Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I've been listening with interest to the way senators have sought to frame this debate, and they've sought to frame it in a way that suggests there is a difference in the recognition of the significant cost-of-living pressures that are being experienced by Australians at the moment.

And there isn't. We absolutely acknowledge that people in our community are doing it really tough right now—that the cost-of-living pressures on Australians are hitting hard, that their family budgets are getting tighter and that Australians are paying more for things that they can't live without. People are hurting—people in our communities are hurting. The fact is that things like the independent Reserve Bank's decision to increase interest rates do hurt and inflation does hurt. Both these things have been on the rise for some time; they didn't start under this government, they started when the opposition was in government. They're hurting people, and we absolutely acknowledge that these pressures are real and that they're being made worse by events overseas, including the conflict unfolding in the Middle East and the conflict in Ukraine, and the pressures on global energy markets. These things are all adding to inflationary pressures in our economy.

That's exactly why our No. 1 focus as a government has been on addressing the cost of living, but seeking to do so in a way which doesn't add further to the inflationary pressures which already exist in our economy. Our cost-of-living package is $23 billion of various cost-of-living relief measures. To say that the government is doing nothing here is just abjectly false. We have a $23 billion plan for cost-of-living relief, and many of the measures within it the opposition didn't even vote for. On energy relief: we came back to the parliament last year, urgently seeking to do something to provide energy price relief for Australians and the opposition didn't vote for it. We brought the Housing Australia Future Fund in here, to build tens of thousands of affordable homes for Australians—including Australian families where there are individuals fleeing domestic violence and including houses for emergency service workers—and they voted against that package, which will provide much-needed, affordable housing for Australians doing it tough. They voted against cheaper medicines. That's a significant policy to take one of the most significant costs off some Australians—to lower those costs and, again, to do it in a way which doesn't add to the inflationary pressures already existing within our economy and, indeed, existing within the global economy. They voted against that one too—they voted against cheaper medicines too.

Our plan is extensive and it covers a range of things in our economy—things like cheaper child care. If you have young children, the cost of child care can be a huge part of your family budget. We've made substantial investments to relieve that pressure so that children still have access to that incredible early-learning environment, but in a way which makes it easier for families. We're funding fee-free TAFE training all across our country, including significant places in South Australia. We're extending Paid Parental Leave and we're creating jobs. We've created over 500,000 jobs since we've come to this place. But we don't just want to see more jobs, we want to see good jobs. We want wages to get moving again; we supported an increase to the minimum wage and we're funding an increase for aged-care workers to get their wages moving significantly.

We've delivered the first surplus in 15 years. That's the goal those opposite held up more than anything else during their time in government. They loved it so much, they got the mugs printed! That's how much it meant to them. We've delivered that surplus. It's a $23 billion cost-of-living relief package, and we're doing it because we see and understand the pressures which Australians are feeling right now. Cost-of-living relief is our No. 1 priority, and to frame this debate in any other way is misleading and it is false.