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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this weak Albanese Labor government, interest rates have increased 12 times, energy bills have risen by $1,000, living standards have collapsed, 27,000 business have gone insolvent and we're in a record-breaking household recession. Will the Prime Minister now apologise for promising Australians they would be better off and admit that they can't afford another three years of this weak Albanese Labor government?

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

When we came to office, real incomes were going backwards, inflation was going up, rising—it had a six in front of it—and indeed we had people's living standards going backwards. And we had deficits—a $78 billion deficit—that we inherited in the March 2022 budget. Let's go through the figures of then and now that are raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Inflation in that March 2022 quarter was 2.1 per cent. In the quarter that has just passed, headline was 0.2 and underlying was 0.5. Inflation was 2.4 on an annual basis, under the two-to-three range that the RBA aimed for—in the bottom half of that range. That was achieved without seeing the massive spike in unemployment that we have seen in comparable economies. Unemployment is four per cent—up from 3.9 to four—on the latest figures. What we have seen, also, is that wages have increased four quarters in a row. Inflation up, wages down, unemployment low—that is what has been achieved through the hard work of Australians.

We also have received, during that period, two—not one but two—budget surpluses, back-to-back surpluses. Those opposite didn't worry about inflation. At a time when you had that inflation rising, rising, rising and interest rates had begun to rise, what was their response? The March 2022 budget. That produced a $78 billion predicted deficit and deficits each year all the way through—his debut!

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order, members on my right. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? The manager is entitled to raise a point of order, and he shall do so now.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister was asked a question about his promise to make Australians better off. That cannot stray into opposition policy or the previous government by definition, because it's from the date of your promise to now and whether Australians are better off.

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! The Treasurer and the Minister for Housing, someone making a point of order is not the cue to give a running commentary. The manager is entitled to raise a point of order, and he has done so. I'll hear from the Leader of the House on the point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure if he actually said what the point of order was on, but if he was referring to direct relevance you can look at the terms of that question. The Prime Minister was clearly relevant to it.

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

I read the room that the member for Deakin was raising a point of order on relevance. The question was also phrased around admitting families being better off now than they were. If the Prime Minister is being directly relevant about figures and numbers, particularly about what he was asked about, he is being directly relevant. He's got 30 seconds to make sure he remains directly relevant.

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

I'm asked to compare and contrast, and that's what I'm doing. I'll make this point as well: if they had their way, there wouldn't be cheaper medicines. If they had their way, there wouldn't be cheaper child care. If they had their way, there wouldn't have been any rebates on energy bills. If they had their way, there wouldn't be tax cuts for every taxpayer. We now know that they've come up with a cost-of-living plan, but it's just not for workers. It's that workers should pay for some of their mates to have lunch. (Time expired)