much? The fund was meant to support around 110,000 households to lower their energy bills. Minister, how many households have been supported so far under the fund? Around 60,000 social housing properties were to be upgraded and save one-third of their energy consumption through the upgrades per year. How many social homes have been assisted, Minister, and can the government produce any power bills from these properties that demonstrate they have saved around one-third on their power bills?

Overall, the government's renewables-only energy approach is sending so many families into financial hardship. We need a government that will get more supply into the market right now to ensure cheaper bills for households. We need more gas approved and more gas for domestic consumption in this critical time for Australians. We've seen the Australian Energy Market Operator release its latest Electricity statement of opportunities, which highlighted severe reliability concerns in the domestic energy market.

Minister, as the grid wobbles, will this Albanese Labor government concede that its all-eggs-in-one-basket approach towards specific renewables is not working? Everyday Australians across Western Sydney are struggling with the costs of energy. Our older Australians are worried about paying their next bills turning on the heater at night through this winter. Action must be taken. We need reliable, cheap power now to keep our manufacturers making Aussie-made. We need reliable, cheap power to ensure families can keep the lights on this winter for their kids.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to take this opportunity to provide the House with a brief update on some of the measures that the government has implemented in the climate change and energy space since we last gathered. I'll deal firstly with electricity, which the honourable member for Lindsay referred to. I might start by referring to the welcome release yesterday of AEMO's winter 2024 outlook, which hasn't been mentioned, as far as I've seen, by any member opposite since it was released. It notes the situation going into winter:

Similar operating conditions to last winter are expected this year for Australia's energy systems …

That is according to the Australian Energy Market Operator. It goes on to say:

Months of planning with industry, governments and network businesses has gone into preparing the energy systems for the winter ahead—

which is of course true. Importantly, they go on to say:

There is a significant uplift in the availability of existing generation going into this winter since last year, as well as an expected 600 MW of new battery energy storage systems and nearly 1,300 MW of new renewable generation connecting to the NEM to meet demand this winter.

It's a very good report in terms of winter readiness. Those opposite like to make quite alarmist and dishonest representations regarding our energy system. The member for Fairfax said that there would be blackouts last summer. There was no blackout caused by a lack of energy generation. Of course, every system has to deal with transmission towers being knocked over in cyclones and other incidents. That happens, regardless of whoever is in government. But, in terms of a lack of energy reserves, we saw no blackout last summer. Now the member for Fairfax is predicting blackouts next summer. He'll presumably just continue to do that.

We prefer to get on with the job of ensuring the transition in the energy system and ensuring reliability as we do so, because renewable energy is a reliable form of energy when you compare it to coal fired power generation, which is increasingly ageing and increasingly unreliable. That's no fault of the operators of those coal fired power stations or the people who work very hard in them; they're just very old pieces of kit, increasingly. We see a substantial period of time in which we have unexpected outages in our coal fired power generation, but I'm pleased that last year, AEMO approved 6,817 megawatts of new connections—an increase of more than 2,000 megawatts from the previous financial year.

I was interested to hear the member for Lindsay say that we need more supply, because we do. It's partly because, under the last decade, we saw four gigawatts of dispatchable energy leave the grid and only one gigawatt come in. They had the UNGI scheme, which should have stood for 'unfortunately no generation involved' because it delivered not a gigawatt, not a megawatt, not a watt, not an electron into the system. That's what we saw with the 22 energy policies of those opposite.

The member for Fremantle asked me to comment on nuclear. All I will say in relation to nuclear is that it is very much the wrong and risky answer for Australia. Nuclear power plants take a very long time to build, and they are very, very expensive to build. Why you would do that, when you compare it to renewable energy, which is much cheaper to build and faster to build, is beyond me, but that's up to those opposite. They might one day get around to actually releasing a policy, and them we might be able to debate that policy. It was promised 12 weeks ago. It was promised before the budget. In hindsight—I've checked the record—to be fair to those opposite, they didn't say which budget. Maybe it wasn't meant to be this year's.

In the time remaining, I might touch on some other matters across the Climate Change and Energy portfolio. I'm very pleased to report to the House, as I think honourable members will recall, that last sitting week the House and the Senate passed the new vehicle efficiency standards—a long overdue reform in the too-hard basket for 20 years. Transport emissions are our third-biggest source of emissions and are on track to become our biggest source of emissions if we don't act. Because we are getting our emissions down from electricity and industry, transport will rocket up and become our largest source of emissions if we don't have the right policy framework. The new vehicle efficiency standards are a very, very big part of that framework. They were promised by the coalition when they were in office. The coalition then squibbed it and couldn't deliver it. I was disappointed that the coalition didn't support our package, given that they had tried something very similar when they were in office. The opposition has become so negative that they oppose not only our policies but also their own.

I'm pleased with the progress we're making. We have much more to do. We have the six sector plans well under development. We have a new net zero 2050 plan well under development, which will replace the previous government's technology assumption that somehow something magical in the future will get us to net zero. We'll continue that work. I thank the government members and the crossbench for consistently supporting that work thus far.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the minister, who's in the Federation Chamber with us here today. The minister has just raised a few points. Firstly, he spoke about electricity. What was interesting though was that he is celebrating the fact that a report has come out where the operator thinks there may not be blackouts this winter. It goes to the precarious nature of our electricity grid that we have the minister of this country coming into the chamber and celebrating the fact that, in what is a developed country, the lights might stay on. That's how bad this has become.

We do know, though, that only two weeks ago the operator put out a different report, saying that there is a heightened risk of blackouts this coming summer. The minister was silent about the operator's view in that regard. The minister continues to do this. He will deflect and cherrypick data in the hope of telling a good story. He suggests that everything is going swimmingly well with regard to supply. But we know that all major energy experts in this country are calling out the problem we have with a lack of supply, which not only risks the lights going out but is, of course, driving prices up. He talks about wanting the coalition to release its energy policy, but I note that the Labor Party released its Powering Australia plan in the December before the election, giving the Australian public very little time to consider it. By the way, the modelling there suggested a $275 reduction in household power bills, which I'll come to shortly.

Lastly, there is the vehicle efficiency standard, to which the minister just referred. Again, it totally missed the opportunity to get the balance right between price, choice and emissions reduction, and that is why we have seen Australians very concerned about the inevitable increase in the purchase price of vehicles. This is something, again, that the minister has failed to furnish modelling on to suggest otherwise. The only modelling he has furnished suggests electricity prices will continue to come down for those who do rightly opt for the choice, if they wish, to have EVs. That's the only modelling that has suggested that electricity prices are going down.

We've now had two years of the Albanese Labor government, and the dangerous state of the climate and energy agenda suggests things are only going from bad to worse. A $275 reduction in household power bills was promised by the Labor Party ahead of the last election. We now know, because the regulator has revealed the prices of electricity for next year, that some households will be paying up to $1,000 more than what Labor had promised them. To this day, this minister in the chamber has refused to acknowledge what was an untruth, and he continues to perpetrate and peddle a false prophecy of those prices coming down.

Secondly, they promised a reliable grid, more stability. But what we saw—again, the operator suggests we might have blackouts as soon as this summer—only two weeks ago, was an extension of the largest coal-fired power station in New South Wales. Why? It's because this minister's policy has not delivered and the reliability of the grid is in great danger.

Thirdly, we have renewables—82 per cent renewables by 2030. Even the most fervent supporters of renewables suggest that that is running at less than half the electric vehicles target, which is 89 per cent of all new sales of vehicles by 2030 being electric vehicles. His own department suggests that it will be 29 per cent. Social licence—we have 92 per cent of people in regional communities saying that they are not happy with the community consultation under this government for the rollout of transmission lines and renewables. There's the 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. Nobody, other than the minister himself, thinks that this is a possibility.

On every single KPI that this minister and this government have set for themselves—every single one—they are failing, which leads to a very simple question that I wish to put to the minister today: given the government has failed to deliver on any of its climate energy targets, will the minister stop pursuing an all-eggs-in-one-basket renewables-only approach and instead embrace a technology-agnostic approach, one that seeks to have a balanced energy mix, which is what we are seeing with peer nations across the world who are doing it successfully?

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank ministers Plibersek and Bowen for the work being done in the environment and energy portfolios, noting that more has been done under this government than under any previous, particularly in the last decade. People in my electorate of Boothby and those in South Australia more broadly are very concerned about water security and the impact climate change is having on our state. In South Australia we normally see the break of the season on Anzac Day. Anzac Day comes and goes and then it rains. But not this year. Following on from a rainless February and a largely dry March, where we only had three millimetres of rain recorded, the February-to-April period was the driest year since 1923 and—pardon the pun—it was a hot topic.

South Australians are very interested to see the Murray-Darling Basin Plan delivered in full, particularly the environmental flows. We are at the bottom of the river system and we are dependent on our upstream colleagues for water quality and water quantity. South Australia relies on the river Murray for drinking water from towns on the river to as far away as Adelaide and even onto the York and Eyre peninsulas. We also rely on the Murray for agriculture, from irrigators in the Riverland right through to the Murraylands and the mouth.

My friend Sally runs Mundoo Island Station in the Murray mouth at Goolwa, a cattle and sheep station. The farmers on the last station on the Murray Darling River system have long been an environmentalist, as many farmers are, monitoring the water quality around the islands. The Murray mouth gets all the nutrients and contaminants from the entire river system along with the diminished flows, leading to water that is too concentrated to sustain life. Water quality is not only important for the environment, keeping in mind the Murray mouth is one of the 16 Ramsar wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin, so an important environment, but Sally is monitoring water quality for their stock. Water that is too full of concentrates is not usable for the cattle, sheep and horses on the station. I'm aware of some of the off-farm water saving projects undertaken in Boothby and I'm keen to know what more can be done in metropolitan Adelaide to contribute to the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan through managing demand.

I was also pleased to see funding in the budget to ensure that projects being funded under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan are evidence based and produce results. South Australia has been hard done by by previous Liberal governments, federal and state, undermining the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, prioritising eastern states over South Australia. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is about sharing a scarce valuable resource of water between the states. We have heard today they are doubling down on disadvantaging South Australian farmers, communities and residents. I was also pleased to see more funding to ensure integrity in the Murray-Darling Basin Plain system and rebuild trust. Water is very much the lifeblood of our country and nowhere more so than South Australia, the driest state in the driest continent.

To return to climate change, a number of my coastal councils have recently been briefed on sea temperatures, predicted sea level rise and the implications for coastal infrastructure and suburbs. Many of the suburbs of Adelaide are built on former sand dunes and, while they have lovely views of spectacular beaches, they are also very vulnerable to sea level rise. There are parts of Adelaide that already have seawater coming up onto the streets through the storm drains when there is a king tide, particularly if there is a storm at the same time. I personally have worked at the council that deployed sandbags as a regular exercise to protect houses and infrastructure when a king tide was predicted. I have to note that I was not personally deploying sandbags.

A one-in-100-year flood sees significant parts of Adelaide predicted to go underwater through coastal inundation. As we have seen interstate, one-in-100-year floods seem to be coming more and more frequently. Having seen recent media reports about the Brunt Ice Shelf and the retreat of glaciers worldwide, seawater infiltrating under ice caps and an increased rate of melting, I was interested to see the budget allocation for expanding the Antarctic science program and the voyage to the Denman Glacier. I'd like to know from the minister a bit more about the types of scientific studies being done on the glacier, what is being done to better understand what is happening in Antarctica with ice melts and what the expected outcomes of the scientific expedition are expected to be.

Question agreed to.

Kristy McBain (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget delivers the next stage in the Albanese government's plan to deliver a profitable, productive future for Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector. Over the last couple of years, this sector has risen to new heights. The gross value of Australian farms, fisheries and forests is now $90.8 billion—the third-highest on record. This is due to the hard work of Australia's farmers, fishers and foresters, as well as other workers in those industries and the entire agricultural supply chain. That work is of course supported by a government that understands the importance of an industry that feeds us, clothes us and generates enormous wealth for our country.

With the world changing around us, we can't rest on our laurels. In the previous two budgets, we've laid the groundwork to protect and to grow this sector through record investments in priority areas. This includes funding Australia's first-ever sustainable biosecurity funding model and rescuing a biosecurity budget that had been badly damaged by ongoing cuts. Additionally, we've now pumped in a billion new dollars to protect this industry from pests and disease. It includes rebuilding the agricultural workforce after its collapse through COVID-19. There is more to do, but a lot has happened already. It includes fixing the structural deficit that was left behind for us in the agriculture department's funding and restoring trade links that were shredded or diversifying into new ones. It includes investing serious money to improve the traceability of sheep and goats, and supporting our fisheries sector through country of origin labelling that has long been called for as well as investing significantly in the forestry sector so it modernises for the future. We are delivering real results in partnership with industry.

Having done those things in the previous two budgets, we can now really get moving on helping the sector to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change. The budget takes the next step forward on what is arguably the biggest long-term challenge facing the sector, as well as being a massive opportunity. I'm of course talking about how we secure a sustainable future. The truth is that farmers and Australians living in rural and regional Australia face increasingly severe impacts of climate change. The truth is that, without intervention, things will get worse. Global temperatures are higher now than they have ever been in history, and it is costing our farmers every single day. Drought is now impacting farmers in Western Australia, Tasmania and elsewhere. ABARES has conservatively estimated that on average farmers have lost more than $30,000 per annum due to climate change over the last 20 years, with that figure expected to rise. The recent Ag2050 scenarios report by the CSIRO highlighted the need for industry to adapt to climate change to continue its growth trajectory. Bizarrely, we still see some—including some who claim to speak for farmers in parliament—try to paint any action on climate change as being risky for agribusiness. In my view, the bigger risk is doing nothing. That's why the centrepiece of the ag budget was nearly $520 million to support programs and initiatives in a rejuvenated future drought fund. Australians all understand that, when it comes to drought, it's a case of 'when', not 'if'.

Higher rainfall in recent years has allowed some relief in much of the country, but not in all of it. As I say, we are already seeing drought impacts on some parts of the country right now. But also right now we are providing support to farmers and to rural communities who are experiencing drought, including through the farm household allowance, concessional loans, rural financial counselling, mental health support and the tax incentives that have allowed farmers to put away nearly $6 billion in farm management deposits that they can draw on through the tough times. But we also need to do more to prepare for drought, not just respond to it—not just have those sorts of supports in place when a drought arises. That's why the rejuvenated Future Drought Fund will provide for 10 on-ground programs with a much stronger focus on broader climate resilience, greater public benefit through wider sharing of what works, support for longer term trials, and a new program to assist First Nations communities deal with drought.

Of course, longer and more frequent droughts are only one example of what we're likely to see as a result of climate change. The ongoing battle against a changing climate will be fought on many fronts. The Albanese Labor government recognises the need to do our part. We have an incredible opportunity to bring government and industry together to chart a lower emissions and more sustainable future for Australia's ag sector. Our work on these issues have accelerated over the last 12 months, particular through the development of the ag and land sector decarbonisation plan. We're using this budget to make some down payments on the direction that's emerged from our widespread consultation.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my electorate of Dawson, we have over 1,500 farmers and farm managers. We are the biggest sugarcane-growing region in the whole of Australia. We produce the beautiful Bowen mangoes. We have massive horticultural crops. The Bowen and Burdekin food bowls produce tomatoes, capsicums, beans, corn and a whole lot more, which feed the whole nation. That's not to mention the beef producers who call my electorate home. That's why, when the Albanese Labor government keeps coming for my people and for my farmers, things stop being political and start being personal. Each and every time I think things can't get any worse for our farmers, those on the other side prove me wrong.

The Albanese Labor government's latest brainchild is what they're calling the 'biosecurity protection levy'. This new levy, which was one of the most appalling take-outs of last year's budget and which was rejigged in the lead-up to this one, essentially amounts to a new $150 million fresh food tax on the men and women who grow our nation's food and fibre. It is a tax on our hardworking, underappreciated and undersupported farmers, who supply this country with the food and fibre that we need to sustain life. It is a tax on the individuals and families who make their livelihoods working the land and who support our economy. It is a tax on the same individuals and families who are being ripped off at every turn by supply chains, by Mother Nature, by the supermarkets and now by the Albanese Labor government.

The Labor government will tell you they support our farmers, that they deserve their respect, that they deserve a government that listens to their concerns and acts on them, and that we need to ensure that our agriculture survives. So why, Minister, did you and your government decide to bring in a policy to tax our Australian farmers for the biosecurity risk posed by their international competitors? Under this current Labor government, our primary industries and our farmers are under threat. No other country in the world taxes their own farmers for the biosecurity risk posed by international imports—none at all. This current Albanese Labor government is treating our farmers with contempt. It's risking our food security, and it's weakening the future of Australian agriculture. The Prime Minister said, 'No-one will be left behind; everyone gets a fair go.' Where is the fair go for our farmers and their families? This government is not listening, and they're not acting in the best interests of regional Australia.

My farmers are hurting right now. Our people are hurting, and our nation is hurting. It all starts with the primary industries that Minister Watt is so intent on damaging. We all know the importance of sustainably funding biosecurity into the future, but taxing our primary producers is not the answer. Right now, our Aussie farmers are in the fight of their lives. If they lose this fight, we all lose. I can assure our agriculture sector that the federal coalition stands shoulder to shoulder with our farmers. We will fight to get rid of this outrageous tax.

In March this year the government rammed the legislation to establish the biosecurity protection levy through the House of Representatives. It passed, despite opposition from the coalition and the crossbench. Only Labor MPs supported it. Now the legislation is stuck in the Senate, and farmers and industry groups have been left hanging. So I ask the minister: What is the government going to do? What is their plan—their next move, their next strategy—for this tax? Is it still the government's intention to introduce a levy on 1 July? If the levy is not ready to be implemented on 1 July, how does the government intend to fill the $50 million black hole in the budget? If the biosecurity protection levy is up and running by 1 July, just three weeks away, have the government informed the industry, farmers and the 7,000 collection agents around Australia that they're ready to pay and collect?

Finally, members in this place will be aware that, instead of taxing farmers to pay for the biosecurity risks of their foreign competitors, the coalition has been calling on the government to establish an importer container levy. This would apply a charge to cargo coming into the country. This would target those that create the risk. Given the failure of biosecurity, will the minister now consider this approach?

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to again rise in this place and talk about what the Albanese Labor government is doing for our agriculture sector, delivering for the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors in the 2024-25 budget. The budget includes almost $800 million over the next eight years in new programs to support agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Measures in this budget build on the more than $3.1 billion—with a B—worth of new investments in agriculture. The Albanese Labor government is delivering for agriculture, fisheries and forestry in a way that the former government could only dream of and, to be quite frank, did not.

The Nationals sit here, carping from the sidelines about how they alone own this portfolio and only the National Party can understand agriculture. But it has taken a Labor government to deliver critical programs that the Nationals never could because they could not wrestle the purse strings from their coalition partner, who clearly had more control over the money than they ever did.

New data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences—known as ABARES—forecast the gross value of agricultural production will rise to $84 billion in 2024-25. Livestock production will increase with better seasonal conditions and a positive winter outlook will support crop production next year—and that is a good thing. This is due to the hard work of our farmers, fishers and foresters, the workers in this industry, and those who supply the supply chains, including those who work so hard in these sectors who are my own electorate of Paterson.

For the last two years, the work that has been going on as been supported by government—a government that understands the importance of an industry that feeds us, clothes us and generates enormous wealth for our country. We do get farming. The Albanese Labor government has laid the groundwork to protect and grow this sector through record investments in priority areas like biosecurity, workforce, trade and adaption to climate change. It's delivering real results in partnership with industry.

The government has drawn a line under years of neglect, quite frankly, and stopgap bandaids, particularly in biosecurity, which is supposed to be a strong and fundamental net not only for our agriculture sector but also for our entire nation. However, the Nats were only able to pick up from the bottom of the cage what they could to bandaid together the net. The net was in tatters when they left government. It has taken the Labor Party to come to the fore and pick up that net, fix the net and make sure it is secure for all Australians. National Party ministers thought that good outcomes consisted of getting out the chequebook and having a grant here or there, rather than sustainably funding the one thing that farmers do depend on, and that is strong biosecurity. They were selling you a furphy, quite frankly.

Our sustainable biosecurity funding model is more broadly based than ever before, maximising available funding for our critical biosecurity system. It took the Albanese Labor government to deliver this. The coalition 's legacy was a $100 million annual funding cut in biosecurity every single year. The coalition left biosecurity a budget of less than $500 million a year in 2025. In contrast, our government will invest $800 million in biosecurity in that same year, $300 million more than under the coalition. They are just the facts.

They say, 'Follow the money,' in all of these arguments. There's the cold hard fact of it. We're putting $300 million more into biosecurity than those who came before us did. They talk to us about biosecurity all the time, saying: 'No, we were doing it. It's all fine.' It wasn't fine. You don't need to be an agriculturalist to understand we need to keep Australians safe from things like lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease. It's not only for the ag sector; it's for us all. This government is delivering not only for agriculture but for all Australians.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a good opportunity to highlight the utter betrayal by the Labor government in introducing the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024. This bill represents complete and absolute treachery by Labor towards Western Australian farmers and regional communities within my electorate of Durack and within the electorate of O'Connor. I acknowledge my friend and colleague, Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor, who is sitting here with me in the Chamber. The consequences of this legislation are not merely political. They are deeply personal and devastating to the livelihoods of hardworking Australians who rely upon this industry.

Last Friday, the member for O'Connor and I had the privilege of attending the Keep the Sheep rally in Perth's CBD. This rally was attended by thousands of Western Australian farmers, industry representatives and supporters from all walks of life. The outpouring of support was truly overwhelming, with over 1,300 vehicles converging on Perth to stand united against this destructive bill. Large trucks adorned with signs reading 'Keep the sheep' and 'Stand with our farmers' were a real testament to the solidarity and resolve of our regional communities and our thousands of city supporters. The rally was respectful and dignified, just like the character of the people that it represented. Unlike the behaviour and attitude of some opposite, who have pandered to the whims of inner-city voters, our movement stands for real Australia—the Australia that understands the value of hard work and community and understands that agriculture is the backbone of our nation. I encourage those who are listening to sign the 'Keep the sheep' petition.

Let's be clear. This is not just a political battle; it is a battle for people's lives and livelihoods. But don't take my word for it. I received this email last night from Wesley and Louise Hagboom from Dowerin:

Dear Minister

We write to you as a husband and wife farming team in Dowerin, parents of 3 children and local volunteers/committee members of various clubs and organisations in our local area. Our family have farmed cereal crops and sheep on this land for 4 generations. Our split enterprise of livestock and cropping is a vital element to the viability of our business allowing us to successfully mitigate seasonal and financial variations over many years. We also run a small sheep contracting business … which assists bringing an extra off farm income into the business.

We rely heavily on the live export of sheep by sea, it is a significant income stream for our business.

The removal of this industry would devastate families and communities like ours, forcing us to seriously consider removing sheep from our enterprise altogether. We will not be alone in this way of thinking, fellow farmers like us will also find the farming of sheep in WA unviable therefore our small sheep contracting business will not survive which will impact on our viability living in this rural area altogether.

Further to this, the effect this decision will have on our small community is concerning. We contribute countless hours in volunteerism throughout various aspects of our local community and the flow on effect that this decision will have will decimate regional communities—less people in our already struggling towns means less children in our schools, less people supporting local businesses, less volunteers to run local sporting groups and organisations. The wider impact is huge. It will lead to many people abandoning country living altogether.

We strongly believe that we are giving our small family the best possible childhood raising them in the Wheatbelt area of WA. They are growing into three kind, empathetic and community minded individuals who hold strong values in family, community and respecting the land that surrounds them. It is our belief that the phase out of live export will have significant detrimental effects on our family and our children's future on the land will be in doubt. It is devastating to think that they will not be able to give their own children the same country upbringing that they had, due to a political decision by our government.

I implore you to use your voice and influence on this matter, please work with us—listen to us and our industry stakeholders to ensure that the live sheep trade by sea continues. This will protect the livelihoods of many West Australians. Our voices and our livelihoods matter.

Thanks very much to Wes and Lou. What a fabulous contribution.

This campaign is bigger than politics. It is about the survival of our communities, our heritage and our way of life. The government must listen to the Western Australians and recognise the catastrophic effect this bill will have. We stand united, from the city to the regions, in defence of our farmers and of our future. I'm so proud of our WA farmers and pastoralists—for feeding us, for looking after our land, for providing employment, for looking after our community. So, the question is, what's next? It's sheep now, so ask yourself. Minister, advise us of whether the Albanese government's plan is to also ban the live export of cattle.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Primary production in agriculture and fisheries has always been at the bedrock of Australian cultural and economic life, and that continues to be the case today. It's certainly been the case in my electorate of Fremantle, especially in terms of fisheries but also in the form of small-scale fruit and vegetable production, which in some ways is a legacy of the time when market gardens were a distinctive feature of life in Freo and Cockburn. And while Fremantle has for a long time been home to a range of high-quality fishing operations, including Australia's first MSC certified octopus fishery, it's now looking at new kinds of production in the form of activities like seaweed aquaculture. So I'm certainly interested in hearing from the minister about how we're helping this kind of innovation through the $8 million of funding in the Australian seaweed program.

Only last week I had the privilege of going out with Fremantle Seaweed to harvest some Caulerpa and Asparagopsis for transplanting to their 32-hectare aquaculture set-up off C.Y. O'Connor Beach. The Caulerpa is also known as sea grapes. I thought it was pretty good. And of course the Asparagopsis is significant because of its enormous potential as a feed supplement for livestock, with the CSIRO reporting that Asparagopsis can reduce methane emissions in ruminant livestock by more than 90 per cent.

The Albanese government is absolutely backing in this kind of forward-looking innovation in agriculture and aquaculture because that's the nature of primary production: it's always looking to how things can be done better, more efficiently and more sustainably, with higher yields and less environmental impact or even with environmental benefits. Indeed, that concept is what drives the nature repair market, a reform that started with the National Party in the previous government. It allows those who want to invest in environmental repair to be matched with suitable projects, almost always involving farmers and/or First Nations Australians, in order to deliver meaningful and measurable restoration and biodiversity improvements.

Australia is and always has been a trading nation, and I'd ask the minister to provide some information about how agricultural exports are growing under the Albanese government. We know Australian agriculture is the basis of the delicious and healthy produce we all enjoy. But it's also about delivering for an export market, and that's definitely the case with WA's remarkable wheat belt, which has achieved record crops in recent years, the vast majority of which is for export.

In order to achieve the potential of Australia's primary production, we have to look to create new and larger markets overseas. And I can say, as the chair of the Treaties Committee, that I've been fortunate, as has my colleague the member for Spence, to be part of that process. The new government has delivered trade and investment agreements with both the UK and India. As I understand it, that's already seen impressive new market access for Australian farmers and producers. In fact, in the first 12 months since the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement entered into force, agricultural exports were up by 60 per cent, the big winners being salmon, almonds, beans and avocados. I'm particularly glad to note, that as we implement our commitment to sensibly manage the final part of a decades-old transition out of the irremediably harmful live sheep export trade, that processed lamb exports to India increased by 160 per cent last year, while processed lamb and mutton exports to the UK were up by 17 per cent and 75 per cent, respectively, in 2023.

The task of protecting Australia's biosecurity is vital to keep our world-leading produce free from pests and diseases that are rife elsewhere so as to maintain bountiful production, keep animals free from harm, protect the broader community from the risk of zoonotic disease and hold up our reputation across the board in terms of the health and sustainability of Australian food and fibre. The biosecurity challenge has particular meaning in Western Australia, as I know my colleagues will understand, which in some ways, as COVID-19 showed, is an island within an island.

From the outset, the Albanese government has been prepared to take new measures to protect Australian biosecurity and put it on a more sustainable footing. For the first time in our history, we've got a sustainable biosecurity funding model, with a record $1 billion investment. In addition to that record funding, the new model means more transparency for farmers and importers, giving them more of a say on biosecurity priorities. In the most recent budget, we allocated $16.9 million to ensure the biosecurity integrity of Australia's border remains contemporary and adaptable, and that includes specialist technology and equipment, and detector dogs at Western Sydney's new airport to keep Australia free from exotic pests and diseases.

I'm keen to hear from the minister in all of these areas—supporting innovation, improving biosecurity, responding to environmental and climate risks and expanding export market opportunities. I don't think there's any question that the Albanese government, through the excellent work of Minister Watt, is working hand in hand with Australian primary producers to build a stronger and more sustainable future.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's ironic, as I rise to speak on this consideration in detail, that the only significant new money in the agriculture budget this year is the $107 million that's been allocated to shut down an agricultural industry. Sadly, for the people of O'Connor and the people of Durack—and into the electorate of Forrest—that is specifically targeted at your farm businesses and your livelihoods. It's not just restricted to those regional electorates in Western Australia. There are, of course, many people who work in the supply chain and in the feedlots on the periphery of Perth, and there are also the agribusinesses that support that trade. So it's a very sad day and a very sad budget for the agriculture sector across Western Australia.

The minister, when she delivered her second reading speech introducing the bill to shut down live sheep exports, said that the legislation would 'better align Australian export law with community expectations'. The minister cited a petition that was signed by 43,758 people last year as proof. Now, that's a lot of people, I know—and I'm not sure whether it was the RSPCA or Animals Australia who ran that petition—but seven days ago, a week ago, a group called Keep the Sheep stood up a website and set up a petition, and, as I was waiting while the wonderful member for Durack was speaking, I checked the number, and it had clicked over to 43,894 people. They have said they oppose the government's move to shut down the live sheep export trade. That's in just seven days. I might also add that on the same page there is a donation button, and the good people of Western Australia have donated $268,000 towards a campaign against this legislation. That's been growing very rapidly. I've been keeping an eye on that. There are a lot of people who are dipping into their pocket and contributing money.

To add to that, last Friday 1,700 vehicles registered for the convoy that the member for Durack mentioned—3,000 farmers. I was there, as the member for Durack was. I spoke to people in the morning at the top of Bedfordale Hill at a quarter past seven. Some people had been up at three or four in the morning to get there in time. One particular farmer said, 'I feel uplifted, because this is the first time, after years of being kicked and denigrated by the government and the animal activists, that we're actually fighting back.' That was a significant moment in this campaign, and I can tell you that the farmers of Western Australia are absolutely up and about.

The $107 million that we're discussing here is supposedly a support package, so my question to the minister is: who's this going to assist—I've had a briefing from the department, and they were a little bit vague—and how is it going to be delivered? One would assume that the Western Australian department of agriculture would have a role in delivering this assistance, but on 16 May, just after the minister made his announcement in the South Western Times, the WA agriculture minister, Jackie Jarvis, stood up in state parliament and revealed that she had sent a blistering letter to Minister Watt, highlighting the ongoing drought in WA and the state's efforts to support farmers. She said, 'I believe your announcement has added to the negative sentiment of the WA sheep industry at the worst possible time.' This is the Western Australian minister for agriculture. But, importantly, in relation to the $107 million package, she went on to say, 'Given your decision and subsequent package is not in the interest of WA, it is difficult to see how we can work collaboratively.' That is a state Labor agriculture minister referring to the $107 million package that was announced in this budget. So I'm not sure how the minister's going to deliver this assistance, given that the minister has made it very clear that her department will find it very difficult to work collaboratively.

Finally, in my last few seconds, I note that in the ABC's Insiders on Sunday the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said of the live export industry, 'I don't think they've done enough to meet community standards.' The reason that that sends shivers of fear down the spines of Western Australian farmers is that the live export industry's animal welfare outcomes are better than those on farm, so the Western Australian farming community are thinking, 'They're coming after our farms next.'

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In considering the proposed expenditure of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio, I do so through a myriad of perspectives. I start off by viewing agriculture in the way I first knew: as a kid growing up on a farm in Mildura. This lived experience has put me in good stead to now sit on the House Standing Committee on Agriculture. A report tabled late last year, Australian food story: feeding the nation and beyond, involved travelling across the country to see innovative ways Australians in agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture adapt to harsh conditions and come out on top. The basis of the report and its findings are extremely germane to our government's holistic policy to augment this industry while safeguarding it from risks in the short, medium and long term.

As the member for Spence, where farming occupations account for around two per cent of all jobs and which is home to the Northern Adelaide Plains Food Cluster, I see firsthand the importance of agriculture. This region produces around 200,000 tonnes of produce each year, with a farmgate value of roughly $300 million. Our agriculture industry is crucial not just to Spence but across the nation. The sector provides the food we eat and contributes to food security, economic growth, international trade, and direct and indirect employment. A strong agricultural industry means a stronger and more prosperous Australia.

The Albanese government has acted to provide necessary tools for growth by removing trade barriers and improving access to global markets. In the three years leading up to 2019-20, Australia exported around 72 per cent of its total value of agricultural, fisheries and forestry production. Since coming into office, we have reduced trade impediments imposed by China from $20 billion to less than $1 billion, benefiting key agricultural and forestry exports like bottled wine, barley, red meat, timber logs, and oat and hay. In 2023, China returned as our most valuable destination for agricultural, fisheries and forestry products, worth $17 billion. Our efforts to build stronger ties with India, negotiate a free trade agreement with the UAE and support regional trade cooperation are opening new doors for Australian agriculture.

The Indo-Pacific and South-East Asian regions are critical markets for Australian agriculture. In 2022, our agriculture and food exports to South-East Asia were valued at $17.5 billion. Key commodities such as wheat, cotton and beef are vital to these markets. Our wheat exports to Indonesia alone were valued at $2.4 billion, while cotton exports to Vietnam reached $1.97 billion. Over the past decade, wheat exports to South-East Asia have increased by 215 per cent and cotton exports have surged to 524 per cent. Our strategic engagement aims to enhance these trade relationships further. Australia's agriculture and food trade with South-East Asia is diverse. Wheat is used for bakery items, pasta, noodles and animal feed, while cotton supports the textile industry. Australian beef and dairy products are essential for the retail and hospitality sectors in these regions. Our government supports for new market access, such as access for Hass avocados to Thailand and India, is crucial for expanding these relationships. Agriculture as a sector in 2022-23 contributed 13.6 per cent of Australia's goods and services exports, was valued at $94.3 billion and employed 257,000 people.

The need to recognise, mitigate and innovate in response to climate change is not controversial but a reality. The damage from inaction can be measured in billions of dollars in losses to our economy and tens of thousands of jobs lost. The House Standing Committee on Agriculture's inquiry on food security, with submissions from the National Farmers Federation, highlighted the current impacts and costs of climate change to the sector and the need for adaptive actions.

Ensuring food security is a cornerstone of our national policy, guaranteeing all Australians have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food. The Albanese Labor government understands the interconnectedness of food security and national security and the need to plan ahead to build the resilience and sustainability of our food supply chains. Australia's farming communities are on the frontline of climate change, facing frequent and severe droughts. The Albanese government is committed to helping these communities, through the Future Drought Fund. We're investing $561.3 million towards supporting farmers and regional communities in managing drought and climate risks. This includes $235 million for local community partnerships, $137.4 million for informed decision-making and $120.3 million for innovative solutions to build long-term resilience.

For these reasons, I believe the proposed expenditure for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Portfolio should be adopted.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know you're getting old when you hark back to the good old days, but I was just talking to the member for Gippsland and we recall that, back in the good old days—that's code for 'when the coalition was in government'—ministers came into this consideration-in-detail process and actually answered questions. It wasn't just an opportunity for a set piece by a backbencher or, indeed, for an assistant minister to get up and spruik for five minutes about how good their party was and how bad the other side was.

In this process here, with agriculture, I don't see the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—that would be the member for Ballarat—in the chamber. I appreciate that the member for Eden-Monaro, the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, is here.

This consideration-in-detail process used to be a time when a backbencher would get up and ask a question, in all sincerity, and the minister would then respond, or, if the minister didn't respond there and then, they would take it on notice and respond in writing. But this is just an echo chamber. It is, as the Australian public sometimes argues, just a waste of time. And it's such a shame.

For the Labor members who are delivering these set pieces, there is a formula. The questions are: 'Have you ever visited a farm? Have you eaten food from a farm? Is a merino a sheep or a cow?' If they can answer those questions correctly, they get to come in here and deliver a piece from the Labor dirt unit on how good they are and how bad we are.

That is such a shame, because this could be such a good process. I remember, as Deputy Prime Minister, I used to come in and actually answer questions in this process, or, if I didn't have the time to answer them in the five minutes allotted, I'd take them on notice and I'd respond to the member who'd asked the question. But now, all too often, we've got ministers who just aren't answering the questions and just aren't using this process. It is consideration in detail. I can see you're rolling your eyes, Member for Eden-Monaro, but it's true. You probably weren't here during those times when we did actually answer questions.

Now I will ask a question, Minister, and I hope you might take it to whoever is representing agriculture in this parliament. Last time I looked it was Senator Murray Watt, but there were some rumours earlier in the week that he might be going to take a different portfolio. Will the agriculture minister work with the environment minister to listen to the river communities which will be so adversely affected by water buybacks? I ask that in the context of the budget papers and of having just heard from the member for O'Connor saying that there's no new money in agriculture, except for $107 million to shut down the Western Australian live sheep trade.

But my question is around water buybacks. In the budget papers, it is listed as 'NFP'. I'm assuming that is 'not for publication'. It could be anything, but I'm assuming it's 'not for publication': the amount of money that Labor will spend on buying productive water out of the Murray-Darling Basin to send down to the mouth of the Murray. That's not to grow food, not to grow fibre and not to help those river communities and local economies.

And what happens when you buy productive water out of those productive areas is that the farmer gets his or her money; the market is distorted, because the Commonwealth has come with a very big chequebook; the farmer goes off to the Gold Coast; but the little local cafe or the hairdresser or the garage or, indeed, the school, lose customers and clients, or, in the case of the school, children. And then what happens is that the state government looks at that and says, 'Well, that school is not entitled to however-many full-time equivalents, so we'll cut teacher numbers; we'll cut the administration numbers,' and the school suffers; the river-community town or city suffers. And they are suffering.

The media release from the shadow minister for water, Senator Perin Davey, who does understand agriculture, who does understand farming and who certainly understands river communities, talks about the unknown figures, saying:

We know there is only around $1 billion remaining in the Water for the Environment Special Account—funds set aside to deliver 450 GL over and above the Basin Plan targets.

We also know that based on the most recent Government tender the Government paid over $7,600 per megalitre. So simple maths tells us it will cost at least $3.42 billion to recover that volume.

What we don't know is if the Government has anywhere near that much money set aside. All we see from the Government is secrecy.

And that is so true.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Treasury Portfolio

Proposed expenditure, $6,526,395,000

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to speak on this budget, which is a budget for every Australian. It includes tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. Eighty-four per cent of taxpayers will be better off under the reformed tax arrangements that are being legislated by this government compared to those that were being proposed by the other government. I see the member for Reid in the chamber. I know that she is very focused on the position of women taxpayers and women workers in her electorate and right across the economy. I know she is very keen to ensure that women get a good deal. Ninety per cent of women will be better off under this budget.

Of course, we have heard a lot from the other side about energy and cost-of-living issues. The entry price to a discussion around cost-of-living issues and concern about energy issues is not what you say but what you do. Last year, those opposite had the opportunity to vote for a proposition to put a cap on the price of coal and gas for every Australian; they voted against it. While expressing concern, they voted against relief. They will have another opportunity with the $300 for every household energy bill relief. The question for the other side is whether they will repeat their performance of last year and vote against cheaper power bills for Australians or will they back this budget plan to reduce bills by $300?

Of course, we want stronger Medicare in every community. When we came to government, Medicare was on life support, throttled to within an inch of its life by the now Leader of the Opposition, who was voted the worst health Minister in our nation's history. We are now resuscitating Medicare and breathing life back into this system. Bulk-billing rates are on the rise again. We are also trying to take the pressure off public hospitals, so our budget initiative to increase the number of urgent care clinics around the country will ensure that we have a stronger Medicare system in every community—absolutely critical.

On cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE, yes, it's important that we address the skill shortage in this country by inviting skilled people from other parts around the world but we want to see Australians get the first crack at those jobs. I know this is an issue you are very interested in and very concerned about given your background, Deputy Speaker Claydon. This budget is about ensuring that we are investing in skills, and fee-free TAFE is a key part of that.

We need more homes in every part of the country. We need to ensure that every Australian, whether they are renting, purchasing or seeking to purchase a home, has a roof over their head. The excellent work by the housing minister is another instalment of that.

Fiscal responsibility has been the talisman of this government. We have been able to improve the budget bottom line by over $215 billion in two years through the three budgets that we have been able to deliver. We've been able to turn nine Liberal Party deficits into two Labor government surpluses because of the fiscal discipline that we've put into place.

Of course, one of the great but untold stories of our economic management has been the employment story. There are more Australians in work, more jobs being created and one of the lowest persistent unemployment levels on record. We are going to maintain that momentum. There have been over 870,000 additional Australians in jobs over the last two years. It changes their lives, and it means they have the dignity of work and the prosperity that a high-paying decent jobs brings to them. But it also means that there are more taxpayers, and one of the benefits of having more Australians in work is that it ensures we have got more revenue coming in, which is helping us pay down the debt that we inherited from the other side. So these are the hallmarks of budget management on our watch.

I do regret to inform the chamber that there is no allocation in this budget for coffee mugs or for slogans printed on them that say 'Back in Black', but I can affirm to the chamber that, in the absence of coffee mugs, we have been able to deliver a surplus. Of course, we're keen on ensuring that Australia continues to be a country that makes stuff, and, if you want to be a clever country, you've got to be a country that makes stuff, which is what our Future Made in Australia plan is all about. We back a future made in Australia. They oppose it, which begs the question: which country will Australia's future be made in if it's not here in Australia? I commend the bill to the House.

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

I note that the Treasurer is not here. I also note that the minister for industry has not been here this week. It seems that it wasn't just last night that we saw the New South Welshman take out the Queenslander with a high shot. We saw that earlier this week when the industry minister took out the Treasurer with a high shot. He has disappeared—explaining to the Treasurer that he got his budget wrong. It's true that the minister for industry is the Joseph Suaalii of the parliament and the Treasurer seems to be the Reece Walsh.

But the fact of the matter is that this Treasurer had an opportunity to hand down a budget just a couple of weeks ago that was going to set Australia back on track, get back to basics and get things right, but what we saw was a budget that was the third flop from this Treasurer. It was his third budget, his third failure, his third flop, as he handed down a budget which was absolutely the wrong budget for the times. It was panned by economists across the board. As a result, it sank without a trace within about 36 hours.

By the weekend, no-one was talking about the Treasurer's budget because it was meaningless and it wasn't actually dealing with the issues. They were talking about the budget-in-reply speech, because it actually dealt with the issues that Australians are facing: re-establishing the dream of homeownership, making sure that we're putting downward pressure on inflation and setting us up for prosperity over the longer term.

Of course, there were three tests for this budget. The first was about restoring our standard of living back to where it was before Labor came to power. The truth is that Australians are poorer under Labor—two years of Labor and they're poorer. That is an undeniable fact. Indeed, we saw it in the national accounts just yesterday, where Australians' real disposable income per person—that's their standard of living—which was translated into the common-sense numbers that we saw yesterday, has collapsed by eight per cent under Labor. That means they're eight per cent poorer. That's what happens with a Labor government. The numbers yesterday were stunning. But they only told us what we know and what we see every single day when we're out and about in our electorates all around Australia. We see the pain that Australians are feeling at the food banks and the mortgage belt areas. When we go to sporting matches, we see and talk to Australians who are suffering under a Labor government that doesn't understand basic economics.

The second test was to set us up for prosperity over the longer term, to restore not just our standard of living but our way of life, which includes the dream of homeownership, which for so many young Australians is becoming out of reach under this government. The third thing that they needed to do was restore the fiscal disciplines that had been in place since the 1990s. But this Treasurer knows better! He's remaking capitalism. I don't think Australians think he's remaking it very well, but he's certainly remaking capitalism as he brings down a budget with billions of dollars of corporate welfare. Billions for billionaires is what we see in this budget. He's fond of saying—he's now admitting—that there's $315 billion of extra spending in this budget. Some of it we support, but there's much of it we don't. We've opposed $45 billion through the parliament. The corporate welfare that he is handing out to his mates is not something we can possibly support. There are many measures, like $600,000 for a speechwriter for the Minister for the NDIS. I tell you what—I'm not sure you're getting value for money with that, given the speeches we've heard from the Minister for the NDIS over the last little while. The truth is that that is how they're spending hard-earned taxpayers money. Taxpayers are suffering under this government like they haven't in anyone's lifetime who is in Australia today.

My question for the minister, who is a no-show, and the assistant minister, who's on his way out as well, is: why are Australians paying the price for this government's complete economic incompetence?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Labor came to office, Australia's economy was insufficiently competitive. We had seen one of the lousiest decades of productivity growth in the postwar era. Australia's household living standards had suffered, and real wages had flatlined as a result of what they described as a 'deliberate design feature' of their economic architecture. And so Labor, since taking office, has set about injecting a little bit more dynamism, a little bit more competition, into the Australian economy.

We know that the Australian economy under the former government had some serious competition problems. We know that, over that period, we saw an increase in market concentration in many industry sectors. Work by the OECD's Dan Andrews and Macquarie University's Elise Dwyer has shown that, if you compare Australia and the United States across 17 industries, the Australian economy is more concentrated than the US economy in 16 out of those 17 industries. This isn't just a matter of Australia being a medium-sized economy. If you look over the period from 2006 to 2020, Dan Andrews and Elise Dwyer find that the Australian economy became more concentrated, not less. Our size grew, but the market concentration problem got worse.

Under the former government, we saw markups increasing. We saw the rate of business startups—that is, business startups that employ workers—declining over this period. We also saw a decline in job mobility, another key indicator of a dynamic economy. I want to pay tribute to the member for Fraser, Daniel Mulino, an extraordinary economist who has led a critical inquiry by the House of Representatives Economics Committee, which has looked at the issue of market dynamism and made a series of recommendations right across the board about how Australia's economy can be made more dynamic and more competitive.

I want to go to a couple of particular reforms that the government is making. One of those is in the area of supermarkets. In the area of supermarkets, we've referred supermarket competition to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. We have asked Craig Emerson, the former competition minister, to review the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. Dr Emerson's interim report made clear that in his view the code, which was set up under the Liberal and National parties as a voluntary code, should be made a mandatory code. The government is giving serious consideration to this recommendation. Later this month, CHOICE will be bringing down the first of its quarterly price monitoring reports, giving Australian shoppers guidance as to where they can get the cheapest basket of groceries. This is the sort of straightforward practical advice that turbocharges supermarket competition and ensures that shoppers and farmers can get a better deal.

We're also looking seriously at the issue of noncompete clauses. Across the Australian economy we now know that one in five workers have a clause in their employment contract that hampers them from moving to a better-paying job. That dampens wages and business startups. If you want to start a new firm in a full-employment economy you need to hire workers from other firms. But if all the talent is locked up by noncompete clauses, you may not be able to get your business off the ground. In recommending a full ban on non-competes across the US economy, the US federal Trade Commission has suggested that such a ban would lead to a US$524 annual increase in wages for the typical American worker and would create 8,500 new American businesses. We're giving serious consideration to those issues here, and we have just closed an issues paper at the end of May.

Just as on the sporting field, competition in the economy is a good thing. The member for Gippsland and I have a healthy competition on the running front, and both of us benefit from thinking about the gains from competition that can be made when we're out there racing and training. The Australian economy, too, needs a bit more competition, a bit more economic dynamism, in order to benefit the living standards of all Australians.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the Assistant Treasurer and the assistant minister, you'd be forgiven for thinking that everything is well with the world. There's nothing to see here, no problems, and we've never had it so good! Well, I can rest assured and tell this House that, but when I talk to people in my electorate, that is not the case. That is definitely not the case. Given that my neighbouring electorate is the Treasurer's electorate of Rankin, I can tell the Treasurer that that is also not the case in his electorate.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You could tell him yourself, but he's not here though.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be nice if he were here. I notice the Assistant Treasurer has also left the building. Worse off under every measure are the Australian people after two years of this government, and this budget does nothing to assist them. We've seen real disposable income reduced by nearly eight per cent over the past two years. Families are dipping into their savings to cover costs, with the household savings ratio dipping 9.9 per cent over the last two years. The reasons for this are that mortgage payments have almost tripled. There are all-time rental prices highs and record low supply, and there's been a 20 per cent rise in the collection of personal income taxes through bracket creep. I know those opposite are attempting to sell the notion that they're giving a little bit of that back, but I can say that the people I've spoken to don't know about it, and they won't see it. They just see their costs continuing to go up. There are continuing energy price hikes, prices on goods have increased by nearly 10 per cent and we continue to see productivity fall. It's fallen by some 5.2 per cent under this government. We all know in this place that productivity is a key factor in economic growth and long-term prosperity is impossible without it.

As I look at some of the other measures, there is one measure that is not talked about very often. Those opposite love to talk about wage price increases through the wage price index, but what they forget to talk about is the living costs index for employee households. The wage price index is running at some 4.1 per cent, but the living costs index for employee households is running at some 6.5 per cent. So, whilst wages might be rising, the truth is that employees are roughly 2½ per cent worse off despite those wage increases. As I've said, that has come about through higher mortgage costs and higher costs of living.

What we are seeing at the end of the day is an anaemic economy that only grew by 0.1 per cent in the last quarter. I talk to businesses out there. Their confidence is rapidly declining as they see their input costs growing and continuing supply chain constraints. Their rent has gone through the roof, and they have no confidence, or very little confidence, in the future direction of this country under this government.

Before us in the House at the moment is a bill that is going to further increase red tape and regulation. If we want to achieve productivity in this country, one of the things we've got to do is get rid of red tape and regulation. Yet what we are seeing the government doing at this very moment with a bill before the House is introducing scope 3 emissions accounting. For larger businesses, it means they will have to account for the emissions of all of their suppliers through their entire supply chain, from the smallest business in Australia that supplies a business that is covered by that regulation. Now, many small businesses do not have the time or the capability to do that properly, so they'll have to get outside consultants in, which will be another cost to business. I believe the estimated regulatory impact cost of that measures is some $2.3 billion to the economy, which will be borne by small and medium-sized businesses. This government has done nothing to support business, so I ask the question: when is the government going to stand up for Australians and do something for them? (Time expired)

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

A few sporting analogies have been bandied about during this session, so I'm going to add one of my own here. It's probably not one that the Prime Minister would like, but on the point of housing affordability I am going to say that the coalition are the Rabbitohs when it comes to housing policy, because they are dead last; they are the wooden spoons. If we look at what is happening on housing, they vacated the field entirely.

Housing affordability is a concern for families right across my electorate. There is a higher proportion of renters and mortgage holders in the electorate of Reid than in any other part of the country, so any increases in rent or interest rates have a disproportionate impact on my community. Sydney has been ranked as the world's second-least affordable market after Hong Kong, with an average home costing more than 13 times the median salary. But it hasn't always been this way. When my parents came to this country more than four decades ago, they worked hard and were able to buy a home within five years of arriving in this country. Our family's success was possible because of the stability given to them by affordable housing. That stability is now out of reach for many families in Sydney. So how did we get here? A problem as big as this did not happen overnight. It has been brewing for years and years and years. We are here because of a decade of complete and utter failure by the Rabbitohs of housing policy—the former coalition government at federal and state levels. Under their watch there was no investment in housing and no policies to increase housing supply, so we are now left with a critical housing shortage.

We all have a responsibility to do what we can to build more homes. That is exactly what our focus has been for the last three budgets. We are laser focused on increasing housing supply. In our first budget, the Treasurer announced an ambitious goal of building more than a million homes, including $350 million for the federal government and for the states and territories to build 10,000 new homes each year. In our second budget, we made changes to encourage more investment in build-to-rent developments, boosted homelessness funding and made it easier to buy a home, by expanding the eligibility of the Home Guarantee Scheme.

In this recent budget, we announced $6.2 billion in new investment to build more homes and support Australians. In this budget alone there has been more investment in housing than in all nine of the coalition budgets combined. Over the three Albanese Labor government budgets, we have invested a total of $32 billion in new housing initiatives. That is a record investment. This is what a government does when it wants to tackle housing affordability head on. When it comes to housing, the contrast between this side of the House and those opposite could not be more stark. We have ambitious plans, record investment and big targets to build more homes, whereas those on the opposite side have a lightweight policy that involves getting young people to raid their superannuation. It's a policy that has been collectively panned by housing experts and economists alike.

We are getting on with the job of bringing homeownership back into reach for millions of Australians. We've helped more than 110,000 Australians into homeownership through the Home Guarantee Scheme, and through the Housing Australia Future Fund we are making the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade. We are working with state governments and committing $1 billion in this budget to get the necessary infrastructure to make communities work—roads, parks and community facilities.

In Australia, we love big infrastructure projects: the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the opera house and the Snowy Hydro scheme. We are obsessed with major infrastructure projects. I think that housing is the next major infrastructure project that we as a government are going to build in this country. That is something that we can be proud of, because we are unashamedly ambitious with our housing policy, unlike those opposite.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The national accounts figures for the March quarter, released yesterday, show GDP lifted by only 0.1 per cent across the first three months of the year. This is the slowest rate of growth in 30-odd years, outside the COVID era. On a per capita basis, growth fell by 0.4 per cent. We are in a per capita recession, and this was the fifth consecutive quarterly decline. What that means for the average Australian is that things are getting worse and they're going backwards.

The only thing keeping that growth figure in the positive—only just—is the unprecedented level of immigration that this government is bringing to the country. To be very clear, this government is using immigration to stave off a recession. The problem is that the explosion in immigration numbers does not come without a further cost. Whilst immigration keeps this government out of recession, it's keeping existing Australians out of the housing market. Our housing crisis is being made worse day by day as this government's high-immigration strategy plays out.

Of course, this situation isn't hurting all Australians equally. We are all hurting, but there are key demographics bearing an unfair share of the weight. There are two, in particular, that we often talk about. The first is 21- to 29-year-olds, who are the only demographic to have seen both their discretionary and their non-discretionary spending go backwards. These are Australians who are in the early stages of their careers, on lower wages, and who are probably experiencing the upward pressure on rental costs and definitely experiencing inflationary pressures on almost everything else. They have little capacity to save a deposit for a house. Even if they are lent that money from the bank of mum and dad, there is very little capacity to service a loan. With inflation staying higher for longer because of Labor's high spending and house prices continuing to shoot up because of Labor's immigration policies, their hopes of homeownership are floating away. To rub salt into their wounds, Labor's housing policy is yet to build a single house, and, as was extensively covered in yesterday's media, Labor is unlikely to build one before the end of this term of government. As the Treasurer acknowledged, his policies have failed young Australians. The second group are renting pensioners. With fixed incomes and the price of everything going up and up, their quality of life in what should be their golden years is going backwards. Does the Treasurer acknowledge, too, that his policies have failed older Australians?

Whilst Labor's third budget was a typical high-taxing, high-spending Labor budget, the solution to this government's problems can actually be found in the Labor playbook, because the last government to reduce spending as a percentage of GDP for three consecutive years was the Hawke and Keating government in the late 1980s. If this government had the courage to embark on an exercise in spending reduction, as its forebears did, I believe it would receive not only bipartisan support but also the support of the Australian people. Australians can see that Labor's policies are disproportionately hurting vulnerable people; Australians can see that Labor's policies are working against the RBA and causing inflation to stay higher for longer; and Australians can see that Labor's policies are driving up demand in the housing market, squeezing young homebuyers out.

Since coming to government, Labor has increased spending by $315 billion. That equates to roughly $30,000 per Australian household, yet the typical family with a mortgage is now more than $35,000 worse off since Labor took office. There can be no claim that Labor's spending is making things better. The RBA governor confirmed yesterday that the narrow path Australia must walk to get inflation back within that target band of two to three per cent is now stretched out even longer. Our hopes of an interest rate cut in the next 12 months have all but disappeared, as the 52-week bond market is now clearly pricing in no reduction in interest rates during that period. The governor herself still holds out the possibility of a rate rise in that period. Australia's future is gloomier because of Labor's policies. In just the past year, domestic inflation has been five per cent, while imported inflation has been one per cent. Our inflation problem is now homegrown. It is not being driven by foreign wars or foreign politics. Our inflation is being driven by the government's policies. Put simply: Labor has the wrong priorities.

Can the Treasurer explain how spending $620,000 on a speechwriter makes life better for a pensioner struggling to pay their rent? Can the Treasurer explain how spending $1 billion for a foreign company to deliver a quantum computer will help Australians through this cost-of-living crisis? Can the Treasurer explain how increasing public servant numbers by 10 per cent in just one year aligns in any way with his repeated claims of spending restraint? As covered by Phil Coorey in the AFR, Labor's third budget banks in a decade of deficits. How can the Treasurer possibly celebrate a surplus that comes at the cost of 10 years of deficit? We often look at the Costello years, with 10 years of surpluses in a row. We have the opposite laid out in front of us because of this budget.

Inflation hurts all of us, but it spreads its pain unfairly across our community. What I'm laying out is the moral case for reducing spending. If we continue to drive inflation, vulnerable demographics in our community will bear an unfair amount of the load that inflation's putting on all of us. Responsible, sensible reduction in spending can alleviate that problem and make for a better Australia.

Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the right budget for the times. It is a budget that continues to put downward pressure on inflation but does so in a responsible way which provides much-needed assistance, in a well calibrated way, to those who need it most. Those opposite speak of an alternative approach, an approach built around austerity. They keep speaking about a budget with hundreds of billions of dollars of too much spending when the vast majority of the dollars that they speak of is for indexation of core services like the age pension or core public services. It really is incumbent on those opposite to clarify which core services they will cut and which benefits they won't see increased if they're going to continue on this line of austerity. The continued calls for austerity when people are doing it tough make me think that the opposition are like the 1990s IMF but without any economics PhDs.

The inflation that Australia has experienced over recent years is a global phenomenon. It came from global supply chains seizing up after COVID and from the war in Ukraine pushing up energy prices. In Australia, after that global inflation hit our shores, we have seen a significant reduction in inflation over the last two years through a combination of monetary and fiscal policy working together and well calibrated and well targeted cost-of-living supports. We've seen two surpluses delivered successively in that time, we've seen a $200 billion turnaround in the government's fiscal position relative to what we inherited, and we've seen significant savings identified in successive budgets—three budgets in a row—versus zero dollars in savings identified by those opposite.

Inflation remains above the band of two to three per cent, but it needs to be acknowledged that it has come down significantly. In annual terms, it has come down from 7.8 per cent at its peak to 3.6 per cent in the last quarterly reading. In monthly terms, it has come down significantly, from a peak of just over eight per cent in late 2022 to under four per cent now. This significant decrease in inflation has been driven by a reduction in goods inflation, and we are now also seeing a reduction in services inflation, which peaked at a later time but is now also easing. The government's strategy is working. Based on Treasury modelling, inflation could return to the target band by the end of 2024.

But we have more work to do. We know people are still doing it tough. We know inflation is still higher than it should be. But this budget is aimed, firstly, at putting further downward pressure on inflation through responsible fiscal settings that see us, as I mentioned, having another surplus. But this budget also responds to the fact that people are doing it tough by providing those who need it most with assistance.

The most critical measure that provides people with that assistance is the amendments to the stage 3 tax cuts, which provide millions of people with bigger tax cuts than they would have otherwise had. The starkest comparison is for those on incomes of $18,000 to $45,000, who will receive more than $800 a year in tax cuts under us, versus absolutely nothing under the tax cuts proposed by the opposition. This is a huge difference. In my own electorate, where people are doing it tough and talk to me about it constantly, 87 per cent of taxpayers will do materially better under our tax cuts compared with those the opposition put forward. The opposition complained about our tax cuts in parliament and reluctantly voted for them. What is it that they actually put forward as their plan?

In addition, there's $7.8 billion in cost-of-living relief, including a $300 energy bill rebate for households and a $325 rebate for small businesses. We're increasing maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance, making this the first time in a long time that there's been a second successive increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. Then there's the raft of measures that provide for cheaper medicines, something that is making a huge difference for people in my electorate, where there has already been well over $1 million in savings from cheaper medicines.

So, this is the budget for the times. It is a budget that continues to put downward pressure on inflation. This is a budget that will see us move closer towards the band we need to be in. But while we're on that journey the budget will provide those in the community who are the most vulnerable with the assistance they need.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions to the government relating to the budget are focused around building houses for Australians and the long-term infrastructure commitments that compete against our sector's ability to build more homes. Housing is the biggest short-term and long-term cost-of-living issue in this country. It is tragic that in our country people on moderate incomes who are doing important jobs cannot be certain that they will actually be able to build a future and build a family with secure housing. We need to fix this. It's an issue that everyone cares about—young people in my electorate, such as my Youth Action Committee, as well as people in leading businesses. I ask them, 'What are people talking about in the boardroom?' and they say housing. The unaffordability of housing is a cancer in our society, particularly in Sydney.

I acknowledge that the government has taken action on housing in a number of its budgets. But my question to the government is: why can't it do more in particular areas? I acknowledge that the government has provided some state incentives to build more housing, but the evidence is suggesting that housing approvals are going in absolutely the wrong direction. My concern is that the incentives, which I thoroughly support the government bringing in, are not actually meaningful if the states don't believe they're going to meet them—and it does not look like the majority of states will meet them at this stage. So, my first question to the government is really: shouldn't the government consider strengthening the incentives to the states to deliver on their housing commitments? And that is in terms of, firstly, rental rights, because in my state of New South Wales we have no-fault evictions, which we know undermine rental rights. Secondly, it's about how to strengthen the incentives so that the states approve more homes. It is critical, and I don't believe that the government is doing enough in that space.

The second question I have to the government is: why won't they consider other areas of taxation in their desire to build more homes? I know, for instance, that it has been estimated that reforming stamp duty—which is a state tax but where federal support would be needed to actually make meaningful changes—would, in New South Wales, allow another 300,000 people to be homeowners, if we move from a stamp duty regime to a land tax regime. I'm sure that the government has seen the modelling in relation to this. This is a change that would fundamentally make a difference. Why isn't the government making the case for tax reform on those issues and other issues to make owning a home more achievable for more Australians?

My next question goes to the supply constraints in the housing sector at the moment. I was speaking with a builder the other day when I was at Rose Bay ferry. He's a major builder, and he said: 'We can't get the people. We are having to compete, at the housing level, with the infrastructure level.' I note that in this budget there's $97 billion towards infrastructure investment over the next 10 years. While I support the intent of infrastructure investment, the challenge is that at the moment we are absolutely constrained on the supply side in our ability to deliver housing and infrastructure, and, in that choice, I believe that we need to step into housing first. So my question to the government in relation to this is: why didn't the government consider pulling back on some of its infrastructure investment, at least in the short term, to get through the supply side constraints that we are facing right now in our ability to build new homes?

Finally, I just want to make an observation on infrastructure more broadly. Often people say, 'If you want to spend more money, where would you save it?' The example for me would be in infrastructure spending, but part of that is because we do not have good cost-benefit analysis in relation to the impact of our infrastructure on the economy. Every dollar counts, and I know that the assistant minister probably understands this more than anyone else in the country. Every dollar counts, and if we are not spending the big money in infrastructure well then we are wasting money. A recent review into the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects identified deep concerns with the level of due diligence, lack of data collection and outcomes analysis, and lack of clearly defined expectations for making investment decisions. The review said:

This undermines the Commonwealth's capacity to be an informed investor in land transport infrastructure.

I find it extremely concerning that we are spending money that is driving up the costs of both building housing and building infrastructure but we are doing this on projects that don't have a solid cost-benefit analysis. So my final question to the government is a question I've raised before: why won't the government commit to rigorous cost-benefit analysis of all infrastructure projects that can be compared and then prioritise its investment based on those that have the strongest evidence behind them in making a difference to the Australian economy?

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some budgets age well and some budgets don't age very well. Joe Hockey's budget in 2014 certainly didn't age very well. Most of the measures had been abandoned within the year. In the UK, Liz Truss's budget didn't age very well in 2022, and within a month it was clear that her measures were disastrous. But other budgets do age well, and events validate their measures and show them to be right for the times. The third budget of the Albanese Labor government, now just a few weeks old, has been validated by subsequent events and judged to be right for the economic conditions that we find ourselves in. Most of the criticisms of that budget that we heard very strongly over the last couple of weeks have been shown to be relatively unfounded. Let's go through some of those criticisms one by one.

First, we were told that the energy relief that was provided to all Australian households in the form of a $300 rebate would be inflationary. This was probably the dominant topic of commentary around the budget—that this measure, which the government felt was so important to help people with the cost of living, would ultimately be detrimental because it would push up inflation and interest rates. Well, we had an adjudication of this yesterday. The Governor of the Reserve Bank sat in a Senate estimates hearing, and here's what she said about the measure: 'It is helping people who clearly are hurting at the moment, but I don't think it's material in terms of our forecasts for inflation.' So, in spite of all those fears and concerns and that scare campaign about the impact of that $300 payment leading to higher inflation and higher interest rates, the Governor of the Reserve Bank has completely debunked that and said that it won't impact her forecasts for inflation and obviously, therefore, can't impact the trajectory of interest rates. So that's a measure that, despite criticism at the time, has aged pretty well. The criticisms have been proved wrong.

Second, the second-most trenchant criticism of the budget at the time of its announcement, was that it was a big-spending budget. The shadow Treasurer, on 14 May, said, 'This is a big-spending con job.' He said:

… Labor has added $315 billion of new spending, at a time when we need restraint.

Well that criticism has not aged well over the last 48 hours. The Australian economy, as predicted, has been very weak in the last quarter. And while two weeks ago the shadow Treasurer wanted a bigger budget surplus and bigger budget cuts, I doubt he would say the same thing today in the face of a weakening economy. Now he has to acknowledge that budget cuts would have had a devastating effect on the economy and would have been completely inappropriate for the economic conditions that we find ourselves in.

Third, the third-biggest criticism of the budget, was that it would have a negative impact on real wages. Again, the Governor of the Reserve Bank gave strong testimony on this just this week. The governor said that real wages have been negative—she was referring to the previous decade—but then said, 'We expect real wages to start to rise basically from now.' She went on to say, 'They are rising now.' So the Governor of the Reserve Bank's verdict on real wages growth and the economy over the last 10 years is that we've come out of a very dark tunnel, a period of significant low—in fact negative—real wages growth, but we can see the light at the end of that tunnel. Labor's policies have brought real wage growth back, and we expect to see the pay packets of workers moving forward in real terms.

Each of these criticisms have proven over the last two weeks to be unfounded. In fact, the budget has done a good job of managing what many commentators call the narrow path. The narrow path involves working to bring down inflation over the course of this year without crashing the economy. We're really proud to say Australia remains on that narrow path while many other countries have fallen off it. There are recessions in Britain, in Japan, in New Zealand, in Finland, in Ireland, but Australia remains capable and is showing that it can bring down inflation without leading to a large spike in unemployment or a serious economic downturn. That's why this budget has proved to be right for the times and why it has suited the economic conditions of the moment.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Remainder of bill taken as a whole and agreed to.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.