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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, the now Prime Minister promised to cut electricity bills by $275, provide cheaper mortgages and ensure families would be better off on the cost of living. Instead of reducing costs for working families, he's delivered 12 mortgage rate increases and a 22 per cent increase in electricity prices, and the cost of food and groceries has jumped by over 11 per cent. Why does this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly promise one thing and do another?

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

Order! There is far too much noise on my right. The minister for infrastructure and the Treasurer were continually interjecting during that question. The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question again. I could not hear what he was saying. So no more interjections during questions.

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

Prime Minister, before the election you promised to cut electricity bills by $275, provide cheaper mortgages and to ensure 'families will be better off on the cost of living'. Instead of reducing costs for working families, he's delivered 12 mortgage rate increases and a 22 per cent surge in electricity prices, and the cost of food and groceries has jumped by over 11 per cent. Why does this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly promise one thing and do another?

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

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question that, of course, in accordance with standing orders, had no argument in it whatsoever! In our first year in office, we delivered cheaper child care, we delivered cheaper medicines, we delivered fee-free TAFE, which has just been opposed yet again by the Leader of the Opposition, and we expanded the single parent payment. Those four measures had something in common. They were all opposed by those opposite.

On 1 July, there was a tax cut for every taxpayer. Again, those opposite said they were opposed to it before they knew what it was. Then they said they'd roll it back. Then they said we should have an election on it so that they could reverse it. Last week, frontbenchers, including the shadow finance minister, were out there again being critical of those tax cuts. They opposed the energy bill relief for every household and every small business. That has been delivered, including the $300 that was delivered most recently to begin on 1 July. I assume they'll oppose the extra two weeks of paid parental leave, which would be consistent. We know they're horrified by the idea of a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines. They said that 60-day dispensing would lead to the end of the pharmaceutical industry, that no chemist would be there. I don't know where they go for their medicines.

Just like Whyalla was going to disappear, as the Treasurer says. We know as well that they've opposed all the wage increases for people who are on the minimum wage. We know that with the first increase—that $1 coin that was raised during the election campaign—they said it was loose; they said it would have devastating consequences. And of course we know today that over the last year wages have increased by more than inflation, and that is a good thing for working people. We also know that those opposite opposed the 15 per cent pay rise for our childcare workers, for early educators, who are delivering so much. So, every time we have a cost-of-living measure, there are two things that are certain. One is that we will work hard to make a difference. The second is that they'll oppose it. (Time expired)

Mary Doyle (Aston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Why is decent pay such an important part of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to help ease cost-of-living pressures? And how does this approach differ to what has failed in the past.

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

On behalf of the member for Aston, the Prime Minister and everyone on this side of the House, I say to the early childhood educators who are with us here today that we're proud to be delivering the pay rise that you need and deserve to do your really important work.

Our economic plan, our budgets and our government are all about helping Australians earn more and to keep more of what they earn to help with the cost of living. That's why we're focused on fighting inflation, on tax cuts for every taxpayer and on decent pay for Australian workers. In that light, today's new wages numbers are very encouraging. They show that wages grew by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter and 4.1 per cent in annual terms. This is the first time in 15 years that wages growth has gone four for four: four consecutive quarters of annual nominal wage growth of at least four per cent. Nominal wages didn't grow above four per cent for a single quarter for almost a decade under those opposite—not once. Since our election, average annualised wage growth is almost double the rate we saw under our predecessors.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

They're interjecting about real wages. When we came to office, real wages were falling by 3.4 per cent. In today's numbers, real wages grew again in annual terms for the third consecutive quarter. That's because decent pay is absolutely central to our cost-of-living agenda: minimum wages up by $143 a week on our watch, a wage rise for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, four quarters of wages growth with a '4' in front of it, and annual real wages growth for the third quarter in a row.

So, on our watch: almost a million new jobs, a tax cut for every taxpayer, and two surpluses; inflation has halved and wages growth has almost doubled. They don't like to hear it. They hate wages growth. That's why wages were stagnant and workers didn't get a look-in for a decade. That's why real wages were falling. Those opposite hate wages growth, just as they hated it when rates didn't go up. They hated it when underlying inflation went down. They hated it when we gave a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer. If they had their way, wages would be lower, inflation would be higher, there wouldn't be tax cuts for every taxpayer and there'd be less help for people who are doing it tough. In this regard, they are hopelessly divided on every issue except this one: they want people working longer for less.

Under this Prime Minister and his government, Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That's what we see in today's new wages numbers, and that's why they are so encouraging and so welcome.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. After three failed budgets, Labor has added over $315 billion of spending. That's over $30,000 per household. Last week—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! The member will pause. I don't know how many times I've got to say this. Questions are going to be heard in silence. The Minister for Housing was at the top of her lungs. She's warned. People are not to interject during questions. The member for Hume will begin his question again.

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

Prime Minister, after three failed budgets Labor has added $315 billion of spending—over $30,000 per household. Last week the RBA governor linked demand to inflation and said, 'We've revised up our forecast for demand growth, and that's due to stronger forecast public spending.' This Prime Minister promised to reduce the cost of living, but the RBA says his decisions are pushing up the cost of living. Why does this tricky Prime Minister repeatedly promise one thing and then do another?

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

I'm not happy with the last part of the question, that descriptor.

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

I really do thank the member for Hume for his question because what he's done is expose the coalition plan for $315 billion of cuts. He stood up here at the dispatch box and he spoke about $315 billion of spending. The shadow finance minister said on 1 August, 'I can tell you exactly what we wouldn't have done: that additional $315 billion of spending.' That's what they say. It's confirmed by the shadow Treasurer and backed up by this Leader of the Opposition.

Let's have a look at what that is. There's indexation of the aged pension; apparently they're against that. There's indexation of income support payments; they're against that. We know they're against the 15 per cent pay rise for early educators. We know they're against the increased wages for aged-care workers. We now know that they are against funding for new medicines on the PBS—every one of them. Those life-saving drugs are all wasteful, those drugs that will help people in need with cancer and with diseases who need these drugs and need them listed so that they can be affordable. Under them, prices will go way up. We know they're against cheaper child care. We know that, just before question time, the deputy leader confirmed that they're against fee-free TAFE for the 500,000 Australians who have received it.

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

Relevance, Mr Speaker. The question was about his policies and how they are failing Australians—

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

Order! Resume your seat. I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, as you previously ruled, a point of order can't just be another attempt to get a media grab. When someone's clearly being relevant and the point of relevance is stated—

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

The member for Hume will cease interjecting.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

it's a clear abuse, like the abuse that's continuing now.

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

The question was about a specific figure, the $315 billion figure that was being mentioned. If you bring a figure into it, obviously the Prime Minister may contest or argue that figure and what that means. Because this has been continuing, the practice is clear on page 554. I ask all members to review this:

… it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies—

but it's equally—

… reasonable for Ministers to discuss alternative approaches as part of a free flowing debate.

That is in practice. In 2015 Speaker Smith adopted the same process, as Speaker Andrew did in 2000, and allowed debate on alternative approaches. You may not like the answer, but that is the practice and that is moving forward. As long as the discussion is about alternative policies within the context of the government's own policies, I'll be adopting the same practice during the debate.

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

This is precisely the figure that he used in the question. They're against more money for infrastructure. They're against funding to secure the future of the National Archives and the National Library. They'll all be there cheering the Olympians, but apparently they're against funding the Brisbane Olympics 2032 as well, because they had nothing in the budget to fund it. They're against funding for biosecurity threats that we introduced as well. They're against funding for PPE and vaccines in hospitals. They're against the funding, the GST revenue, that we have passed on to the states to pay for hospitals, for schools, for police and for essential services. This question exposes what they are against. This nonsense campaign from those opposite, who produced nine budget deficits compared with this government that has produced two budget surpluses. Ask it again. (Time expired)

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

The Treasurer will cease interjecting and the member for Hume will cease interjecting.