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

My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australia with the cost of living? What approaches would leave people worse off?

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

The member for Reid is terrific, and that's an important question. When that side of the House is focused on long lunches, cuts, conflict and culture wars, this side of the House has maintained a focus on the cost of living. Because of that focus, inflation is down, wages are up and unemployment is low. We've delivered two surpluses and we're rolling out cost-of-living help. We're making substantial and now sustained progress in the fight against inflation, but we know that people are still under pressure, and that's why there is still more to do.

We also know that the same Australians would be thousands of dollars worse off today if the opposition leader had his way on tax cuts, on wages, on energy rebates and on cost-of-living help. We also know they'd be worse off still if he wins the election and goes after Medicare again, goes after wages again and pushes up electricity prices with his nuclear madness. That's why two revelations in the last few days are very important. The first one is that the long lunches policy would cost Australian workers more than $10 billion a year to subsidise long lunches and entertainment if every business claimed what they were entitled to. He wants lower wages for workers and longer lunches for bosses and he wants taxpayers to foot the bill.

The second revelation is he has big cuts in mind but he won't tell Australians what they are until after the election. We know that from his Insiders interview. His secret cuts and his warped priorities should send a shiver up the spine of every worker, of every student, of every family, of every pensioner in this country.

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

The Treasurer will pause.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The black knight arises!

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

The member for Morton is warned! The opposition manager on a point of order.

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

The point of order is relevance. You've previously ruled that even with questions that do invite a compare and contrast that it can't be the entire answer. The Treasurer spent about 15 or 20 seconds on the first part and presumably is going to spend the balance of the question speaking about the opposition. That cannot be directly relevant to the question, even with that invitation to compare and contrast, based on your previous rulings.

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

The Leader of the House on a point of order.

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

Mr Speaker, there is no standing order and no section of Practice that refers to dividing a question into fractions and then applying a proportion of the three minutes to how much in each section. This question goes specifically to what approaches would leave people worse off. There is no way the Treasurer is being anything other than relevant to that question.

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

Order. On the point order—

Order. The Minister for Education is warned! The opposition manager on a further point of order.

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

The point of order is on relevance and the question does have to be directly relevant. Previous speakers, not just yourself, have ruled that an invitation to compare and contrast is not free reign to spend the entire answer on the contrast. That is the practice that has been adopted by previous speakers.

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order. We'll do this in an orderly way and we'll do it respectfully. The Leader of the House?

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

The compare and contrast rule, which has often been referred to by previous speakers as it is there, is when there is not a specific alternative approach as part of the question. There's still a right to compare and contrast, but it's viewed as being very restricted in those circumstances.

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

You're both right, which will make me unpopular with everyone! Under the standing orders the Treasurer is being directly relevant. But you can't have a question simply asked about the opposition, so the opposition manager is correct. To talk about the approaches the Treasurer has to talk about what the government is doing as well. I'm just going to make sure for the remainder of his answer, if he is doing approaches about what would leave Australians worse off, that he explains that in the context of the government policy as well. The Treasurer has the call.

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

Thank you, Speaker. That's why I began by saying under this government inflation is down, wages are up and unemployment is low, and that's been deliberate. And there is an alternative over there. Those opposite think there's $350 billion in cuts ripe for the picking in the budget. Australians should know that the $350 billion in cuts includes pension indexation, natural disaster funding, hospitals and bulk-billing, housing, TAFE and support for veterans. They are coming after all of that, but they'll tell you about it later. They won't come clean on costs or cuts, and that puts every Australian at risk.

Another reason why this matters and why the contrast is so important is he needs to find $600 billion for this nuclear insanity. He has to find it somewhere, and last time he went after Medicare. It's a stark choice at the election this year: a coalition of cuts and conflict and culture wars making Australians worse off and taking the country backwards, or this prime minister and this Labor government getting inflation down, helping with the cost of living and building Australia's future. (Time expired)

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

I didn't want to interrupt during the answer but I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

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

During that answer, the member for Hume made an unparliamentary remark and he should withdraw.

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

I'll get the member for Hume to quickly withdraw.

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

I withdraw.

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

I thank the member for Hume.