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

My question is to the Treasurer. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians with the cost of living, and what obstacles stand in the way?

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

Thank you to the member for Paterson for always maintaining a focus on the main game, which is the cost of living. The member for Paterson knows that, when we came to office, Australians were going backwards, and that's because inflation was higher and rising; wages were lower and real wages were falling, quarter after quarter; and there were huge deficits and enormous debt. All of that together meant that Australian living standards were falling.

We know that people are under pressure. We know that people have got a lot of ground to make up in their household budgets. That's why it's our primary focus on this side of the House, and we have made some good, substantial progress. Inflation is now less than half what we inherited—it's back in the Reserve Bank's target band—and real wages have grown now for four quarters in a row. We'll get some monthly inflation data on Wednesday. That monthly number bounces around a bit, but really anything with a 2 in front of it will show the kind of progress we've made, since it was north of six per cent under those opposite.

Despite the good progress we're making in the national numbers, we know that that doesn't always automatically translate to how people are faring or feeling in the economy. We know that it's not mission accomplished, because people are still under pressure. That's why our cost-of-living help is so important—getting inflation down, getting wages up, tax cuts, energy bill relief, rent assistance, cheaper medicines and cheaper early childhood education. We've done that at the same time as we've delivered a million jobs and delivered two surpluses in two years, when those opposite couldn't deliver a single surplus in nine years.

Worse than that, those opposite, when they had the opportunity to support cost-of-living help, couldn't bring themselves to do it. Because they opposed cost-of-living help, it means that people would be much worse off today if those opposite had their way. On this side of the House, we've come at the cost-of-living challenge from every responsible angle, and at every single turn those opposite have argued for and voted for lower wages and less cost-of-living help. That means that people would be worse off today if they had had their way. This is the risk they pose, because this is their record. They left behind higher inflation, falling real wages, and more deficits and debt, and we have been working around the clock to turn that around. Those opposite are a risk to the progress that we have made, because of that record of coming after wages, cutting Medicare and rorting the budget.

On this side of the House we know Australians are under pressure but, more than acknowledging that, we are actually doing something about it. What that means is Australians would be worse off without our cost-of-living help and they would be much worse off under those opposite. The biggest risk to household budgets is a coalition government. This is why they haven't come clean on any alternatives, because the alternative over there is more inflation, lower wages and less help.