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

My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer tell Australians by what percentage the cost of food has gone up during Labor's cost-of-living crisis since the election of the Albanese Labor government?

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

The nerve of these characters asking about the cost of living—after they opposed all of our efforts to help Australians with the cost of living. If you'd been there for Australians when we wanted to give them tax cuts, energy bill relief, cheaper early childhood education, cheaper medicines, better wages and help with rent, then that would warrant you coming up and asking about the cost of living. As the Prime Minister said in response to this question when you last asked it, if you look at the last year of food inflation, it's 3.0 per cent. If you look at the last year under those opposite, it was 5.9 per cent. I appreciate the shadow Treasurer, in his usually comically incompetent way, asking me to remind the House that food inflation over the last year is almost precisely half of food inflation under those opposite in their last year.

On this side of the House, our primary focus is the cost of living. That's why we're rolling out our cost-of-living help. If you look at the cost-of-living index that was released the other day, you would see lower growth in living costs across every household type compared to the time of the election. That is another reminder that, although inflation is still too high, although Australians are still under too much pressure, we have made some welcome and encouraging progress in the fight against inflation, and we saw that in the numbers last Wednesday.

Now, there are two things that make the shadow Treasurer really angry: first, when inflation goes down, as it did Wednesday; and, second, when the public finds out the cost of his policies.

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

A point of order on relevance: the Treasurer is not even attempting to answer the question. The question was very tight.

Government members interjecting—

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

Order! Members on my right, that is not how we roll. The manager is entitled to raise a point of order just as the Leader of the House is or any member is. It's not a free-for-all commentary. He's going to be given the respect of the House, and I want to hear what he has to say.

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

The question was very tight. The question asked the Treasurer how much food prices are up since the election of the government—not the last 12 months, since the election of the government. If the Treasurer doesn't know the answer, it's 12 per cent.

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

That may be a fair point, and you may have wanted to make it, but it's not the time to make that kind of commentary, so I ask the manager not to abuse the lenience that I showed him. The Treasurer was asked a question. He's read figures into the Hansard. You may dispute those figures. That's for another time, but you may question those. But, whilst he is reading data into the Hansard, answering the question as he sees fit—maybe not how you see fit—he's entitled to do so under the standing orders. Now he is providing information regarding the question he was asked, so I just ask the manager or any member not to add extra comments to their points of order. In light of what I said before, I just ask the Treasurer to remain directly relevance to the question he was asked.

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

I was asked about food inflation and am pointing out that food inflation is currently half what it was when we came to office. That is another reminder that, although Australians are still under pressure, the inflation numbers have been substantially lower and now are in a sustained way. I know they don't like to hear that. I don't think I've ever seen anyone as unhappy as the shadow Treasurer on the day last week when inflation came down again in the bottom half of the Reserve Bank's target band. If they are unhappy about the levels of inflation right now, as we are—and we're working to get inflation down—then they must be absolutely furious at their own performance in office, which delivered inflation multiples of what it is right now.

So this question is another welcome opportunity to remind people that, when cost-of-living help was being provided by this side of the House, those opposite opposed it. That means that Australians would have been thousands of dollars worse off if this opposition leader had his way and they'll be even more worse off if he wins.

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

The member for Braddon is warned.

Sam Lim (Tangney, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government making progress in prioritising the cost of living for all Australians? What approaches will leave people worse off?

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Governing is about priorities, and the priority of the Albanese government from the moment that we took office has been tackling cost of living. We've done this from day one because of global inflation but also because of the low-wage, high-inflation mess we inherited from the Liberals. So we've made medicines cheaper; we've made child care more affordable; we've provided energy bill relief to every Australian; we've got wages going again, beginning with the lowest paid, such that on this day there is now real wage growth in Australia; and we've provided a tax cut to every income earner. We understood that we needed to get inflation down, so we delivered two budget surpluses, something those opposite never did. And having inherited a number of 6.1, inflation is now at 2.4 per cent.

We get that the last few years have been difficult and that many Australians are still doing it tough. While there is light at the end of the tunnel, there's a lot more work that needs to be done, and we are committed to that, but the Liberals represent a material risk to finishing this job because they have a very different set of priorities. There is no culture war that they will not fight. They literally seek to politicise everything. They've made it totally clear that their priority is to cut government services to the tune of $350 billion, and they will need to find another $600 billion to pay for their nuclear plan. You can't do that unless you start hacking into Medicare, just as the Leader of the Opposition did when he was the Minister for Health. If the Liberals are allowed to take Australia back to flatlining wages, to a decimated Medicare scheme right there, the household budgets of middle Australians will be absolutely smashed. But don't worry: they do have one cost-of-living measure. They want all Australians to pay for businesses to provide free lunches—a policy that could cost up to $10 billion. That is the same amount of money as the Medicare payments to the entirety of our GP workforce. How on earth can that be the right priority?

As Australia faces a very big decision in the coming months, we know that the Liberals will be focused on themselves and on their own political fortunes. On this side of the House, we make a pledge. It is the focus—it is the priority—of Anthony Albanese and his government to provide for the security and the prosperity of every Australian.