Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In this debate on Senator Hughes's motion to take note of answers—indeed, as was also demonstrated in the questions asked by the opposition—we have an opposition that is unable to take account of the legacy of its time in government, including the impact on the nation's aggregate demand, which has left millions of people in our country in mortgage stress. Indeed, some 1.5 million households are experiencing mortgage stress at the moment. The opposition cannot, with any credibility, deliver a critique of our policies, because they cannot take account of the legacy of their own government.

Strong economic management is needed to support justified aggregate demand in key areas, such as providing access to medications by ensuring that they are affordable and accessible. We need to manage the cost of living and put downward inflationary pressure on areas where we know Australians need to be able to maximise their spending to maximise their wellbeing, particularly in these times of high interest rates. That is exactly why we introduced the electricity subsidy that was delivered through the states—some $275, on average. While we know that electricity prices have indeed grown more than that in many places, but not all, that enables households to spend money on the things that matter most.

Similarly, we have supported millions of households around Australia through changes to parenting payments, child care and medicine subsidies, access to bulk-billing and many more initiatives.

Indeed we don't want to suppress aggregate demand for critical things that families and households need, but we have been stuck with the inflationary pressures on our economy, not only from Ukraine and fuel prices and from global economic headwinds but also, very tellingly, from a trillion dollars of Liberal-National coalition debt.

What do high levels of government debt mean for aggregate demand? What do high levels of government debt mean when governments refuse to balance their budget and manage aggregate demand? It adds up to trillions of dollars worth of debt. What has our government done to manage aggregate demand? It most certainly has included balancing the budget so that we are not spending more than our nation earns, like those opposite did. Sure, there were times in the economic cycle in the past few years—for example, during COVID—when we supported the deliberate lifting of aggregate demand to keep the economy moving. But heavens above—the money that you took and that you let your corporate mates take off with! When Qantas outsourced workers and sacked them at the same time as pocketing millions of dollars of JobSeeker payments—which they were then able to turn into corporate profit—that added to the bottom line of trillions dollars worth of debt. That certainly didn't put any downward pressure as far as your government's legacy goes on aggregate demand! And what cheek— (Time expired)