Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

In particular, I wish to focus on the answer to the question that I asked of Senator Farrell, representing the Minister for Resources, relating to a national radioactive waste management facility in which Senator Farrell very much highlighted the problems in relation to radioactive waste storage in Australia. He highlighted the problems that don't just go back months or years but decades. He gave absolutely no confidence that this Labor government would contribute at all to the solutions to this decades-long problem that has blighted Australia.

Since the Federal Court intervened in this matter on 18 July, there's been a largely silent and—as we saw today—weak response from the government to that decision. The Albanese government has given no indication that it appreciates the increasing urgency for building this facility. We are seeing a situation where current storage facilities are filling up. There is pressure upon them. There is increasing suggestion that future licences and future operations in relation to nuclear medicine are potentially in doubt without a permanent facility being established. So, although it may have taken decades to get this point, it is now at a stage where it is crucial and increasingly urgent that this matter be addressed by the government of the day.

Not only are those pressures building but Australia's reputation and standing is now subject to far higher scrutiny when it comes to our nuclear stewardship given the commitments we have made as a result of our AUKUS partnership and our commitment to build nuclear-powered submarines. That means it's even more important to demonstrate within that stewardship our ability to manage the low- and medium-level waste that we as a nation have already accumulated, particularly as a result of the crucial nuclear medicines that provide so much support to so many Australians.

Senator Farrell's party has been one of the biggest impediments to resolving this decades-long imbroglio. The Labor Party has been one of the biggest impediments time and time again. I can remember when the Howard government had a proposal for resolving the issue of a low- and medium-level storage facility. At that stage it was the South Australian Labor government, under Mike Rann, that exploited that proposal for base political purposes. They did so despite the same Labor government, just a few years later, having the gall to pursue and propose the expansion of South Australia's role in the nuclear industry.

Now we see both the Albanese government and the Malinauskas government, despite pretending to be the architects of the AUKUS agreement, all but promoting the legal challenge to the Napandee site and certainly failing to give any certainty that that facility will go ahead. It is time for the hypocrisy to end and the national interest to be put first. It is time for the Albanese government to commit to delivering this facility, as planned, in a region and a community that has supported this proposal, on private freehold land that has been voluntarily offered up for this proposed facility. All of the boxes have been ticked in terms of getting this done. At a bare minimum, the Albanese Labor government should be making crystal clear that they will appeal this decision, that they will stand by the original decision made, that they will seek to pursue the construction of this facility in the national interest and that they will pursue all legal avenues to do so.

But, indeed, they could go further, and they should consider going further, to consider legislating a remedy to this court decision. We saw this government only a couple of months ago do just that when it lost a legal case in relation to the Russian Federation's access to land in Canberra for its future embassy site. In losing that legal position, the government acted to legislate a remedy for it, and they enjoyed the support of the coalition, and the issue was resolved through this parliament in the space of a day. They could and should at least consider and assess perusing a similar type of pathway to bring the decade-long saga to an end, to give certainty to nuclear medicine and science in Australia, to give certainty to the Kimba community and to ensure that we have the type of facility built that Australia needs.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government understands that the rise in the cost of living is hitting a lot of Australians pretty hard. That's why our economic plan is carefully calibrated to take pressure off the cost of living rather than adding to it. The government's cost-of-living package provides assistance with rent, energy bills, and cheaper childcare and medicines. Much of the assistance is being rolled out right now, and the benefits will continue to flow over the coming weeks and months. Our policies to ease cost-of-living pressures are expected to directly reduce inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point in 2023-24. Inflation will still be higher than we'd like and more persistent than ideal but down from where it would have been. We are making a meaningful difference to families around the country, and we will continue to do so.

We can contrast this to the coalition who oversaw a decade of wasted opportunities and warped priorities and who left Australia with falling real wages, cost-of living pressures and $1 trillion of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. What we did have to show for it, however, were those fantastic 'Back in black' mugs, which was just a slogan, not ever a reality. What we've seen from the coalition opposite is that they voted for higher energy bills for millions of households and small businesses. They wanted more expensive medicines, and they won't support more affordable housing.

It really pays to look at the cost-of-living measures in the 2023-24 budget, because this is a significant package of cost-of-living benefits for Australians. For one, we're investing $3.5 billion to triple the bulk-billing incentive for the most common GP consultations for children under 16 and Commonwealth concession cardholders as part of the government's $5.7 billion investment in Medicare. This will support 11.6 million eligible Australians to access a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. This is one of the largest investments in bulk-billing incentives ever, making it easier and cheaper for Australians to see their doctor, something the coalition would never have done. In fact, they have been undermining Medicare for many, many years.

We've also seen changes to the pharmacy maximum dispensing quantities. We're reducing the cost of medicines by up to half for at least six million Australians. Some patients will be able to receive two months worth of their medicine per visit to their pharmacy, saving $1.6 billion in out-of-pocket costs over four years. There's the energy price relief plan where we will see up to $3 billion of electricity bill relief through the Energy Bill Relief Fund to take pressure off households and small businesses, in partnership with state and territory governments. This will benefit more than five million eligible houses and one million eligible small businesses. The retail electricity price increases in 2023 are now expected to be around 25 percentage points lower, and retail gas price increases are around 16 percentage points smaller than expected prior to the government's energy initiatives.

These are real benefits that are attacking the cost-of-living crisis that we are seeing. The government is also making it easier for households and small businesses to access energy savings and upgrades through financing options for households and a new tax break for small- and medium-sized businesses. We've also seen $4.9 billion increase to the base rate of several working-age and student income support payments, like the JobSeeker payment, Austudy and youth allowance by $40 a fortnight for eligible recipients. This includes extending eligibility for the existing higher rate of JobSeeker payments to single Australians aged 55 to 59. We've got the $2.7 billion increase to the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance, and it goes on and on. We have successfully advocated for wage increases for minimum award workers and are funding pay rises for aged-care workers. We are doing a significant amount of work to ease the cost of living for Australians. They know it. Unfortunately, the coalition are ignoring what is happening just for political reasons.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I may, before I get into the meat and potatoes, I would like to thank all of the attendees at the bush councils conference held in Goondiwindi last week, who travelled from all around Queensland to a very worthy conference that was hosted by Lawrence Springborg in the Goondiwindi Regional Council. Thank you to everyone who attended.

Rising to speak today, what I realise in this place what is most important isn't what is said in this place; it is what is not said. It is quite interesting. For months we have prosecuted the case about the cost-of-living crisis that is impacting Queenslanders and Australians. We have asked Labor minister after Labor minister to respond to questions concerning Prime Minister Albanese's promise before the last election that he would cut power bills by $275. This was a promise that he made 97 times. But I challenge anyone—and I will put a packet of Tim Tams on the table to add to the challenge—to find a Labor minister who has uttered the words or the figures '$275' or '97'. I challenge you to go through Hansardquestion time—and find an answer from a Labor minister where they have said the number '97' or the number '275'. They haven't.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you checked?

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I haven't checked, so there is a packet of Tim Tams on the table for those who are better at using search engines than I am. When Labor talk about transparency they are actually not that good at delivering on transparency.

The other thing I noticed about question time today and yesterday was that questions were put to Labor ministers about a treaty. These were in context of questions concerning the Voice, the referendum that Labor are going to bring forward at some point this year. What is interesting is that, for Labor politicians—Senator Wong may correct me if I'm wrong—it is part of the Labor Party manifesto to adopt and implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full. My understanding is that is about Voice and about truth and about treaty. But I challenge anyone—and there will be a crate of Tim Tams on the table here—to find a Labor minister who at the moment is prepared to say the word 'treaty' in question time. I will double the bet to find a Labor minister who will say that they are going to implement a treaty.

My view is if you believe in something you should be proud of it and you should stand up for it. It is clear that the Labor Party are proud of what they intend to do to Australia. I think what they intend to do to Australia is terrible and that we will go to hell in a handcart, but the Labor politicians should stand up for their beliefs. But, instead, what they're doing is hiding behind language that is tricky. They're using political speak. They are using all sorts of words to not answer questions. The questions from the coalition senators today were very good questions, but what characterised the answers from the Labor ministers was that there weren't any answers. We didn't get substantive answers in relation to the cost-of-living crisis, which is impacting Queenslanders and Australians. It is the No. 1 issue impacting Australia at the moment. Mortgages are going up. Rents are going up. Power bills are going up. Insurance bills are going up. But, instead, Labor want to talk about the Voice. But even then, they won't tell you what the Voice is about. They won't tell you that the Voice actually is automatically going to lead to a treaty and that is dangerous for Australia. The Labor Party wish to bring forward a voice that is risky, that is divisive, that will be permanent. What is of concern is: why doesn't the Labor Party have ears? Canberra needs more ears. Why doesn't the Labor Party listen to the voices already out there at the moment? They won't because they're in an echo chamber of their own thoughts.

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

I'm very pleased to take note of answers to questions today—particularly questions about the cost of living, which we know is of crucial importance to all Australians and particularly to people in my home state of Queensland. Our government is aware of how difficult it is for families at the moment. That is why we made sure our budget delivered targeted relief for families and for working people so that we can manage this cost-of-living crisis.

The opposition asked questions about real wages, which is pretty laughable considering that for 10 years they had an economic policy designed to drive wages down and they have tried to prevent any method of this government's in increasing real wages. It's interesting to see that they left a few things out from their questions. They certainly don't seem to want to talk about energy, electricity and the rebates that Queenslanders are receiving right now in Queensland because of our government's intervention and our government's policy to provide energy relief. The reason those opposite don't want to talk about that is they voted against it. They voted for higher power bills. They voted against energy rebates. And they voted against giving people relief when they needed it the most.

They've also opposed a really important mechanism that our government is seeking to implement in driving down the cost of housing and making sure that we have more social and affordable housing for those people doing it tough. The Housing Australia Future Fund that this Senate continues to block is an important piece of legislation, and key housing and homelessness groups have called for it to be passed as soon as possible. It is incredulous of those opposite to ask questions about interest rates, the cost of living and how tough people are doing it and also stand there and vote against the Housing Australia Future Fund.

We know this fund will make a difference. That is why community groups and community housing organisations are calling on this Senate to vote for this legislation. It's a fund that will build more Indigenous housing in remote areas; that's what they're voting against. It's a fund that will build more crisis accommodation for women and children fleeing family and domestic violence, yet senators from the Liberal-National coalition are opposed to that. It is also a fund that will build housing for veterans; that's what those opposite are opposing. The Housing Australia Future Fund is something that we took to the election. It was voted for by the Australian public. We want to see the Senate—

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

Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. I note this section is taking note of the coalition's questions to the government. None of the questions referred to the Housing Australia Future Fund, which Senator Green has spent most of her presentation on. She did start on the cost of living. Could she be respectfully requested to return to the subject, perhaps?

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

Well, housing is a cost-of-living issue, and the relevant minister was very general in her responses across the economy. I'm going to allow the member to continue.

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

I would be embarrassed, too, if I was voting against the Housing Australia Future Fund—

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

Don't add salt to the injury, Senator Green.

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

and sought to stop me speaking about it.

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

You were making a good point. Just go on with the good point.

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

It is within your remit, if you want to stop me from speaking about it. You are opposing affordable housing when people are doing it tough. I know that our government is delivering on cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and making sure that aged-care workers have a pay rise. This is all the work that we are doing, but those opposite oppose things like energy rebates and housing for people who are doing it tough—well, it is laughable for them to come in here and pretend that they care about the cost of living. And it makes sense that they would want to interrupt me making my speech, and it makes sense that they would want to talk about anything other than the way our government is delivering cost-of-living relief.

But, finally, can I say we are certainly focused on delivering for the Australian people. That includes delivering the Voice to Parliament. I note the final question today from the opposition, and I want to remind those opposite that we are talking about communities that are doing it tough and have been doing it tough for a really long time. The Voice to Parliament is a simple idea that seeks to listen to the people who need to be heard so that we can close the gap. I would have thought, as the Minister for Finance mentioned, that that was a simple idea that we could all agree on and that closing the gap and listening to people about the things that matter could be supported by those opposite. We won't be lectured by the party of robodebt about standing up for people.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note in particular of the question asked by my friend and colleague Senator Nampijinpa Price in relation to the government's position with respect to a treaty. I should note in this regard, as I start my comments, that I was greatly honoured to serve as deputy chair of the parliamentary group that drafted the 'no' case for the referendum pamphlet under the chairing of Senator Nampijinpa Price, who is a colleague and a friend and has my utmost respect. I thank all colleagues who participated in that process and everyone who supported them through that process. It is greatly appreciated.

There are two guiding principles I have sought to adopt during this debate on the referendum. The first is to be civil in all discourse in relation to it, so not to make or engage in any personal attacks whatsoever. The second has been to do my best to ensure that Australians have the benefit of all the arguments that they are entitled to have as they come to a decision with respect to this important referendum. As has been said by people across this chamber, this referendum is not about the politicians; it is about the Australian Constitution, and it is so important that in the course of the civil discourse in relation to this referendum all Australians have the benefit of understanding all the implications of what flows in the event that this constitutional referendum is successful.

As my friend Senator McGrath said, there is one word which those on the government benches refuse to say, and that word is 'treaty. Notwithstanding being asked a direct question by Senator Nampijinpa Price with respect to what the Albanese government's position is with respect to the establishment of a treaty between the Australian government and Indigenous Australians, the government refused to answer. They refused to answer, just as the Prime Minister, on seven occasions, refused to answer on Radio National Breakfast with Patricia Karvelas. The Prime Minister was asked the question seven times—seven times. He was not asked by a member of the opposition in this place but by Patricia Karvelas, one of the nation's leading political journalists. The Prime Minister was asked seven times as to whether or not he supported the federal government entering into a treaty. On seven occasions he refused to answer, just as Senator Gallagher refused to answer today and just as Senator Green, in her contribution to the debate, refused to answer. Those in the gallery were here and listened to Senator Green's contribution to the debate. It was articulate and it was considered, but it didn't mention treaty. There was no mention of treaty, and this is what we're seeing in the course of this debate. The government refuses to use the word 'treaty'.

The transcript of this Radio National Breakfast interview is startling. On seven occasions the Prime Minister was asked what his position was. On seven occasions he refused to give it. In fact, at one stage, he accused Patricia Karvelas of getting sucked into the narratives of the 'no' case. Patricia Karvelas being sucked in to the narratives of the 'no' case? You have to be kidding me! I was interviewed by Patricia Karvelas in relation to the 'no' case in the referendum pamphlet. Far from being sucked in, she asked relevant, strong, objective questions, which I answered simply and directly, and that's the way in which the process should work so Australian citizens have the benefit of all the information before they make up their own minds as to how they are going to vote.

Why isn't treaty relevant to these discussions? The Uluru Statement from the Heart document, which was released in total by the National Indigenous Australians Agency back in March this year, actually refers to treaty. It refers to treaty in the context of the Voice. This is what it says; it's from the document itself, on page 17:

Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process.

Voice, treaty, truth—they are all part of the same package. It also says this on page 19, and you can find this document on the NIAA website:

In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP) …

The Australian people have a right to this information before the referendum.

Question agreed to.