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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator McGrath today relating to the budget.

I realise that, when those opposite came in from opposition to government, it was a bit like when Cady Heron had to come out of homeschooling and move into a high school environment, to then learn that 'on Wednesdays, we wear pink', but to sit there and say that it was immaterial, was the commentary made by the Reserve Bank, when it comes to interest rate rises—I mean, it's like trying to make 'fetch' happen. What they're actually saying is that you have your foot on the accelerator at the same time as the Reserve Bank is trying to put its foot on the brake. What you are doing with your increased spending is putting increased pressure on the Reserve Bank and its levers when it comes to increasing interest rates, which affect the third of Australian people who are mortgage holders. Not only do those mortgage rates impact our homeowners—middle Australians trying to pay off their homes every day—but they're also putting increased pressures on our renters and on our small businesses, as their interest rates continue to climb.

Those opposite don't seem to understand that everyday Australians, and particularly working Australians, are finding it increasingly difficult every single day to meet the demands of the cost of living, to put food on the table, to pay the rent, to pay the mortgage, to pay the school fees, to put clothes on their kids' backs and to pay for school supplies. All of those things are increasing pressures for families across the country. Those opposite literally seem to be one step off telling Australians that it's better than ever before and that they're actually better off than they were 12 months ago. I asked in this place one week ago: 'Bring me one Australian who is better off today than they were 12 months ago.' My office has been inundated with emails from people saying: 'Absolutely not—I am considerably worse off. My mortgage has doubled. My power bill has doubled. The price of putting petrol in the car has doubled. The grocery bill has continued to climb and climb.'

There is absolutely nothing that those opposite are doing to alleviate any of these pressures. In fact, every single measure that they are taking has increased costs for all Australians and small and medium-sized businesses and is putting pressure on supply chains. We are now in a cycle of increasing inflation, increasing costs and increasing pressure for Australian families.

We learnt today that one of the things that is being spouted by those opposite is the investments they're making in things like the care industry. They're going to boost the wages of nurses—but not aged-care nurses. We've now learnt that over a quarter of those aged-care nurses actually won't be eligible for any increase in their wages. What they're actually not honest about either when they talk about lifting wages is that aged-care services are generally owned by private providers. So the government is saying, 'We're just going to give these private providers a chunk of money, with the expectation that they're going to pass it on to their nurses to provide higher wages.' It is an absolute furphy to say to the Australian people that they are delivering higher wages, because we learnt today that a quarter of nurses are not going to get any pay rise at all.

There is absolutely nothing that this government is doing to make cost-of-living pressures easier, but they are continuing to stick by the line that they are somehow or other contributing to bettering the environment for Australians. But, when it's put to them that it's not better for everyday Australians, they try and claim the Moscow problem: 'It's all in Ukraine. That's why there's a problem.' These are Canberra based problems. The problem is that these guys haven't understood that they have come in from the jungle. They've come in from home school, they're now in high school and they're running the government. They don't get it yet, because they still think that they can stand there after two budgets and over 12 months in government and go, 'But when you were in!'

We were also in during the COVID pandemic and maintained a AAA credit rating and incredibly low unemployment rates and kept workers connected to their workplace. Without any of the shackles of a global pandemic, every single decision that those opposite have made has made a bad situation worse, and they continue to do so day after day. Remember that 97 times we were told $275 was going to come off people's power bills? If you listen today to some of the talkback radio, which I heard this morning, families who put solar panels on their roof are now having their off-peak power increase because coal still generates three-quarters of our electricity, so the off-peak rates have gone up. Their power bills have now gone back to what they were pre the implementation of solar panels. So they've now got the same power bills, but they're also paying for solar panels.

Those opposite are selling the Australian people a lie when they talk about renewable energy being cheap or free—it is neither. It is also neither reliable nor firming for the system. To those opposite: just remember that, when the rolling blackouts start, when you can't turn on the heater, when you can't turn on the air conditioner in summer and you can't afford your power bill.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will also take note of the answers to questions asked by Senator McGrath today, but I do want to note that it's interesting that those opposite haven't chosen to take note of answers to other questions that they asked in this Senate. It's interesting to me; perhaps they had a period of reflection over the weekend about the direction that they need to take in this place and the things that they need to concentrate on—a period of reflection that means that they're not taking note of those questions in relation to the allegations made by Ms Higgins but a period of reflection not long enough to make them cease asking questions that have a chilling effect on women who want to come forward with those types of allegations.

But, with five minutes to go in question time, we did eventually get to the economy, and that was a good thing because it gave the very, very capable Minister for Finance an opportunity to talk about the budget, the economy and the decision by our government to hand down a budget purely focused on putting downward pressure on inflation that started under the previous government. It gave the finance minister an opportunity to talk about the fact that, in the RBA minutes that have been released today, the minutes noted:

… the new policies announced in the Australian Government Budget had not had a material effect on the staff forecasts for economic activity and inflation.

Members of the board observed that it was 'understandable' that the lowest-paid workers would be aided. But there were a whole range of issues that were noted in the statement. This evidence in the minutes today is consistent with evidence given by the RBA governor and the Secretary of the Treasury at estimates that the budget actually took pressure off inflation. That's what the budget was designed to do and that's exactly what this government is focused on doing.

Now, of course, if those opposite really care or want to do something about the rising cost of living and inflation, I have a few ideas for them. I have a few things that they could do if they're very concerned. Instead of coming in here and asking throwaway questions at the end of question time to veil the fact that they're barely interested in the economy—they've got other things on their mind—if they really cared about housing, rents and the cost of living, they could come in here and do some pretty easy things. They could reverse their position on the Housing Australia Future Fund. They could allow this government to do what it said it would do and deliver more affordable and social housing. They could reverse their position on the energy price relief that's delivering valuable relief for millions of Australian families at a time when they need it the most. But those opposite voted against that price relief and against putting more money in the pockets of Australian families.

They could also come in here and end their ideological opposition to renewable energy. I don't think we're going to see that today, but it would be a helpful thing for those opposite to do if they really care about this country moving forward and about the cost of living. We know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power, and, after 10 years in the valley of death under those opposite, this government is finally moving ahead with delivering more renewable energy. We have approved double the number of renewable energy projects in the first year of our government alone. Those opposite could end their ideological opposition to that.

They could come in here and support low-paid workers if they wanted to. They could come in here and say that they support minimum-wage rises, they support aged-care workers getting a pay rise and they support workers who want to bargain fairly with their employers to make sure that they can get good, secure, well-paid jobs. But that's not what they'll do. They talk about industrial warfare and this and that, trying to do anything to prevent working people having the opportunity to sit down and get a fair wage rise in the middle of this inflation.

But I've got very good news for those opposite. On 1 July, in a matter of days, this government is delivering cheaper child care for Australian families. We are focused on delivering these cost benefits to all Australian families. In just over a week, cheaper child care will start. We took it to the last election and now we are delivering it. Cheaper child care, as we know, is good for families, good for women and good for the economy. Those opposite had 10 years to deliver an economic plan to make sure that child care was affordable, and they failed to do so. That's what this government is doing, and, on 1 July, cheaper child care will start.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's interesting to listen to the other side claim that they care about the economy and they care about the workers, because, if they really cared about the workers, they would let them keep their superannuation. At the end of the day, it is wage theft. It is blatantly wage theft. Paul Keating said, in a speech in 2007, that it is wage theft. It is taking money from people, and they were never given a choice. In 1992, had Paul Keating told people that, by 2025, 12 per cent of their income would be taken and given to someone they'd never met—and they may or may not get it back when they're 65—do you think that would have got up in a referendum? Of course not. But did they have a referendum on compulsory superannuation? No, they didn't, because, had they done that, the result would have been the same as what we saw in New Zealand in 1997, when they voted against it, 92 per cent to eight per cent.

Instead of wasting money on the Voice, why don't you have a referendum on superannuation and ask people if they would like to keep their money now? Out in the real world now there are tens of thousands of Australians who are doing it tough and need their money from superannuation. They're sleeping in the back of their car while the fund managers are gouging $30 billion a year from the $3.3 trillion parked away in superannuation. People are shivering in the cold because they don't have access to all of their income. I'll tell you who gets it—the union backed industry funds. They don't give their members a chance to elect the board—they're selected, not elected. That tells you all you need to know about the Labor Party. These guys opposite us in the Labor Party aren't interested in empowering the workers. If they were, they would let the workers keep their money.

What are they doing with the RBA? Who have they appointed to the RBA board? None other than Iain Ross. Iain Ross was an architect of superannuation, along with Bill Kelty and Paul Keating. He mandated—he snuck it in the back door—that they would take two per cent of your income, slowly increase it to three per cent of your income and then take another per cent and then another per cent. It was just like the vaccine mandates. Iain Ross was the Fair Work Commissioner when that came in, and he also supported mandates. Now we have him on the RBA board. The Labor Party appointed their mates, rather than actually sorted out the problem by using other levers apart from just qualitative easing, such as quantitative easing and macro prudential controls.

Let's not forget why we have this massive housing debt and this problem in this country. It's because in 1985 Paul Keating relaxed capital controls on foreign investment. That meant that foreign debt went from $8 billion in 1985 to $800 billion in 2008. What was that $800 billion lent against? Housing. So house prices went up from four to five times earnings to 13 times earnings. Of course, now we have interest rates going up on this massive debt it is killing the worker.

What's Labor's response to all of this? 'Let's go on a little junket and spend tens of millions of dollars holding a referendum on the Voice, which completely ignores the real issue of the cost of living, and then let's import billions of dollars worth of renewables while we leave hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal in the ground.' The Labor Party used to stand up for the coalminers of this country, but not anymore. They would rather serve their global masters and import renewables from other countries that have shocking labour practices in the development and production of these renewables.

Do Labor care about the worker? No, they don't. Do they have any solutions whatsoever for this inflation problem? Absolutely none. What was their response? In the budget they went on a spending spree. They went on a spending spree whilst at the same time not giving an income tax cut to the people who matter the most, the people who get out of bed every day, put their nose to the grindstone and supply the goods and services. When demand is higher than supply it causes inflation, so why don't you increase supply by cutting tax on the people who supply goods and services?

To make matters worse they've now got a high immigration rate of 400,000 people. I think the total population growth was just shy of half a million people last year. They talk about their housing fund. That's going to build 2,000 or 3,000 houses. That is a long way short of providing houses for the new 400,000 immigrants. Are the immigrants building houses? Of course not. They're going to university, not building houses.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's always interesting to follow Senator Rennick. It takes me a while to try to understand what he was really saying. He jumped around a bit there. If those opposite were really interested in the economy of this country, they would not have spent the last week and a half coming in here thinking somehow that they were going to gain a scalp, that they were going to get some benefit by continually asking questions of Senator Gallagher about—

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She misled the chamber.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon?

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

Senator Rennick, just—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That needs to be withdrawn, I think, Deputy President. It's not true.

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

I'm advised it was an interjection that wasn't a statement to the House. Carry on, Senator Bilyk.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, sometimes you just make me wonder, you really do. You need good luck on the weekend, I understand. Good luck there.

What did we have? We had a question from Senator McGrath. It was a bit of an own goal, really, wasn't it? It was a bit of an own goal because, as we know, the budget actually took pressure off inflation and it did so through the Energy Price Relief Plan, which those opposite opposed. We had a very carefully calibrated budget and we had to do a number of things with regard to it to make sure that funding wasn't going to be provided where it wasn't needed any longer, that we weren't supporting the rorts from the previous government and that we were cleaning up. They had to have the former prime minister take over the economic portfolio, as well as everything else, so we had to make sure we knew where everything was and what was going on.

We on this side do understand the impact that interest rates have on households, but the centrepiece of our budget was a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package. It was over four years and it would ease pressure on Australians while putting downward pressure on inflation. If those opposite really cared about how people are going—Senator Rennick said, 'People are sleeping rough in their cars,'—let me ask you: why did you come in here and not support our Housing Australia Future Fund? Why did you come in here and not support it? You and the Greens cuddled up. It's a new coalition and it's an interesting coalition. I've got to say, it'll be great to see how it pans out over time, because eventually the opposition will realise that they can't meet the moral high ground of the Greens and they'll have a little tiff and we'll all go back to where we were before.

I really think that if those opposite really cared they would ask more than one or two questions in a week and a half about the economy. As I've said, they came in here and they've hit an all-time low, as far as I'm concerned. This is my 15th year in this place, and I've got to say that I've seen some pretty disgusting acts by some people in this place, but an all-time low is thinking he's somehow going to get the scalp of Senator Gallagher.

What you need to remember is that for two years people on your side knew what was going on with regard to that alleged issue, and you did nothing. It happened to a Liberal staffer in a Liberal minister's office under a Liberal government, and you guys did nothing. You didn't support her and you didn't back her. You set a precedent that is going to take years to repair, where people can no longer feel safe in coming forward. I've had people contact my office saying that although they've been Liberal voters most of their life, it is an issue that you keep coming in here trying somehow to get a scalp from us when it all happened on your watch, in one of your Liberal minister's offices, with your staff. Yet you come in here and try and somehow blame us. That's atrocious. If people can't keep a confidence in this job, there is a problem.

On Insiders it came out that a couple of your people have kept a confidence, too. I think the moral standard on that side has gone below the gutter. If I could think of a word that meant below the gutter, I would use it, but I can't. (Time expired)

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps 'subterranean' might work. I want to go to the matter of cost of living. To those at home and in the gallery, listening to the other side, you'd be thinking how good you've got it. It's an own goal to ask questions about the cost of living, because it is so good right now. It's so wonderful that $14.6 billion would solve all the problems. If only that was the case. There was a mention there about how the Greens and the coalition have teamed up here and stopped this bill that would fix everything. No, the problem is that this bill won't fix anything. That's why they've stood in and done this.

It's because people are waking up to what's going on. They're waking up to a government focused on talking points and not the basis points that raise their interest rates. We're talking about a government that got in and had a honeymoon because the Australian people are naturally optimistic, and had hope. So many things were promised and so few things are being delivered. When you're sitting here, or at home, looking at your gas bill—I must admit that I went a little off-focus in question time and I ordered my new gas bottle from Supagas, the one I was paying $68 for about two years ago and which is now $163. That's for my 45-kilogram gas bottle. If we talk about prices from March last year to March this year, milk is 16.1 per cent higher. If we talk about fruit, it's more than 10 per cent higher. But, 'Oh, how good you have it,' according to this government.

People had this hope and wanted a better thing—this thing, this policy, that allegedly we voted against on gas pricing. It wasn't a policy that worked, it was a short-term sugar hit. If we look at the world's gas prices, they're falling across the world. That was not done because this chamber and the other chamber voted on this. These people need our help and they are there. If they get someone into their house to help with a job and it takes more than 12 months—and we've had more than 12 months of this government—they start to ask questions. Can they trust this government to live up to what it said it would do to make their lives easier? Can they trust this government to look after the future? Are they confident that this government will make their lives easier? The answers are starting to be no.

We can be lambasted about what we didn't vote for, but it's what this government hasn't delivered. We can be told what we could do to make the cost of living easier, but, what's the government doing? In a year, 18 months or two years, the people of Australia will have their say again. Will it be that their lives have been made easier? Will it be that their lives have been made more affordable? Will it be that their children have the same or better options than when the government was elected? That's the question and that's what all of us in this chamber want. I'll be talking tomorrow about this in senators' statements, but I feel that our method of government, here for three years, is about the sugar hits. It's those sugar hits, where we look at the polling numbers as to whether we're doing well and not at the people of Australia as to whether we're doing well. Is Australia more equitable? Is it happier? Is it better? Those questions come second to popularity and voting intention—to all of those things.

There are many, many good people in this chamber who I like. There may be a couple who we think might be a little bit ratbaggy, but, as a whole, this is a good place. If we were in a football team and had these people on the field, and we were failing to deliver, we'd start to question the game and we'd start to question the coach. Let's not come in here and say it's because of how we voted on a bill or because we were in government then; let's look at the things that really matter. Let's get this country going better. Let's not pretend that Australians are having a great time out there and that everything has been solved by $14.6 million in the budget, or that it could be better if we voted on the housing bill or that it would be better if we gave $2 billion, $5 billion or $10 billion to homeless people. There are many, many problems out there which I personally feel that we need to address. We need to be more serious about them; we need to look at them and to stop pretending they aren't there.

When we go forward, we look at the cost of living—and times are tough. We get it, we hear it and we understand it. We've got to stop pretending it's anything else and we've got to stop pretending we can fix it overnight too. It will take time, but it will take more policy on this point and not just a couple of things that look good but don't do good.

Question agreed to.