Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Parry, I move:

That the Senate notes the substantial increases in cost of living pressures on ordinary Australian families under the Rudd Labor Government.

The substantial increase in cost of living pressures on everyday Australian families is directly related to the ineffective decision-making of the Rudd Labor government. Australian families are feeling the pinch like never before. Amidst the increasing pressure on mothers and fathers to make ends meet, the Rudd Labor government continues to waste taxpayer money. Ironically, Kevin Rudd came to power claiming to be an economic conservative—just one of his many political manifestations—but in just over two years he has racked up billions of dollars in debt, most of it with borrowed money and much of it wasted. This is after he has irresponsibly spent the $96 billion surplus gifted to him by the former Howard government in the blink of an eye.

In breaking one of its election promises, the Rudd government has hit the jackpot, awarding an extraordinary $1 billion in consultancy contracts since coming to power in November 2007. Kevin Rudd and his fellow so-called ‘economic conservatives’ have now awarded over 8,400 consultancy contracts worth over $1 billion, despite pre-election promises to cut spending on consultants by $400 million by 2009-10.

So what do we have to show for this? Sadly, not too much. Nothing but government by review, talkfests and a failure to make the hard decisions! The Australian Financial Review reported on the 12 January this year that record spending on legal fees by the Rudd Labor government may be worse than actually first thought. Spending on lawyers in 2007-08 rose by $100 million to $510 million and again to $555 million in 2008-09. This is despite the pre-election promise to cut spending by $15 million per year after the first budget.

Just yesterday in this place, an ANAO report was tabled, revealing that this government wasted $17 million on a failed National Broadband Network proposal. The Age reports today that Minister Conroy received repeated warnings from his department to abort the proposal. By the time Minister Conroy responded, $17 million had been spent and wasted. The Age today reports that this proposal:

… points to a minister so determined to fulfil the government's $4.7 billion election promise that he dismissed advice throughout 2008 to slow down the process determining which private company would be selected to build the network.

Labor has now committed taxpayers to a $43 billion broadband project without even a business plan. Even the smallest business operator could advise him to be more careful and cautious in determining the investment of money for future return.

Prime Minister Rudd does not govern by making the tough decisions needed to govern Australia, but governs by review. Under this government we have seen more than 170 reviews instigated at taxpayer expense. That equates to one review every 4.6 days of being in office, an achievement that, I hate to say, only a Labor government could be proud of, that has ensured that Labor’s wasteful spending is now systemic.

After two years in government, what have we seen: GROCERYchoice, $8 million; broadband, a $43 billion rollout without a business plan; consultancies, $1 billion in contracts in just two years; the education stimulus with a $1.7 billion blowout; pink batts, $200 million wasted; laptops in schools, another blowout, $800 million; the tax bonus—$46.6 million, where some of that money was directed to overseas Australians, that saw the economies of other countries boosted. Kevin Rudd has followed the historical precedence of so many other Labor governments and is squandering the hard-earned cash of Australian people.

In December last year he refused to disclose the cost of taking 114 people to Copenhagen. But it has been well and comprehensively tabled in this place just what the cost of that has been. The total bill was $1,429,707—it is a mouthful to even get out! It is a staggering amount for three pages of a non-binding agreement.

The Rudd government’s ETS is magic-pudding economics because it relies on driving up the price of electricity to drive down people’s consumption. The scheme does not provide a single dollar for direct action, yet it will cost every Australian household $1,100. To date we have heard nothing from Prime Minister Rudd nor Minister Wong about the real cost of the ETS to Australian families. I would even suggest that they probably do not know that themselves.

It was interesting to read the transcript of the Prime Minister’s interview on the Today program on Tuesday this week. May I suggest that the interview demonstrates just how out of touch this Prime Minister is. With the indulgence of the Senate I would like to quote a couple of things that were said. The anchor, Karl Stefanovic, said:

Okay, see there seems to be some confusion here, a lot of confusion over just how much goods will increase. Can I use this as a basic example—can I ask you this question? How much for example will the price of bread increase under your ETS?

The Prime Minister in response:

Well, if you look at the way in which the Consumer Price Index is calculated Karl, it takes together the whole basket of goods. What’s a loaf of bread at the moment—$2.40.

STEFANOVIC: $4.

PM: No, $2.40 at the no brand level, up to $4, $4.80 for some of the better brands.

I have to say he obviously does not shop in the supermarket that I have near my electorate office in Deakin. He continued:

That’s the range, approximately. So you apply the increase in the cost of living to that as part of an overall basket, you will see an increase.STEFANOVIC: But do you know how much?PM: Well, Karl, I don’t run every bread manufacturing outfit in the country. That is the bottom line …

To me, this is typical of the Rudd-speak that we hear all the time. He does not ever directly address the question and answer with a clear, distinct response so that everybody can understand what he is talking about. The interview went on to petrol, with Karl Stefanovic asking how much petrol will go up, but I have to say that if the implication of what the Prime Minister was saying was not so tragic it would actually be quite funny.

There is a lot of pressure on family budgets. In the lead-up to the last election Mr Rudd suggested that running the economy would be reasonably easy. He has discovered that it is not easy at all, and he has not delivered to the Australian people the prosperity that they have every right to expect. According to a survey commissioned by Hanover, a Melbourne based agency for the homeless, a large number of Australians remain concerned that they will not be able to meet housing and living costs. The survey, of more than 1,000 Australians, showed that close to 85 per cent of people worry about meeting general living costs and a further 70 per cent were particularly concerned about the cost of housing.

We had three interest rate rises in the last three months of last year. There is no doubt that the Rudd government’s refusal to pull back on its spending is putting upward pressure on interest rates. Rising interest rates will cause more pain for all Australians who are facing higher costs as a result of the government’s failure to deliver on its promise to lower the cost of living for working families. Figures released by the ABS on 27 January this year clearly show that the cost of living for Australian working families is on the rise, and dramatically at that.

The consumer price index shows that home-grown inflation is rising fast. Over the year to December 2009, education costs rose by 5.6 per cent, housing costs rose by 5.5 per cent and health costs increased by 4.7 per cent. This is despite the promise that the Rudd government would ‘assist working families’ dealing with all these concerns but, in particular, with the housing affordability crisis. Over 2009, the increases have included: electricity prices up 15.7 per cent, water and sewerage up 14.1 per cent, gas up nine per cent, and pre-school and primary education up 7.5 per cent. We saw in the paper a couple of weeks ago that at a primary school in Victoria the parents were being asked to pitch in to help pay for the maintenance of the toilets. There is a lot of stress on the system at the moment. Another example of increases is motoring fees—charges have gone up six per cent. In 2007 Mr Rudd pledged to Australians that he would do something about household costs. Over the last 12 months alone, we have seen the inflationary pressures in all these areas. Public transport is up by 4.5 per cent. Hospital costs are up 6 per cent. It amounts to a massive burden on Australian families.

In November 2009, Fujitsu Australia and New Zealand released its Mortgage Stress-O-Meter monthly update which found that housing affordability and mortgage repayments leave people under increased levels of stress. I mentioned the electorate of Deakin before. I shall return to it because it is an electorate which one would consider on all measures to represent heartland middle-class Australia. It is certainly not home to any millionaire’s row. Yet last week we saw, in figures for two of the biggest suburbs in the electorate, that Burwood has become the epicentre of the housing boom. So here is heartland middle-class Australia suffering a huge housing boom. In Burwood alone the average house price has increased 23.1 per cent, with the median house price $810,000. In Ringwood there has been a 16.2 per cent increase in the average house price. These are huge prices and huge inflationary pressures. I feel very sorry for those young family householders who are seeking to enter the property market and have to come up with essentially half a million dollars to even consider being able to enter that market. The report went on to say that house prices will rise by up to eight per cent over the next 12 months and suggested that this further stress on affordability for many will continue.

Just last week the Prime Minister was once again exposed as being all talk and no action on putting downward pressure on the cost of living through childcare fees. Revelations indicated that they will rise by up to $200 per week. Media reports revealed how the Rudd government changes to childcare standards will see parents slugged up to $40 extra a day, with 42 per cent of metropolitan centres and 79 per cent of regional childcare centres admitting they would be forced to increase charges.

It is interesting to note that with all these inflationary pressures there is no assurance for Australian families as to what they can expect over the next 12 months. If they reflect on the last 12 months, in the proverbial shopping basket the cost of cheese has gone up by 9.9 per cent, bread by 11.2 per cent, meat and seafood by 7.2 per cent, fruit by 8.6 per cent, and tea and coffee by 8.2 per cent. Critically though, the cost of primary education has risen by over 11 per cent and the cost of secondary education by close to 15 per cent. The Prime Minister promised to keep a lid on the cost of living. This broken promise is one all Australians are paying for every day.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has made significant headway in helping Australians manage cost of living pressures. I am pleased to speak on both the broad and specific measures we have undertaken to support Australian families, particularly the most vulnerable, to keep their heads above water. I think it is extremely important to recognise that these achievements have been made in the face of the greatest challenges a federal government has had to tackle in many decades: firstly, the most significant global financial crisis since the Great Depression and, secondly, 11 long years of neglect and inaction by the previous government, which withdrew millions of dollars from our hospitals and schools, refused to tackle the need for investment in infrastructure and skills, and refused to embark on the reforms desperately needed in our taxation and welfare systems.

The global financial crisis was averted by the swift and decisive actions of the government. There is nothing like unemployment or underemployment to really reduce the standard of living and to increase the net cost of living for Australian families. It was action by the Rudd government—in the teeth of opposition by the coalition parties—that averted the very imminent threat that has had a great impact on countries in Europe and on the United States. The reality is that this government has not only faced these things but overcome them since being elected to government. I proudly stand here and defend this government’s actions to support Australians and their families in these difficult times. This government has been willing to make difficult decisions, as opposed to the ‘do nothing’ response in the face of the global recession and the ‘climate change is crap’ mantra of the opposition.

Senator Kroger mentioned there are high inflation and high interest rates under this government. That is extremely rich coming from the Liberal opposition—the Liberal Party that left Australia with the highest inflation in 16 years. In the last quarter of the Liberal government, underlying inflation had risen to its highest level in 16 years. The average increase in the Reserve Bank of Australia’s measure of underlying inflation reached 3.7 per cent in the year to the December quarter 2007. There were 10 straight interest rate rises. Under the Liberal government, standard mortgage interest rates rose from 6.05 per cent in April 2002 to 8.55 per cent in November 2007. This rise cost families $484 more a month, or $5,805 a year, on a standard $300,000 mortgage. That cost of living increase really affects your standard of living. Even after recent increases, a family with a $300,000 mortgage is still paying around $600 a month less than they were 18 months ago under the Howard Liberal government. That is the kind of thing that the Rudd Labor government has done about inflation rates, whereas the Liberal government ignored 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia about inflation.

The Howard government left us with twin deficits—a skills deficit and an infrastructure deficit—and declining productivity growth. When we are talking about standards of living we need to acknowledge that productivity, innovation and infrastructure are intertwined as a means of improving the future for Australians. The coalition parties have always been poor at looking at the future, at looking ahead, and considering how macroeconomic policies will impact on ordinary working families.

Currently inflation is subdued. The CPI figures from last week show that inflationary pressures in our economy remain subdued. They reflect an economy that is, unfortunately, still operating below its capacity. CPI inflation was 2.1 per cent through the year to the December quarter and at the lower end of the RBA’s two to three per cent target band.

So there is that macroeconomic setting, but the government has also helped working families directly. There are of course two parts to cost of living pressures. One is the income side and one is the expenditure side. On the income side, the government has recognised that working families face rising prices. It has also taken steps to help on the income side. The government has delivered not only at an interest rate level but on its promise of tax cuts for Australians. This means that a person earning $50,000 a year pays 14 per cent less tax in 2009-10 than they did in 2007-08. Further tax cuts in 2010-11 mean that they will be paying 18 per cent less than in 2007-08. That is a tax cut of $1,750. Other measures include increasing the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, improving affordability for parents. So, recognising that there are price increases, the government has taken action to improve income and benefits.

We have introduced paid parental leave, which will provide up to $9,788 for around 48,000 mothers and primary carers each year. We have also introduced the 50 per cent education tax refund, which provides up to $750 per primary school child and $1,500 per high school child to help with the costs of education. Again, recognising that there will be, in the nature of things, cost increases, the government have taken steps to offset those increases. Very importantly, we have also delivered a historic pension increase of $32.50 a week for single pensioners, costing $14 billion over four years. Cost of living pressures were increasing under the Howard Liberal government, but did the coalition take any measures to improve the lot of ordinary people? Not many, and not at all for pensioners. They took no steps to help those on low fixed incomes to cope with cost of living increases. And the Liberal opposition have the temerity to come in here and move a motion like this! They did nothing for people on low fixed incomes. Also on the pension side, we have increased the utilities allowance from $170.20 to $500 a year.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who introduced it?

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal coalition might have introduced the utilities allowance, but they left it at a level that meant that increased costs—which is what we are talking about now—left pensioners way behind. We have increased it from $170 to $500 a year. Did the Howard government increase that utilities allowance? No. We have increased the telephone allowance from $88 to $132 a year. We have indexed the pension to the pensioners’ cost of living, so pensioners are now much better off. An important cohort of our population is much better off. You ask them about the cost of living and see what the response is.

On the income side, Senator Kroger mentioned housing. This government has taken action on housing affordability. The National Rental Affordability Scheme offers $6,500 per dwelling, plus at least $2,168 from the states, to build affordable housing and rent it out at 20 per cent below market rate. The Housing Affordability Fund is a five-year, $512 million investment to help address barriers to new housing development by streamlining planning and approval processes and reducing infrastructure costs. Also, the First Home Saver Accounts have proved very popular and very useful for new homeowners.

The government has delivered on its election promises and has provided for both aspects of the cost of living. It has increased income and benefits and it has taken steps to reduce the other side of it, which is expenditure. On expenditure, I want to talk a little about what the government has done on competition to help drive down grocery prices across the sector. The government is committed to promoting competition in the grocery and retailing industry, which I think everyone recognises is the most effective means of exerting downward pressure on grocery prices. In the past, both state and federal barriers have impeded the entry of competitors into local and national grocery markets. The government is currently working on policy measures to introduce more competition by lowering the barriers to entry and expansion in both retailing and wholesaling for independent supermarkets and potential new entrants.

The ACCC has reached an agreement with Coles and Woolworths to end restrictive provisions in leases. I welcome the agreement between the ACCC and Coles and Woolworths to bring in such measures. Active restrictive leases will cease immediately in 602 out of 750 cases. The remaining 20 per cent will be phased out within five years. Both companies have also agreed that they will not include restrictive provisions in any new supermarket leases. This has been a long-running issue. It is not one that is out there on the front page of the paper, but it has been a key reason for reduced competition. We have finally reached agreement with the two major retailers to ensure that it is phased out. What is the opposition policy on that? I have not heard one at all.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We’re not in government, you know.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you are not in government, and for good reason. It is because these kinds of key steps were not taken by the Howard government. The Rudd government has had to take these steps to ensure that there is additional competitive pressure on prices.

Before my time concludes, I would like to address at least one more area that is important on the income side of things in terms of cost of living pressures. Let us talk a bit about how the coalition addressed the income side of things. Given that Senator Kroger is a senator from Victoria, I would like to talk about the VCOSS state budget submission for this year. It talks about the disparity between wages and the growing cost of living, certainly, but VCOSS does not seem to put the focus on the last two years, on the time of the Rudd government being in power. It talks about 2001 to 2006, which of course was when the Howard government was in office. A lot of these pressures take some time to come through the economy. The VCOSS report says that, while gross average Australian household income grew by 31 per cent between 2001 and 2006, incomes in the wealthiest areas grew by 36.5 per cent and incomes in the poorer suburbs grew by only 29 per cent. While the average income of Sydney households increased by 22 per cent after housing costs, after factoring in the cost of food, petrol, education and child care the annual increase was only around 1.5 per cent. The situation in Melbourne was found to be similar.

So we had the pattern from 2001 to 2006 of, yes, increasing wages, but, at the same time, greatly increasing cost pressures. What was the Howard government’s response to that? The Howard government’s response was to introduce Work Choices, which seemed almost specifically designed to drive down people’s wages even more. It removed penalty rates, annual leave loadings, the right to collectively bargain and the right to unfair dismissal provisions for small business employees, casual employees and seasonal employees. That was the Howard government’s response: ‘Okay, the well-off people are doing reasonably well. The middle classes and lower income groups are really struggling. Let’s squash them even more. Let’s squash their income even more. Let’s leave them even more exposed to increases in the cost of living.’

It amazes me, when we have seen decreased taxes and increased wages under this Rudd government, that a Liberal opposition member can come in here and talk about cost of living pressures. If we are talking about cost of living pressures, we cannot ignore Work Choices and what that would have meant for the cost of living for ordinary families struggling along under the burden of Work Choices and trying to meet those increased costs. It was not only the pensioners that were struggling under the Howard government; it was also working families. That is why people turned against the Howard government in a big way—because they could see the future; they knew where it was heading.

So I welcome this motion from the opposition, because it gives us a chance to talk about the significant improvements brought about by the Rudd government. Hopefully there will be even more in the future, because, as I said before, that is the difference between a Labor government and a coalition government: the Labor government looks to the future. We are looking to the future in terms of productivity, skills improvement and how we enable families not only to cope with the cost of living but to look forward to a higher standard of living in the future.

That higher standard of living will be brought about by productivity, which the former, Howard government neglected shockingly, despite calls from the business community, from economists, from academics, to pay attention to that area. The Howard government let the productivity agenda just drop off. It was all too hard. The decisions that had to be made were hard, so they were not made at all, and we saw productivity drop off shockingly. Also, we saw an appalling problem with skills development in the time of the former government, which meant that a lot of projects in that boom time that the Howard government enjoyed did not proceed as well as they might have, because of dramatic skills shortages.

Although we have had the global financial crisis, although we have seen recession around the world so that there has been a drop-off in new projects and start-up activities, that does not mean that the Rudd government has dropped the ball on issues like productivity and skills development. The Rudd government was pushing ahead in the last budget, despite the crisis which impacted on the budget, to make sure that, as we come out of this recession, we will be well placed and not have those blocks in our path to improving productivity in the future—hopefully in the next few years. It really stuns me that the coalition members raise this issue, because it just gives a chance for members on this side to once again highlight the appalling record—with high inflation and low productivity—of the former government and to point out the positive steps that this government has taken.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is hard, after that confused mishmash of information and half-truths, to identify exactly what Senator Hurley asserts are the significant improvements effected by the Rudd government in the area of household incomes and the cost of living. Whatever the significant improvements are, they seem to be overwhelmed by the evidence that in fact the standard of living is declining for Australians and the cost of living is rising at an unprecedented rate.

We are told, on the evidence of bodies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that household costs such as for groceries are rising precipitately. We have seen, according to the ABS, that the cost of a standard basket of groceries in Sydney has risen by something like $10 in just three months. Exactly which of the Labor Party’s significant improvements, in the areas of which Senator Hurley spoke, are impacting on that kind of rise? We have seen rises in house prices, we have seen rises in rental prices, we have seen rises in the cost of fuel and we have seen rises in almost every area in which the consumer might measure the standard of living that they enjoy. What exactly is the basis on which Senator Hurley argues that there have been significant improvements? What is more, we not only are seeing at this stage significant increases in the cost of living across Australia in most of the indicators we care to look at but have the prospect of further increases coming down the line with the advent of the Rudd government’s ETS and the admitted extra costs that that will impose on Australian consumers across the board as an intrinsic part of it.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You supported it before you backflipped.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I saw the light, Senator Cameron. Maybe you will one day as well if you have a hard enough look at the evidence. The fact is that grocery costs have been soaring. Labor promised to keep a lid on the cost of living, to do something about the rising cost of living, and they have utterly failed. Mr Rudd went on TV yesterday—on the Today program, which Senator Kroger has already referred to—and tried to justify what he thought were modest increases in the cost of living that would be caused by his emissions trading scheme. He postulated that the cost of living would only increase, according to Treasury calculations, by 1.1 per cent. He then failed to distinguish himself by being able to indicate in any way what the actual increases would be on things like milk, bread and petrol, when asked by the presenter of that program but continued to assert that that was the case.

I do not think the Prime Minister was well briefed when he made those comments. In fact the Prime Minister has already, in the course of this week, had to adjust his statements to the community about what exactly the higher costs would be as a consequence of his ETS. For example, he told the community a few days ago that there would only be a seven per cent increase in the cost of electricity prices attributable to his ETS. That sounds fairly modest—a bit more than 1.1 per cent, yes, but only seven per cent. Perhaps we could deal with that for the sake of the planet. But in fact, no, that was not the case. He had to come back and correct the record on that statement. In fact he admitted that electricity prices would rise by 19 per cent in the first two years alone of the operation of the emissions trading scheme. There will be a 19 per cent increase. That is in line with what the New South Wales independent regulator said when he reported that there would be, over the next three years, an increase of 62 present in electricity prices, of which more than one third would be attributable to the emissions trading scheme. There will be something like a 25 per cent increase in electricity prices. Electricity makes up a large proportion of household costs, both directly in the costs that consumers pay and indirectly in the input it has into all the other things that consumers use such as food and groceries. To see there will be a 25 per cent increase in electricity costs—in New South Wales at least—does not make one confident that the government will be able to contain increases under the ETS to just 1.1 per cent.

Another important point I think is worth adding to the mix is this: the government have calculated what they see as the increase in food and grocery prices as a result of the ETS. I understand that one of the factors that they have used to calculate that increase is that over a period of time people will begin to purchase more and more of their groceries in the form of imported goods. You might ask, ‘Why would people be purchasing more imported goods in the mix of their household basket of weekly purchases?’ The answer is this: imported goods are not subject to the ETS tax. Goods produced overseas and sold to Australia are not subject, at least at this point in time, to the inflationary effects of an ETS. The government’s own calculations are predicated on an increase in the cost of Australian made foodstuffs and a smaller increase in the cost of goods produced overseas. The government’s own calculation is dependent on more Australians buying imported foodstuffs and goods in their supermarket basket. That is one way of controlling the increase in costs, yes, but it is hardly a very encouraging way from the point of view of Australian primary producers. There is very disturbing logic at work there.

I mainly want to draw attention to the Rudd government’s failures with respect to the cost of housing. That is a very significant part of any household budget in Australia today. Perhaps we can look to that to see whether the Rudd government has been able to contain the cost of housing. Mr Rudd said, in the lead-up to the 2007 election, that the issue of housing affordability was a barbecue stopper affecting all Australians. He said he wanted to open a dialogue and find real solutions in holding the states to account for their contribution towards the cost of land and housing and wanted to make sure that this was an issue kept under control by his government. Again, let us look at the evidence. Senator Hurley spoke about the significant improvements by the Rudd Labor government. What have they been and how have they affected the price of housing? According to the survey of median house prices in eight capital cities around the country of the Real Estate Institute of Australia, in the first 18 months of the Rudd government the price of housing increased by 9.9 per cent. A rise of 9.9 per cent in 18 months is a much higher increase than the rate of inflation. House prices have risen faster than incomes. House prices have meant a lower level of affordability for Australians seeking to buy a home.

In rental housing, the situation is not much better. Again, the REIA calculates that over eight capital cities the prices of rents have increased by 8.9 per cent since the Rudd government was elected. So if you cannot afford that house you want to buy—because your first home is less affordable as a result of the policies of the Rudd Labor government—you are not going to get much relief by moving into rental accommodation, because the price of rental housing is increasing at a faster rate than it was supposed to.

The Rudd government promised that it would do something about bringing down the cost of family homes by introducing the National Rental Affordability Scheme to ensure that households paid less—20 per cent less—on rent than they had done previously. That scheme is still in the process of being rolled out, so at this point in time we cannot form any definitive judgement about how effective it will be, but it is worth remembering that at this stage very few of the supposed 50,000 Australian families meant to benefit from the scheme have actually obtained any benefit whatsoever. Even if they do enter into rental arrangements under that scheme with, supposedly, a 20 per cent reduction on the market rate in the rent that they pay, they are of course already half of that 20 per cent behind because rents have increased by 8.9 per cent in the course of the last 18 months. There is not much point in decreasing rents by 20 per cent if every 18 months or so there is an overall increase in rents in the order of eight or nine per cent.

The evidence of increasing housing ‘unaffordability’ in this country mounts day by day. Only this week, Fujitsu Australia, which provides business and information services, issued its monthly survey of 2,000 households and focus groups which looked at the evidence of household stress caused by the cost of housing. It found that high interest rates and rising costs of living were pushing up household stress in Australian families. For example, it found in respect of Canberra that 23 per cent of young, growing families will experience mortgage stress by the end of this year. It said that severely stressed households—those facing a potential sale or foreclosure as a result of factors such as rising costs and rising interest rates—were affected such that short-term relief through the government’s cash stimulus had dwindled and that net hours worked and falling household incomes were actually contributing to the extent of household stress.

The executive director of Fujitsu, Martin North, said most people in severe mortgage stress escape their predicament by selling their home, masking the full extent of the problem. The ratio of average incomes to average house prices was more extreme in Australia than in comparable Western countries. He said it would take 7.15 average annual incomes to pay for the cost of an average house, compared with 6.2 times that amount in Britain and 3.5 times that amount in the United States. Disturbingly, Fujitsu estimated that 747,000 Australian households would be in some discomfort by December of this year and 307,000 households would be under severe mortgage stress.

How does that justify the claims of the Rudd government that it is doing something about the cost of living if that very important component of almost every household income, the cost of housing, is rising at such a rate that it puts 700,000 Australian households under some form of housing stress? In what way is the Rudd government effecting significant improvements, to quote Senator Hurley, in dealing with that particular pressure point for Australian families? It clearly does not stack up. For the 8.8 million Australian families who are experiencing pressure as a result of this government’s policies, whether it be from rising grocery prices, rising rental prices or rising house purchase prices, nothing that the Rudd government is doing is having any particular positive effect.

The fact is, the ETS will make the situation much worse and it is very clear that the government just does not have any clear picture of what is going on in that area or how it is going to affect Australians. There was evident confusion in question time today from the government about exactly what the effect of the ETS would be on household incomes. Senator Evans claimed just yesterday that 92 per cent of families would receive full compensation and that working families would have those costs met. Today he had to admit that he was wrong and retract that claim. The fact is that the government’s position is anything but clear. The Prime Minister’s own confusion on the Today program this week illustrates that.

I think it is fair to estimate, as Senator Birmingham did in question time today, that something like half of Australian households will in fact be worse off after the compensation mechanisms are put in place. Something like 4.2 million of the estimated 8.5 million households in Australia by 2011 will receive less than full compensation or no compensation whatsoever. That is based on the calculation made by Senator Birmingham. You might ask on what basis Senator Birmingham has made that calculation. Senator Birmingham is entitled to ask: on what basis does the government calculate that 92 per cent of families will receive some measure of compensation or that the burden of the ETS will not be significant on Australian households? In question time in the last week, Senator Birmingham and others have asked the government to indicate what the extent of cost increases on those vital purchases by Australians will be, but they have not received an answer. We do not know what those cost pressures will be because the government cannot tell us. We have asked that question in question time—and the question has been asked in the other place—but no answers are forthcoming. In those circumstances, I think the government is open to the criticism that it just does not know to what extent Australians’ standard of living is going to be adversely affected by the decisions that the government is making with this ETS and other things that are impacting adversely on Australians.

I will conclude by taking up another point that Senator Hurley made, about rising prices under the coalition—how these made Australians go backwards and indicated our failure in the task of sustaining the standard of living of Australians when we were in office. The statistics are very clear. If members want an illustration of how governments—coalition governments versus Labor governments—have performed in this country, then they need look only at the last 25 years to see their records on the question of the cost of living. In the 11 or 12 years of the Howard government, real wages in Australia—that is, the amount that Australians receive in wages over the costs that they have to meet—improved by 20 per cent. That is our record in government. That is what we were able to achieve—a 20 per cent increase in real terms.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education and School Curriculum Standards) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It fell under you lot, and it went up under us by 20 per cent.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Mason has indicated, the record of the preceding 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments was a fall in real wages of 1.2 per cent. That is what the ABS will tell you. If you want to find some other figures, Senator Cameron, you find them. That is the record of coalition governments versus Labor governments. If the first two years of the Rudd government are any indication, that comparison will continue, because clearly pressures on Australian families, through rising costs, have increased in the last two years. It ought not to be the case. To add to those pressures, as this government is contemplating by adding a new tax onto the shoulders of Australians in the form an ETS, is, I think, utterly irresponsible. That is the clear evidence of the gatekeepers, the monitors of these things—bodies like the Australian Bureau of Statistics—and the government must be held to account for its failure to deal with these issues comprehensively and properly by those sorts of measures.

If the government can satisfy this community that it has a plan to reduce those cost pressures on Australian families, we would like to hear it. We have not heard it in this debate, and the evidence of the last two years is that we are going backwards, not forwards.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly cannot accept being lectured by Senator Humphries on anything.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get used to it.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has to be a better lecture than that, Senator Humphries. You see, you have abandoned your values, you have abandoned your beliefs and you have abandoned your mates. Do not come in here lecturing the Labor party about what we should do when you have abandoned your values and beliefs and then left a couple of senators in here to stand up for the values you know you should stand up for—and that is to do something constructive and real about climate change. That is the biggest economic challenge that this country faces. It is the biggest challenge in terms of putting pressure on ordinary working families. Yet what do you do? You backflip. You backflip with Senator Birmingham—‘Backflip’ Birmingham and ‘No heart’ Humphries. We see that as your position.

And do not come in here lecturing the Labor party about how good you were when you were in government and about what you would do now. We have seen what you would do: you would abandon your mates and not stand up for anything. You did not stand up for workers during the Work Choices campaign. You did not stand up for your own mates against the crazies in your party. So do not come in here lecturing the Labor party about what should be done on anything.

The coalition has abandoned any pretence of having good economic credentials or good economic management. You did not have it in the first place. You pretended that it was there. During all the time of Howard and Costello in government, what we saw was lazy, incompetent and ineffectual economic management. History shows us what you did. It was absolutely pathetic. No voice was raised then by Senator Humphries about workers and their living standards. No argument was raised then when you were ripping rights away.

It is no surprise that the coalition are looking for any opportunity to promote a scare campaign, because they have not got much else left. All they have is scare campaigns. They are on to their fourth leader since Labor came to power. We have a temporary leader in their current leader. When you talk about a Liberal leader, you have to talk about the current leader because you do not know who is going to be their next leader or when that will occur. The Liberals hate the Nationals, the Nationals hate the Liberals and the Liberals hate each other. That is the reality. You are an absolute rabble. You were a rabble before Christmas and you are a rabble after Christmas—new leader, same rabble. That is the reality for the coalition.

Do not pretend that you have any credentials when it comes to economic credibility, because the coalition’s only credential is in running scare campaigns. You are the geniuses of scare campaigns. You ran scare campaigns on asylum seekers. They are people who need help, people who need assistance, people who need asylum, yet what does this coalition do? It vilifies them. It uses them in a scare campaign. That is the type of action we get from the coalition. You ran fear campaigns on interest rates, yet your record on interest rates was pathetic. You ran fear campaigns on terrorism. You ran fear campaigns on anything to try and scare the community into supporting the Howard government. You ran a scare campaign on the union movement. It was the union movement who stood up for workers rights against the attacks of the coalition, yet you have the hide to come in here and talk about living standards and pressures on ordinary workers. The hypocrisy just drips from every one of you. It drips from every orifice of the coalition. It is everywhere, pouring out of you. It is pathetic.

You have had some success in one fear campaign. You have instilled absolute fear and loathing in the business community. Business are petrified at the thought of Senator Joyce ever ending up as finance minister. Business are petrified that the Nationals will be given the purse strings of the nation. Imagine giving the Nationals the purse strings of the nation. Imagine giving the National Party, the supreme pork-barrellers, the funds of this country—and they talk about economic credibility. I will tell you about economic credibility: giving the Nationals and giving Senator Joyce the purse strings of the nation demonstrates that you have got absolutely no economic credibility. The appointment of Senator Joyce as the shadow finance minister rips away any pretence of economic credibility that the coalition claim to have. Let me tell you: it is a claim; it is not a fact.

Barnaby Joyce’s first major address as shadow minister was at the National Press Club, and how was it described in the Australian today? Let me tell you that Senator Joyce, the man who could have the purse strings of the nation, gave an address that was described as ‘gaffes, goofs and gibberish’. You have only got to see Senator Joyce in action to know that that is a very good description of how he operates. Senator Joyce’s appointment was about trying to paper over the divisions in the coalition. It was about trying to give some veneer of substance to the false argument that they are together. They are not together; they are split apart. That is the reality. We cannot afford to have Senator Joyce and the National Party in charge of the purse strings.

Senator Coonan, who was ditched to put Senator Joyce in as the spokesperson on finance, must have had a wry smile on her face when she watched Senator Joyce on Lateline and at the Press Club. She must have said, ‘I’m glad it’s him and not me,’ because putting the National Party in charge of the purse strings of this country was an absolutely pathetic example of the economic irresponsibility of the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott. This is Senator Joyce, who does not believe in climate change, who does not believe in the market and who wants to hand over money based on greed. His argument is that the coalition environmental policy will work because business will be greedy and they will want the money. I for one have had enough of big-business greed. I for one have had enough of the nonsense that is being perpetrated on the opposite side as economic policy. Arguing that greed will drive your environmental policy after the global financial crisis is absolutely ridiculous. What an absolute fraud of a coalition you lot are. What an absolute disgrace—no economic credibility at all.

Do not talk about workers, do not talk about interest rates and do not talk about pressure on workers until you get rid of Senator Joyce. I will tell you what is going to happen: the Liberal Party will demand that Senator Joyce goes anyway, because it is unsustainable for Senator Joyce to continue the gaffes, the goofs and the gibberish between now and the election. You know that and you know that will have to change.

We cannot afford an economic policy based on an environmental policy—and I use the word loosely when it comes to the coalition—that puts pressure on ordinary working families, and that is what your policy does. Your policy takes the money out of the public purse. It is unfunded. You claim you will find the money, but we know where you think the money is going to come from. In my view, it will come from ordinary working families. You know that is what is going to happen. We cannot afford a coalition government that increases the cost of living for all Australians through its con job of an environmental policy. What a con job it is. You bow at the knee to big business every day in the Senate. You say to them that they can continue to rip away at the profitability of this country. Executive salaries can go through the roof and there is not a murmur from the coalition, not a murmur about massive executive salaries and not a murmur about ripping profits and wealth out of shareholders and the community and putting it back into the executives’ pockets. Your economic credibility is not there. When you start raising that issue of the rip-offs against shareholders by executives in this country, you might start having some economic credibility. You have let big business and those executives off the hook. The polluters will pay nothing under your policy. Under your economic policy and your environmental policy, it is business as usual, and you hope that greed will mean that the environmental policy will work. What a pathetic lot you are.

You cannot really be an alternative government when you have no economic policy of any substance and when you have no environmental policy of any substance either. You have a responsibility as an alternative government to explain where the money will come from for your pathetic environmental policy. You call it ‘direct action’. I have heard that name before. Direct action will be a direct hit on working families in this country because they will have to pay for your policy. Also, to pay for your policy there will have to be service cuts. What services will you cut to fund your pathetic environmental policy?

You have to tell Australians which cuts will be made to the health system, the education system, the welfare system and infrastructure spending. We know that the shadow Treasurer, Mr Hockey, wants to cut support for the car industry. This is typical of the coalition: attack workers in industries where they have high skills, decent wages and unionised employment. You hate unions so you go for the jugular. And Mr Hockey can do that quite easily because there are not many car workers in the northern suburbs of Sydney. There are not many car workers on the northern beaches of Sydney, so he can say: ‘We don’t care what happens to working-class people in Geelong, in Albury-Wodonga and in other areas around the country. It doesn’t matter because I’m in the leafy suburbs of North Sydney. I can nip up to the northern beaches. I don’t have to worry because I’m okay. I’m in a safe electorate. We can discard car workers, we can discard industry policy and we can rely on being a quarry, a farm and a tourist destination.’ That is the Liberals’ approach to policy. It has never worked in the past and it will not work in the future. It is typical—attack working people.

You talk about the increased cost of living. It is about time the coalition understood that, simply by ripping away support for our key industries, the cost of living and the stress on the workers who lose their jobs is massive. They are not workers who can move easily into another job. They are not workers who can easily pick up their commitments. They are workers who live week to week, but you do not understand about workers living week to week. You do not care about them because that is what Work Choices was all about. You do not care one iota about ordinary workers. Having introduced Work Choices, your hypocrisy in coming here and talking about the pressure on workers is absolutely mind boggling.

There is another thing I want to say. Apart from your uncaring, unthinking policies and the devastation that they would bring to ordinary working families, I abhor the dismissive attitude that the coalition has to employment in the Commonwealth public sector. Since I have come to Canberra—it has not been that long—I have met people in Canberra, hardworking public servants who are putting in the hours day in, day out for this nation and day in, day out for this parliament. They are highly competent professional public servants. I would not include Godwin Grech in that description but I certainly would describe the majority of public servants as highly competent, good Australians who are doing their best. Yet what do we see from the coalition to fund this mickey mouse con job of a policy? They are going to cut back on the Public Service. When you cut back on the Public Service you cut back on services to the public. This lot do not care because they are still leaderless. You could not call the current Leader of the Opposition a leader, because he was never good enough to have a leadership position in the Howard government. He was never in cabinet. He was never a leader.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education and School Curriculum Standards) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he was! He was a cabinet minister, Minister for Health and Ageing, and he was Leader of the House.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I retract that then, but he was not much of a performer. He was never at the cutting edge of the Howard government. You now have the C grade of the Liberal Party in the leadership position. Do you know why? Because the lunatics have taken over the asylum. That is why. They are the madmen of the Liberal Party—and it is mostly men, although there are some mad women. There are real problems here which the Australian public are onto. They know what you are about and they know that you are a huge problem to this economy. To come here and argue that you care about ordinary working Australians is the height of hypocrisy.

Let us have a look at what the Liberal Party were really about in government. They have a ‘Direct Action Plan’—they are really good at names—for a policy that does nothing and they had ‘Work Choices’ for a policy which gave workers no choices. It gave them nothing, no choices at all. That is what they gave workers. Where were the voices for the workers on the other side, the champions of the workers we are supposedly hearing from now? Where were their voices when Senator Minchin crawled down to the HR Nicholls Society and apologised for not taking enough rights away from workers? They apologised to the business groups in this country. Where were the voices when Senator Minchin claimed he wanted another round of industrial relations reform to take more rights away from workers? They were silent—no heart, no capacity to understand what workers need. Where were the voices in the coalition when Senator Minchin was talking about pulling down the whole edifice of the awards system, including the industrial commission? Those voices were silent, the same as the backflippers on your side of the Senate who know that we should have a decent environmental policy. They backflipped and left their mates in the lurch. They left them on their own when the crunch came, when the loonies took over the asylum. That is what has happened over on the other side. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must comment on some of the remarks made by Senator Cameron. He talks about working families. It is amazing how these union reps refer to working families. As I have said before in the Senate, it was the shearers that started the Labor Party under the Tree of Knowledge at Barcaldine, but not one member of the Labor Party would know how to load a handpiece, let alone knock the wool off a sheep. Perhaps Senator Stephens would. We look through the list of all the Labor MPs here and all the senators and they could not even shear a sheep. They talk about sticking up for the workers. They could not even shear a sheep. That is where they come from, that is where they have lost it and that is where the roots are for the working man. Remember the days when it used to be ‘One man, one job’. The wife could not work, but that has been changed now, thank goodness.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can change it back.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we are not going to change it back. We would all go broke! I want to refer to Senator Cameron’s contribution about the cost of living. He mentioned interest rates—so did Senator Hurley—and how they were 8.55 per cent under the Howard government. They had risen to 8.55 per cent. They must think that we do not have memories. They must think I cannot remember back to the 1992-93 days when I was paying 25.25 per cent under the so-called ‘World’s Greatest Treasurer’, then to become Prime Minister, Mr Keating. And what did it bring on? It brought on the ‘recession we had to have’, as Mr Keating said. ‘We have got to have it,’ Mr Keating said, when we buried the nation in debt, when unemployment rose to 11 per cent and when we were trying to survive in drought and times of low commodity prices on 25.25 per cent.

Senator Cameron talks about the so capable way that the Labor Party can manage the economy. Perhaps he thinks we have forgotten back to the late 1980s when the state of South Australia went broke, as did Victoria, as did Tasmania and as did Western Australia, while Canberra was going down the tube of debt as well. Who managed all of that huge debt-building policy right through then? It was all under Labor governments. Then we had the $96 billion debt the Howard government inherited. After that time what happened? We were debt free. The Rudd government wins in November 2007. It inherits a debt-free government with a $22 billion budget surplus in the first year and record employment with unemployment at the four per cent level. What have we got now? The federal government now owes $120 billion—$120 billion in that short a time. Let us do some figures: $120 billion at seven per cent—$8.4 billion a year interest only. To make it a little bit simpler, $700 million a month to pay the interest only. And they say what a great job they have done with the economy. Of course, that has contributed to the rise in interest rates of late as well.

Let us get back to the real crux of the motion today moved by Senator Parry. Let us go back to before the last election when Mr Rudd said to the Australian people, ‘In government we will fix our hospitals and the buck will stop with me, and if it is not fixed by the middle of 2009 we will take the correct action to fix it.’ Righto, we will move on to the next issue: ‘When in government we will put downward pressure on grocery prices.’

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we have.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

‘And we have,’ I hear. I do not know where the senator on the other side of the chamber shops, but where I shop they certainly have not gone down. So what method did the government take to put downward pressure on grocery prices? It brought in GroceryWatch. The first time I went to the website, I saw some grocery prices for Tamworth and Grafton in northern New South Wales. Is that not great for the people who live in Inverell, Armidale, Glen Innes or Tenterfield? Are they expected to drive down to Tamworth to save 5c on a packet of biscuits because it said it on the website? It was a waste of $10 million. It was thrown in the bin—and thank goodness for that. But that was the Prime Minister’s way of putting downward pressure on grocery prices.

Then what was the next step? Mr Rudd said to the Australian people, ‘In government we will put downward pressure on fuel prices.’ Thank goodness we did not blow another $10 million on Fuelwatch. You can imagine the same scenario: there is the fuel price in Tamworth and the fuel price in Grafton. Someone lives in Inverell, about 250 kilometres away, and petrol is 2c a litre cheaper in Grafton and Tamworth and they say: ‘I’ll drive to Grafton. By the time I get there I’ll run out of petrol anyway to save 2c a litre.’ How ridiculous! Thank goodness it never got wings.

I will go back to the promises the government made. All the computers we were going to have in our schools for year 9 students are still on their way. Then we had the magnificent successful 2020 Summit. It brought everyone down here and what a great talkfest it was. What was derived out of that summit? Nothing at all. So the promises of Mr Rudd to the Australian people go on with how we are going to put downward pressure on the cost of living. Let us have a look at childcare costs. If you are going to cut the cost of living for working families, the best place to start would be child care. We have just found out that childcare fees will rise by up to $200 per week. The Rudd government changes to the childcare standard will see parents slugged up to $40 a day extra, with 42 per cent of metropolitan centres and 79 per cent of regional childcare centres admitting they will be forced to increase their charges. Let us get it straight: we have not had any downward pressure on groceries or fuel and childcare costs are going in only one direction.

The big issue here is that the Prime Minister is saying we must improve productivity in our nation by 2050—he plans a long way ahead. How can we improve productivity when we have the classic situation of mum wanting to go back to work but not being able to afford child care? So what does she do? She is forced to stay at home. It is not worth going to work because all the money she earns is paid to childcare facilities. Let us go a bit further. The electricity bill is there every three months. On 1 July last year, in New South Wales there was a 21 per cent increase in the cost of electricity. That was the state government of New South Wales, of course. Obviously, Mr Rudd’s downward pressure on the cost of living never flowed through COAG.; it was just a case of jamming the price up.

So what is the next solution? The emissions trading scheme. This is a farce. Let me give you a few figures. For a $114 billion tax on our nation the proposed emissions trading scheme is going to reduce Australia’s emissions by 30 million tonnes a year by 2020. We expel around 550 million tonnes a year now, and we are going to reduce that to 520 million tonnes. That will save the globe for sure! But hang on, will it? By 2020, China and India combined will be expelling an extra five billion—‘b’ for billion—tonnes of greenhouse gases. The government says that if we reduce emissions by 30 million tonnes—which is a drop in the ocean compared to five billion—we are going to cool the globe and stop the seas from rising. They use all these sorts of scare campaigns. Senator Cameron referred to the coalition’s fear campaign on this issue. This is outrageous. There is a $114 cost to reduce CO2 emissions by 30 million tonnes when the rest of the world has done nothing. They had a talkfest at Copenhagen that achieved nothing, but the government still want to take Australia down this road of destruction. Our industries will shift overseas. The cement industry will be the first to go. Senator Cameron was talking about jobs in Australia. It will be goodbye to 1,870 jobs in the cement industry in regional Australia because, under the emissions trading scheme, by 2014 those 14 factories will have to pay an extra $20 million a year. They will not survive; they cannot survive. This is how the government intend to keep downward pressure on the cost of living. It is simply farcical.

I want to move on to another area that is a huge threat, as far as costs go in this nation, as a direct result of the Rudd Labor government. I refer to our aged-care facilities and the aged-care industry. We have just seen a splash of some $15 billion into Building the Education Revolution in our schools. We have heard of some of the classics. Abbotsford Primary School, in Sydney, got $4 million to pull down four perfectly good classrooms and replace them with four new classrooms. Is that spending the nation’s money wisely? We have a $15 billion splash around the nation on building in schools—which is the responsibility of the state governments because they run the schools. But aged care is a federal responsibility. How much of the $42 billion stimulus package went into aged-care facilities to help that industry? The answer is: not a cent. We have facilities like St Anne’s out at Broken Hill. Senator Cameron might be interested in this. Broken Hill is a mining town that has wound down its mining compared to many years ago, and the average age there is much higher than for most of Australia. But they cannot afford to expand their aged-care facility because they do not have the funds. The Grace Munro aged-care facility at Bundarra, just south of Inverell, is being threatened with closure because the providers, McLean retirement village, were simply losing too much money. They have lost up to $600,000 to keep the small facility open. But what did the government do to help the aged-care industry? The answer is: nothing. The government are worried about the percentage of the population that is going to need aged care in years to come, but they have neglected aged care and simply borrowed and wasted so much money.

Senator Cameron asks us how we are going to get $3.2 billion over four years for our environmental plan. We can find it easily—just through the waste of this government. That money over four years is less than this government has spent on pink batts in ceilings. It is as simple as that. It is less than the money you committed to pay people to put pink batts in the ceiling. Over four years the coalition will spend $3.2 billion on an environmental package to look after our soil—the very soil that grows the food that keeps us all alive—but the Labor Party will be spending $40 billion and inflicting $40 billion of debt on the nation. That is the forecast for the first four years of your emissions trading scheme: $40 billion, compared to the coalition’s $3.2 billion. That is a big difference, and those are the facts of the budgets.

The government has not put any downward pressure on the cost of living at all. It was all talk. It was all political statements to gain support for the election in November 2007. They have now tried to cut costs by halving the rebate to ophthalmologists for carrying out cataract surgery. Thank goodness there has been some common sense brought about there. How can someone in a regional area travel long distances, employ staff, rent facilities and remove cataracts for $300? A vet quotes $3½ thousand to remove a cataract from your pet dog! It is crazy. As far as the cost of living goes, under this government nothing has gone down.

When we look back on the coalition’s history—as Senator Cameron leaves the chamber—we see a real increase in wages of 20 per cent over the time of the Howard government, but, when we go to the government before that, there was a reduction in real wages. When it comes to cutting costs, when it comes to cutting interest rates over the long term, when it comes to the future of our nation and controlling debt and paying off debt and simply not building debt, there is one side of politics that you can trust.

The cost of living has not come down. Mr Rudd made promises. We know that many of the promises he made prior to the 2007 election—for example, the downward pressure on grocery prices—were a farce. Even the staunchest on the other side would have been embarrassed about the GroceryWatch website. Fuelwatch never eventuated, thank goodness. The cost of transport is going up. I could go on more about the cost of insurance and what is happening in New South Wales with an increase in fire levies and stamp duty et cetera, compounding on the ordinary household—(Time expired)