Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers to all the questions asked by coalition senators to the government today.

It's only in Labor's illogical, bizarre world that we could get a budget that's propped up by resources, but which also cuts support to them while giving extra ammunition to the sort of lawfare that we're going to see from the EDO. The resources minister is telling industry and media one thing, saying they're encouraging more gas supply to come to market; she knows that's what's going to reduce energy prices and provide better gas prices to the domestic market. But her cabinet colleagues are giving a nod and a wink to the Greens and to every other extreme green movement.

So, the Environmental Defenders Office have received an extra $9.6 million to conduct lawfare against the very industry that is the only solution we have in terms of providing affordable gas both to the domestic market, for manufacturing, and for our export market. This year alone, the gas industry is expected to provide $13 billion in royalties, company taxes and PAYG payments from the incredibly well-paid jobs in the gas industry. And it is extraordinary to me: when I go to towns like Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mount Isa and Townsville, the journalists ask me, 'What do you think this budget means for our people, our workers?' and I have to say, 'Well, it's not much good news, I'm afraid.'

In this budget we have seen massive cuts to incredibly important budget commitments that we had for the development of northern Australia, whether the billions of dollars for water funding, for Hells Gate Dam—

I'll take that interjection, Senator Canavan. I will have to provide a map similar to the one provided by Senator Watt before he was a minister. He would bring a map to RRAT on which he'd carefully coloured in northern Australia, I think just to remind him of where it is. Using that map, he would be able to see, from the water investments, the road investments, the half a billion dollars that's been cut from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the cuts to the Northern Australia Development grants, and the cuts to roads and significant investments, that this is a Robin Hood budget in reverse. It steals jobs from the North—but I'm not sure where they're giving them to. It's the worst kind of theft, because nobody benefits and everybody loses, because it is the royalties and the company taxes—of gas, of coal, of critical minerals—that have allowed this country to be the First World country that we are.

We've continued to hear, about this budget, the sorts of Labor lies, the unravelling of budget commitments that I'm seeing now. People right across the Australian landscape are saying, 'Well, we don't believe this budget; we don't rate it, because you promised us the Rockhampton Ring Road.' The Prime-Minister-to-be put out a media release committing to it—something he's now deleted. They committed to a $275 electricity cost reduction, but now all we're seeing is electricity prices skyrocket. We know it is going to cost Australian households another $2,000 a year by this Christmas. That's the impact of this budget and this government that doesn't know how to manage money, doesn't know how to manage the budget.

This is the biggest spending budget—another $50 billion in receipts because of commodity prices. Yet what have they done with it? They've spent the lot. So, they have cut money from the places that make money and they're pouring it into the re-election campaign of the Premier of Victoria—a circular rail project that is going to assist a couple of people where they need to hold government. But the places that mine the resources, that grow the agricultural products, that secure the nation's future for generations to come—cut; dead; gone. That's what regional Australia means to Labor—absolutely nothing.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regarding the comments from the good senator in relation to our budget last night: the opposition, when they were in government, left Australia with a $1 trillion debt. That's what they did. They had 10 years in office to deliver on energy prices, to actually deliver an energy policy. I think there were 22 different energy policies, but that was when they actually had policies, I might add; now, according to their frontbench, they don't have policies, because they're in opposition.

The budget that was delivered by Dr Chalmers yesterday was a budget that is looking to change the way the federal government operates going forward. That is a government that is run by adults, a government that is going to be open and transparent, a government that will deliver on its election commitments and a government that will govern with integrity. That's the big change.

When I had the good fortune to make all the calls I did this morning to businesses in Tasmania about the investment that we've made through our budget to jobs, to giving opportunities to young Tasmanians, they were so well received. The comment from one of the hydrogen companies was that it's not just a breath of fresh air to have this new government but goes beyond that. It goes to the way that we have operated since we've come into government, the dignity and integrity that our leader, Anthony Albanese, has restored. People see this as a government that is prepared to work with the community, to work with the business community, and to listen to the concerns of everyday Australians. That's the difference.

This opposition wants to come in here and lecture us about election commitments? Come on! It's a joke. It's an absolute joke. Making announcements when you're in government does not equate to delivering on those commitments. You can, as they did, re-announce various projects but never deliver on them at all. Our very own member of the opposition in the seat of Bass, where I live, is already trying to take credit for our budget, trying to take credit for the things that we committed to during the election campaign and are delivering on.

Talking about energy prices, Marinus has just been announced by this government. This government was able to draw together a deal with, yes, the Victorian Labor government. But guess what? The Tasmanian Liberal government also signed up with the federal government because they recognised that there was such a change of attitude by the new government. The Turnbull government couldn't deliver Marinus for Tasmania and for the benefit of the entire country. Neither could Scott Morrison. After the years of his failings, he was unable to deliver that. That's just one example.

In this chamber we all know, because I've spoken about it many times, that the home of renewable energy is, in fact, my home state of Tasmania. We know how important renewable energy is to this country. We know how important it is to our state. But we want to be part of the future to deliver better outcomes when it comes to energy.

We on this side of the chamber have always argued for more money, more resources, and a commitment to climate change and addressing the needs of our country in relation to climate change. But not only have we delivered in terms of cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, more paid parental leave—expanding that opportunity for both mums and dads—and more affordable housing. We're also restoring opportunities for people in regional Australia to go to TAFE. We want all Australians to be able to access affordable housing.

What we have done, and what we will continue to do, is to find the waste and mismanagement under the former Morrison government. What we aren't doing is using colour coding to allocate grants. Grants will be made on a needs basis, on business cases that are put to us that can demonstrate a benefit to that community. That's how a government should act, how we should govern, and that's how the Albanese Labor government will continue to govern this country. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The people of Australia are not all that concerned about the cross-chamber rhetoric that occurs in here. They're actually concerned about outcomes and the things that make a difference to their daily lives. What they're seeing at the moment is headlines in the Adelaide Advertiser saying that power prices will increase by some 35 per cent over next year. In the context of this budget period, estimates are now that power prices will in fact increase by around 50 per cent. For many families in Australia, that is crippling in terms of their ability to pay their power bills as well as the other aspects. So the question for them is: if this is the forecast and if this is what is happening, does the government have a plan to actually address the cost of living? Does the government have a plan that will help families?

The minister, in answering the question that was put to her, talked about two things. One is the Powering Australia plan and the importance of the transition which is occurring. The claim was that the government is all across, and is following, the transition that is occurring overseas. I would just like to point to overseas. Media reports this week in the UK are highlighting that more than half of UK adults are struggling to pay their power bills, and, in Germany, some 4.2 million Germans are seeing electricity bills rise this year by over 63 per cent. A lot of people have said that that's because of the war in Ukraine, but, if you go back through the media from energy organisations in Germany, in fact, in 2021—which was before the war in Ukraine—Germany saw the highest increase in their power costs on record. Germany is often held up as a leader in this so-called transition of power, and, if the Powering Australia plan is following Germany's lead, then it's not a good outlook for Australian people.

South Australia is also sometimes held up as an example in terms of the penetration of variable renewable power, but, when I speak to industry figures in South Australia, they highlight that one of the ways that the market operator manages power supply there is by managing demand, and the impact on industry, in terms of forced shutdowns and lost productivity, is measured in the tens of millions of dollars. So there is a cost to that kind of management when you have a high penetration of variable renewable energy, and that cost to industry also means that there is a risk to jobs and job security, which is another factor that families are concerned about.

The key point that Australians need to understand is that in terms of the science of climate change, the narrative and the rhetoric that has led to the commitment towards net zero and the Powering Australia plan are not actually representing the latest science. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency report that was issued in April this year highlights—and this is on the basis of work they have done with the International Energy Agency and others, with world-leading engineers and economists—that wind and solar will not get us to net zero and will likely send us broke if we try. And, as they work through all the systems costs, they come to the same conclusion that the IPCC and others have come to in all of the various scenarios that they model: if the world wants to get to net zero, then, as you start constraining emissions, you reach an inflection point where the cost of firming starts to go exponential. That's we're seeing in Europe, and that's what we are starting to see in Australia.

The answer that the IPCC, the OECD and the IEA have come to is to point to the fact that, as they look around the IEA member nations, the lowest-cost of power considering not only levelised systems but systems cost is long-run nuclear power. Even for new build nuclear power, when you look at systems costs, it is the cheapest form of power. So there is an answer to getting to net zero while still having affordable, reliable power, but what it requires is for people to say, 'Wind and solar have a place but it is not the answer.' There is a need for firming with a clean, reliable source and the best engineering and economists in the world tell us that the cheapest and most affordable way to achieve that is to remove the prohibition we have on nuclear power and to invest in Australia's future.

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

I am actually pretty pleased with this motion to take note today. It is good to have an opportunity to come in and talk about the budget. I am really proud to talk about our budget and I'm really proud to be part of a government which, after only a few months, is already delivering for Australians. This is a good position to be in. It must really suck to be part of a government that, for a decade, delivered so little for Australians.

Dr Chalmers handed down a budget last night that delivers responsible cost-of-living relief, which is really important, targeted investments to build a stronger and more resilient economy and budget repair which looks to address the waste and rorts of the last decade—sensible, reasonable initiatives to get the budget under control whilst also making sure that we provide support Australians in need.

Let's talk about some of these cost-of-living measures. Let's talk about one of my favourite topics—early learning. In this budget we deliver on our commitment to make early learning more affordable for 1.26 million families.

I will take that interjection gladly, Senator Ciccone: 1.26 million Australian families.

Senator Hughes, it is really significant. The first five years is when 90 per cent of the brain development happens. If you don't form those connections early in early childhood education, children don't have the opportunity for them to form.

Senator Hughes, I think I have the call.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Through me, Senator Smith.

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

Sorry; through you, Deputy President: I think I have the call.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

Early childhood education is incredibly important. With 1.26 million more—

Through you, Deputy President: I think I have the call.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do have the call.

Senator Hughes, order!

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

Do I have the call?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not giving Senator Hughes the call; I am just calling her to order.

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

Shall I continue?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please proceed.

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

This is my opportunity; not Senator Hughes's. I will go back: 1.26 million more families will have access to more affordable early childhood learning. It will make a huge difference to children's lives and a huge difference to parents' lives. Of course, it is not just about those critical brain connections, which will happen because more kids get to go to an early learning setting; it is also about ensuring that more Australian families can get back to work. Particularly for women, who we know shoulder the burden of care far more disproportionately than their partners, it is about getting back to work. It is really significant.

I will turn to health. I know we had some questions on health today. We are slashing the PBS maximum general co-payment to $30 a script. Again, after a decade of failure on health care, of undermining Medicare and of undermining our public healthcare system, Labor is putting money behind our commitment to bring back Medicare to the prominence and the significance it deserves. A fundamental feature of our society is being able to access affordable health care—indeed, free health care—when you need it. It has been undermined by those opposite for a decade. We are making serious investments in our public healthcare system—investments I am deeply proud of.

But there is more: 480,000 fee-free TAFE places; 20,000 university places for disadvantaged Australians; and, yes, our Powering Australia Plan, investing in cheaper, cleaner energy after a decade of no policy from those opposite—oh, sorry, 20 policies. Was it 20? I can't remember how many. There was definitely no strategic policy direction and possibly 20 policies that never managed to see the light of day. So there is serious investment and stability when it comes to climate policy, which we know is what the private sector has been calling out for for a decade to guide investment and to guide those decisions. We are getting on with that job, too. Also, there is more affordable housing, which is very, very important, with our Housing Accord. I haven't got to parental leave yet. We've committed to six months paid parental leave by 2026—another measure which will make a significant difference in terms of continuing that connection between women and the workforce and encouraging both partners to take time in those critical six months to spend time with their children. They are just some of the big announcements when it comes to the cost of living.

In my home state of South Australia, we have made more commitments that we have funded responsibly but for really important things like rebuilding the Yadu health clinic in Ceduna and investing in community batteries—another really significant project.

This budget is taking responsible efforts to combat the cost-of-living crisis before us. I am really proud of it, and really proud to be a part of a government that works, that turns up and that does something.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I go into what I was originally going to speak about, I might point out to Senator Smith that this budget is going to spend $4.5 billion in child care to not create one new spot. That's one new spot of child care not being created under $4.5 billion of spending. I understand Senator Smith's children are very young, so she may not have gone through this process; mine are a bit older. There's nothing for me in the budget, for older children, by the way. It's only good if your kids are really little and you want to send them to child care.

What's going to happen—and I think we're going to see this next year—is that families currently in child care will probably go from three days to four, because most childcare centres have their books closed. So there are no new spots being created, no new centres—nothing. There's $4.5 billion to allow families to go, maybe, from two days to four or three days to four. It'll be really interesting when we have a look at this in the next 12 or so months and see how many new childcare spots are created, because it will be a big, fat zero. There's $4.5 billion for the families already in child care. It's not creating one new spot. There's nothing for the parents and families that want to stay at home with their children. They've added six extra weeks to a Paid Parental Leave scheme—six weeks—but nothing for those parents who want to stay at home with their children for those five years when their brains are so busy developing, as Senator Smith points out. It's only to go into those childcare centres. Perhaps that's where they think the indoctrination can start.

What we saw last night was a budget that offers nothing for families. It offers nothing towards the pressures of living. In fact, it gives each and every family a bill of $2,000 for Christmas. We warned you it wasn't going to be easy under Albanese! We're seeing that every day. Inflation's up at 7.1 per cent now. There's not a lot of wriggle room.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Deputy President—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Senator Hughes, if you're going to say that of the Prime Minister he should be referred to by his correct title. Please refer to the Prime Minister. I was going to remind you at the end of your contribution.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for pointing that out. In fact, maybe you can point out to some of your colleagues that sit in front of you that they should refer to senators on this side of the chamber—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, through me. This is not a debate. Restrain yourselves unless—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be nice to see those standards applied across the board, Senator Ciccone, but I know you are one of the few with integrity that sit on the other side. What we know is that—97 times—we were all promised $275 off our power bill. Those who understand the energy market know that there are more renewables in the market than ever before, but what's happening to power bills? Up they go, up they go and up they go. We're going to see an increase in power bills.

We're probably going to see calls again to not put your dishwasher on after 6 pm. So for all those families who now have the extra six weeks paid parental leave, don't go washing those nappies or bibs after 6 pm—because the power's not on; you can't afford the power. You can't afford the power for all that extra time at home developing those brains. We know that those brains needing to be developed in our young children don't count if they're in the regions. There's been millions of dollars pulled from autism centres in regional Queensland, because families with autism don't count to those opposite. They only like to support the 32 per cent of Australians that actually voted for those opposite—punishing the other 68 per cent of Australians.

When we talk about renewable energy and this cheaper energy that was planned, and how it was all going to come through with an 82 per cent renewable target by 2030, what I thought I'd point out—even for those on my far left because I don't think they understand what the actual requirements of this are—is that 40 seven-megawatt wind turbines will need to be installed every month until 2030. So I'm just wondering—we're nearly at the end of October. Where are the first 40 going, and where are the next 40 going in November and the 40 after that in December? That's 120 needed by the end of the year. I'm sure we'll get an update on where those 120 wind turbines, by the end of the year, are going to be installed to ensure that we can work towards Mr Bowen's target.

On top of that, more than 22,000 500-watt panels need to be installed every day. Where are they going? Over prime agricultural land? Who's going to make them? The Uyghurs in China? We don't seem to have a problem with slave labour when it comes to solar panels. We don't seem to have a problem with the landfill they create once they're finished with. We don't have any problems with that. We need over 60 million solar panels by 2030. For those in the gallery, we need 60 million. Have a look at where they're going to go—on your house, in your backyard, on agricultural land—along with those wind turbines.

Question agreed to.