Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) 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 today by coalition senators.

Today, once again, we heard the government's lack of focus and lack of answers on the cost-of-living crisis that is facing so many Australian families at the moment. Since this government took office, there have been 11 increases in interest rates, and obviously the Reserve Bank has had to act, given inflationary pressures here—and there have been inflationary pressures all around the world. The issue is the RBA has been left to do all the heavy lifting on its own. There has been no contribution from this government to help bring inflationary pressures down. Their budget was a massive spendathon which just fuelled inflationary fires, and now we are seeing the consequences of that, as Australians, with inflation rates here, in this country, being much, much higher than those of our peers around the world. Let's be very clear, in particular, about this government's budget strategies and settings: they are not helping with the fight on inflation.

The government released a budget in May this year, its first full budget since coming to power, and it had a massive $20 billion extra in net spending. It added $20 billion of extra fuel to the Australian economy at a time when inflation was already out of control. To put that figure in context: that was the biggest degree of net spending in any budget going back to Kevin Rudd's time, except for the COVID years—we've got to pull out those COVID years where in one budget I think we spent more than $200 billion in relief for businesses and for people who had been put out of their jobs; they were special times. In normal, non-pandemic times, through all the 2010s and even before Rudd—I'll get to Rudd—there was nothing like $20 billion of extra spending; that just wasn't a thing. There might have been $10 billion or $8 billion or $7 billion of net spending. Sometimes there was a net decrease—the Coalition tried to reduce and rein in spending, especially in the early years of the Abbott government—but never was there an increase of this amount. That was the government's contribution. That's in raw quantitative figures. Whatever their rhetoric, that's what they did: they added $20 billion of extra spending, which was the biggest amount since Kevin Rudd's GFC budget.

In response to the global financial crisis, which most of us would remember, Kevin Rudd did spend more than $20 billion, and there was some rationale for that. We won't rake over the coals of the criticisms or the details, but at least there was some rationale for that because the world was facing a massive recession. We were all facing the risk of huge recessions, so there was a rationale for the government to help and spend some money to try to avoid the worst outcomes here. That's not what we are facing now. We are not facing a massive global recession. We're not facing a global financial crisis. We are facing a global inflation fire bomb, and, in response to that, this government is just adding on more spending to the economy. And that is only making things worse and making the Reserve Bank's job harder; they've got to lift interest rates even further than they have to be because of this government's fiscal policy settings. As I said, this has played out in the real data. This is not rhetoric, the spending of the government. It's up to the government to justify: why are you spending so much money? Why? That's the real data in their own budget; it's not my figure.

Australia has inflation sitting at six per cent. I often hear the Treasurer saying that this is a great thing; he has fixed it. Inflation has peaked. It's at six per cent a year! That's still over double what the target range for inflation is. In the United States, inflation has now dropped to three per cent. In Canada it's dropped below three per cent to 2.8 per cent. So why have other governments around the world been able to bring in and rein in inflation much quicker than this one? All the while, they are spruiking like it's mission accomplished, like they don't have to do any more and they don't have to make any tough decisions.

The reality is: to get control of something like inflation, to help Australian households, takes tough decisions. There is no easy way out of this crisis, but this government has avoided every tough decision it's been confronted with since coming to government. It is spending all of the money it's getting from the mining boom. We might hear them saying they've got record surpluses; that's not the issue. They're only getting the record surpluses because there are massive amounts of economic activity and wealth coming through our mining sector because of the commodity price boom. They're taking it. They're spending, in net terms, more than $20 billion. That is the greatest degree of spending outside the pandemic since Kevin Rudd, and it's probably going to end in tears just like his spendathon did.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers to questions raised by the opposition. I might start with the question about makarrata. I will reply with a very simple but very straightforward and heartfelt response from Chris Kenny, talking about how it's being approached by those in the Liberal and National parties. Chris Kenny, when talking about the Uluru Statement from the Heart, said:

… Yet now the Coalition scare campaign seeks to decry this as a secretive plot to rend asunder the nation.

It is not a plausible critique and it should not be taken seriously by media or political commentators. It insults the public.

He went on to say:

The people running these scares know full well they are talking about nothing more than an advisory body.

…   …   …

This truly is an attempt to turn Australians against each other.

That was Chris Kenny over the weekend, and we're seeing that again and again today.

To hear about the support and the real outcomes that, of course, the Voice will give, we have to look at the questions raised about housing. A fair proportion of the $10 billion for the HAFF scheme—many tens of millions of dollars—would go to support those most socially disadvantaged, for affordable housing. That includes our First Nations people. If they're really serious about doing something—Chris Kenny's got it right—rather than running a scare campaign, they should get behind the Voice, get behind making sure that we can start getting things right, because both sides of the political fence have not got it right. We can't just keep doing the same. If you're really serious about making sure there is practical change—too many of those on the opposite side aren't about serious practical change—then support the housing proposed with the $10 billion. What we've been doing about dealing with the pressures of cost of living across the community is looking at the very fundamentals of making sure we give assistance—rent assistance increased by $2.7 billion, a 15 per cent increase to almost 1.1 million people. The Housing Future Fund, as I've said, would have $10 billion.

Let's start checking again what makes those opposite tick. One of the biggest branches, the New South Wales branch—and what was one of the biggest state governments, the previous New South Wales government, now thankfully ousted—don't care about social housing there either. It's in their DNA. We only need to look at the track record in New South Wales, where the Liberals and Nationals sold off more than 4,200 social homes over their term in office. That's $3.5 billion worth sold off forever. At the same time, the social housing waitlist kept growing, and now it sits at more than 50,000 people. If they were really serious about making a difference on these fronts, then they'd start supporting the initiatives that Labor has been putting forward.

We've seen it with taking on the challenge of increased energy prices—$3 billion of relief announced for individuals and small business. Those opposite say they're the small-business party, but they opposed small business having energy price support. They opposed tens of thousands of Australians receiving support with their energy bills. Then we go to Medicare. We've put $1.6 billion over four years into making sure we have cheaper medicine. Again, they've opposed it. Time and time again, they oppose the most disadvantaged, for political opportunism in the worst sense. These people are always opposed to doing reforms that make a difference. They've not only vacated the field but they have a scorched earth policy on affordable housing and on meeting the challenges of cost of living. Every time there's an opportunity to make a difference for Australians, whether it be small business, the community, wages or housing, they vote no—a scorched earth policy when it comes to help and support for those most struggling in Australia at the moment with cost-of-living pressures. They need to get off their backsides, put their hands up, get on the right side of the vote and start backing Australians.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the question that I asked today on the disastrous WA cultural heritage laws. No matter what Senator Wong said—as I said, I'm sure we all appreciated the lesson on the Australian Constitution rather than an answer to our question!—this is a humiliating backdown for the Labor Party. In Western Australia, it took just a month for them to realise that these laws were completely unworkable, disastrous and should never, ever have seen the light of day. Premier Cook should have listened much earlier and saved thousands of Western Australians, particularly our farmers, the anguish and the worry of the last few months.

But there is still a significant risk for farmers and local communities, with the Albanese Labor government proposing their own changes to cultural heritage laws at a federal level. Despite me asking the direct question, we didn't get a straight answer from Senator Wong. While she did say that there would be no Commonwealth overtaking of state and territory laws, she was not clear at all about what would actually be in the Labor cultural reform legislation. The federal Labor government has released an options paper for a national model but has been unable to give Australian farmers and private property owners more certainty about future reforms. Federal Labor should look very carefully at the chaos that state Labor caused not only our farmers but anyone who owned a piece of land over 1,000 square metres, over a hectare. It was completely disastrous.

The chaos that was caused in Western Australia is an absolute indication of what could happen if a Voice to Parliament is enshrined in our constitution. You can scrap a bad law, but you cannot change the Constitution once you have altered it. Let's remember exactly what the state government rammed through the parliament with pretty much no consultation. It was so bad. I'm very proud of my Liberal state and federal colleagues who fought so hard to bring to the public's attention both here in Canberra and in Western Australia the impacts of this legislation and the concerns of tens of thousands of Western Australians. In fact, a petition was launched by my state colleague the Hon. Neil Thomson MLC calling on the state government to halt and delay the act's implementation. He gained over 30,000 signatures. I believe that that is the most signatures obtained for any similar petition in Western Australia's history. With 30,000 signatures, not even the state Labor government, who are so full of hubris and do not like to consult not only with the parliament but also with Western Australians, could ignore this voice.

First of all, they were going to delay compliance penalties for a year in favour of an education-first policy approach. This so-called light touch did little to comfort the thousands of Western Australians that faced penalties of up to $1 million if they got it wrong. That includes putting a pool in their backyard or digging a large hole in the ground for a new tree. This is not just scaremongering; it was actually happening. Local councils in Western Australia were prevented from doing tree plantings and were seeking tens of thousands of dollars in compensation. Even the respected native title solicitor Greg McIntyre has said these laws are unworkable.

But I have absolutely no faith and no confidence, which is a feeling shared by everybody on this side of the chamber, that federally Labor will not seek to do exact exactly the same thing. Whilst Senator Wong did not answer my question directly about any contact the Prime Minister or possibly Minister Plibersek or their staff had with the WA Labor state government, the feeling in Western Australia is certainly that pressure was put on them so people don't get some idea of what will happen in a constitutionally enshrined Voice.

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

It was interesting to watch, from the government benches, the opposition trying to ask questions earlier today about the pressures on Australians who aspire to own their own homes. They were trying to prevent Minister Gallagher, the finance minister, from answering the very questions that they put to her. That's very true, Senator Duniam, because of course while the Liberals and Nationals continue to use stories from Sky News and other media outlets for their own political gain, when it comes to supporting Australians—and this is what this government is about, getting actual outcomes for Australians and tackling the housing affordability crisis that's currently before the government and this parliament—their record says another thing.

This government has tried on numerous occasions to pass a piece of legislation that would go some way to addressing housing affordability not just in this place but also in the House of Representatives. But guess what? Those opposite have voted time and again against our piece of legislation, our bill, as have those members on the crossbench, particularly the Australian Greens. It's the hypocrisy from those opposition that I do want to draw attention to because they keep coming in here and trying to make the point that this government somehow is not taking the issue seriously enough. We are, and I implore you and your colleagues to get behind our bill, a piece of legislation that we took to the last election. We have a clear mandate for addressing housing affordability in this country, and those opposite could help improve the housing affordability bill and ease the pressure on many Australians, many families, by supporting our reform for the Australian Housing Future Fund.

The fund, for the benefit of those in the gallery and also for those who might need to recollect what it is, is a $10 billion fund for investment in long-term social and affordable homes. It's a fund that will continue to invest any gains earned and a perpetual fund that will keep reinvesting to make sure that the planned 30,000 homes turn into 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 homes and more in the future. Why is it that those opposite keep pressing the no button? When will they eventually concede that, apart from the government having a mandate for this piece of legislation, it's something the Australian people want and deserve?

The fund will support the construction, as I said, of 30,000 new social and affordable homes in the first five years, and it will be the single biggest investment from any federal government in this space for more than a decade. The government plans to increase the supply of housing and also to increase its support of the housing sector, as many policy experts in this field have pressed and argued for, for many, many years. Housing ministers across the country have met about this issue. State governments, territory governments and the Commonwealth government have all come together arguing we need to do more. In the interim they had no other option but to announce an extra $2 billion for the states and territories as a short-term measure to address the housing crisis. But we want a long-term fix. This government is all about delivering for the long term. Despite all the support from the experts and those in the sector, the urgent call for this long-term investment is still desperate. But why is it that the coalition with the Greens keep blocking this legislation? They're teeming up to defeat this legislation, and now the government has no other choice but to reintroduce this piece of legislation in the House of Representatives.

It's also important to note that, while the government continues to pursue the passage of the housing fund through the parliament, we're also pursuing a range of other policies to improve housing affordability and ease the pressure on households. I want to go through some of them in the 40 seconds I have left. There's the new $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new homes across Australia. There's the National Housing Accord, which includes federal funding to deliver an extra 10,000 affordable homes over five years. There's up to $575 million in funding to unlock the National Housing Infrastructure Facility with homes already underway. There's the increase in the maximum rate of the Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. There are also an additional $2 billion in financing for community housing, new incentives to boost supply of rentals and a $1.7 billion one-year extension on the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. I call the Liberals to get behind our reforms.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mortgages have not gone down under this government, and that was a poor promise to have made and one that I don't think will be kept for as long as this government holds office. The fundamental problems with this government are well known. It is a government for vested interests only, not a government for the Australian people. It is a government for vested interests which cannot say no to its fellow travellers at the unions and the super funds on policy, but it also can't say no on spending. We've seen in this recent budget a significant uplift in discretionary spending taken for 2023-24 and $42 billion in decisions taken in the last budget over the forward estimates.

The budget is not disinflationary. When you peel back the comments that were made by the Treasury secretary and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, whom the government has decided not to maintain in that position, they are saying something quite complicated. The overall picture is that the budget is neutral, but the only reason they're saying it's neutral is because the government have legislated energy price caps. The natural consequence of that is we could just pass a bill through this parliament, and that would be the end of inflation. I mean, how ridiculous! The idea that the only reason that the budget is not inflationary is the energy price cap bill is just a joke.

The overall position, the true position, is that the $42 billion in new spending just in this last budget taken in the forward estimates is putting pressure on inflation, and that is putting pressure on interest rates. That's why we've seen 11 interest rate rises under this government, which is in turn causing mortgages to cost more, not less. Until such time as the government is prepared to make judgements in the national interest, not in the interests of the unions and the super funds, we will have high inflation, because the government is not capable of saying no on policy; patent bargaining; same job, same pay; or sealing transparency off from the Australian workers when it comes to their super. Ultimately, they won't be able to stop inflation until they say no to their best friends at the unions.

Question agreed to.