Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to all questions asked by coalition senators this afternoon.

Australians are getting increasingly cranky. They're getting cranky with the Labor government, getting cranky with Prime Minister Albanese and getting cranky with the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. Australian families are about to reel under the pressure—the cumulative pressure—of 11 interest rate rises. Often, we think about an interest rate rise in isolation, but increasingly households around the country are having to think about interest rate rise, on interest rate rise, on interest rate rise, on interest rate rise—the cumulative effect of 11 interest rate rises. Over the last few months many of our papers have been filled with news about the mortgage cliff. It is my unfortunate duty to say to Australian families, if they have not realised it already, and certainly to the government, who by their very own actions and statements clearly have not recognised it, that the mortgage cliff is upon us now.

Many of us might have read just recently in papers that 150,000 households on cheaper fixed rates will move to variable rates in September alone. That, we are told, is a $95 billion refinancing cliff of Australian mortgages. We call it a cliff because it is going to be a very, very hard fall for many Australian families. To put that in context, we are talking about 150,000 fixed rates moving to variable rates in September alone—that is, 150,000 of the estimated 880,000 which are said to shift from fixed rates to variable rates this year alone. I think it is time that the Senate chamber and the government in particular try to think about that. What does that mean on the average streets in the average suburbs of Australia's cities and regional towns? For some families that is going to mean an extra $22,000 a year in mortgage costs, which means they are going to have to find an extra $22,000 from their household budgets. Where is that money going to come from? It might have to come from school fees. In might have to come from sporting club fees. It might come from the vacations that families would have wanted to take or would have planned for during the school holidays.

The pain that Australian families are experiencing or are about to experience as this mortgage cliff continues to wash over the Australian economy is real, it's immediate and it's going to hurt. The National Australia Bank released data just recently suggesting that 67 per cent—almost 70 per cent, almost 7 in 10—of Australians under the age of 50 said that the rising cost of living is now their biggest cause of stress. The ABS has reported that working households experienced a 9.6 per cent increase in their annual cost-of-living expenses, the highest annual rise on record.

Who is Labor punishing as a result of their lack of effort in combating inflation, their lack of regard for 11 interest rate rises? They're punishing the very people that elect them. They're punishing younger Australians. Why is it that Labor has chosen to hurt that one group of people who put them in this place in the election in May last year? Commonwealth Bank of Australia went on to say:

These trends come together to create a cost-of-living pressure perfect storm for millennials … The younger you are, the more you need to curtail your spending due to rising cost-of-living pressures.

Why does Labor want to hurt young Australians?

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

We understand that many families and households across Australia are doing it tough, and we all know—on that side as well as this side—that a lot of that has been caused by issues out of our control. We've seen that that has added to the inflation problem.

You've got to ask what the opposition actually stands for, other than standing against everything we put up. If they were really concerned about the cost of living, they would support the bill that we put up to help relieve pressure on families. They're fairly hypocritical on that side. They come in here and they vote against $3 billion of energy bill relief and other sensible interventions that we've put up, and then they complain that people are struggling with their energy bills. I find it very hard to come to grips with why they wouldn't support the bills we've put up but would then come in and complain that things haven't changed or whatever.

This issue goes back to long before we came to government. In fact, I've got a quote here from Sussan Ley, who accepts that the energy crisis was the Liberals' fault. She says:

Well, I hope that we get back to something that is well away from the chaos of the last few days. But this is huge problem for the Government.

That is true: it is our problem to deal with now, but we did not cause the problem.

And it's not one that was created since they—

us, the government—

arrived in power. Everything that they talk about, all of those factors at play were there when they came into Government with the plan. So, it is down to them to fix this.

What she is saying, as I interpret it, is that these issues were there when you guys were in government. And what did you do about things? Well, let me tell you what you didn't do. You had a minister that acted to hide the price increase caused by the atrocious Russian invasion of Ukraine, while we acted to shield families from them. You hid power price rises during the election. You voted against energy relief in the parliament. Over nine years, those opposite had 22 energy policies, and not one of them worked—not one of 22 energy policies in nine years.

The 'no-alition' are so negative that they even oppose the construction of affordable housing, including emergency housing for women and children escaping domestic and family violence and including homes for veterans. They opposed the National Reconstruction Fund, which is putting $15 billion into rebuilding Australian manufacturing. They opposed fee-free TAFE, which has so far given more than 150,000 Australians the chance to take up study, improving their prospects of getting a skilled, well-paying job whilst addressing critical skills shortages. They're just forever saying no. No wonder people are referring to them as the 'no-alition'!

What have we done? We've got wages moving. We're implementing cheaper medicines and strengthening Medicare. There is more support for vulnerable Australians and cheaper child care. We're extending paid parental leave. There is more affordable housing and fee-free TAFE. There are all these issues, and we've been doing them despite the best efforts of those opposite to say no to absolutely everything. Any of these policies can help relieve cost-of-living pressures, but, as I said earlier, those opposite say nothing or they vote against them, and then they come in here and grizzle and harp on as though they're so pure. Well, you're not.

They opposed an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to parliament, turning their back on First Nations people and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. They even opposed the safeguard mechanism, despite it being their policy. Given the way in which the Liberals and Nationals have conducted themselves, I think they have consigned themselves to irrelevance.

But from this side, having talked to a lot of people out in the community, it seems to me that the opposition only know how to stay no. You can oppose everything and be relentlessly negative, but at some point you actually have to make some decisions about how the country is going to be run. This relentless, negative, backward-looking, Trump style of politics really has—

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

Thank you, Senator Bilyk. Senator Fawcett.

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

I, too, rise to take note of answers to questions asked by coalition senators. My own question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs I will come back to in other forums as I understand more about what the government has actually announced, but I do welcome her assurance of their continued opposition to the referral, for example, of Israel to the ICJ by the United Nations, which I think is a positive step.

I turn now to cost-of-living pressures, which was the focus of the first question. That's the thing that constituents are talking to me about in South Australia, particularly through phone canvassing, surveys and responses that we're getting from people. I'd just like to draw the Senate's attention to some reporting in the Australian this week concerning the GenCost report and the CSIRO and the admission by CSIRO and their chief energy economist. The reporting in the Australian highlighted—and the CSIRO has now confirmed—that the GenCost report, in making the claim, which is often referred to by Minister Bowen and by advocates for variable renewable energy, that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of power, does not take into account all of the associated and consequential costs in terms of firming and the overbuilding of transmission lines et cetera for those distributed systems to work.

What that means is that the work of experts such as the OECD and the IEA, who issued a report in April last year—for those who are interested, I think it was page 35 in the report—shows through good, solid economic and engineering analysis that, without taking into account those systems costs, you cannot fully understand a comparison of different ways to supply energy. In fact, what the OECD and IEA found is that a reliance on a high penetration of variable renewable energies such as wind and solar in fact drives prices up as a nation seeks to constrain carbon emissions. The graph that is, if you like, the pinnacle of their analysis shows very clearly that, as we move beyond 2030 towards net zero in 2050, the cost of achieving that—in fact, they claim it is probably unachievable relying on wind and solar—will become unaffordable. We see that lived experience in countries such as Germany, which has probably the highest penetration of wind and solar in the OECD. They also have the highest prices. If the rhetoric was correct, a high penetration of wind and solar would be driving their prices down, but that is not the case.

What the OECD and IEA clearly show—and the GenCost report, which is so relied upon by this government and other advocates for a total reliance on variable renewable energy—is that you need a firming supply of power, which is either hydro, particularly if you have fast-flowing rivers, or nuclear energy as the other option which is zero emission, and, despite the assertions, is actually not the most expensive form of power. That report shows very clearly, in a comparison of levelised costs, that long-run nuclear plants are actually cheaper than many forms of variable energy. By the time you take into account the systems costs, including transmission and firming, they are cheaper. That is why, as we look around the world, in the United States, Europe and the Indo-Pacific region we see nations investing again in nuclear power, because they recognise that, to reduce emissions and have affordable power, we need to make that change. That's why Canada—particularly the province of Ontario, with 19 reactors—has the cheapest power in the OECD. The combination of hydro nationally and, in Ontario, the 19 reactors actually drives the price down for both business and consumers. That's why the coalition is calling for a sensible discussion about removing the prohibitions on nuclear power here, so that our agencies such as the CSIRO and industry can do the detailed economic and engineering analysis to demonstrate, once and for all, that it is a viable option. Then we allow the market to make those decisions. That's the positive agenda of the coalition to reduce prices for Australian households and for businesses, which guarantees not only lower emissions but jobs and affordability into the future.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hypocrisy that we have heard through question time is quite unbelievable. We have been listening to it over and over again since suddenly, somewhere in the middle of 2022, those opposite realised that the decisions made in this place impact the people who live in this country, who vote for this parliament and who rely upon us and upon the policies of this country. Guess what? A cost-of-living crisis didn't miraculously occur in May 2022. It really didn't. There have been ridiculous claims from people across the chamber here who I know are actually educated and intelligent. But you wouldn't think so to listen to some of the absolute nonsense that is being touted, not just in this chamber but across the country, from those opposite, who are just trying to make some stuff up to get a media hit, rather than having any care or consideration about the people of this country and the plight that they are in given the cost-of-living challenges that we are facing.

After nine long years with no regard for people's challenges, for people's issues with the cost of living, with no sense of planning for the future, with no preparation to make sure that there are plans in place to protect the people in this country into the future—none—they have done some of the most ridiculous, incoherent things, if they actually had any care whatsoever. They've claimed themselves—and it's been argued in this chamber many times—that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their policy. They did it intentionally, knowingly. If that's your situation, then own it, admit it. Don't turn around when you are not in government anymore and go: 'No, it wasn't us. It's not our fault'. Own up. They opposed a $1 an hour increase to the minimum wage, for God's sake. They said no to Secure Jobs, Better Pay because they said it was going to result in higher wages. They said no to banning pay secrecy clauses and stood in the way of any changes to close the gender pay gap. They wanted to charge a $7 GP tax. They tried to increase the cost of medicines by $5, and they wanted to charge for emergency visits. To hear the rhetoric coming out of them now—the absolute hypocrisy being touted now—is unbelievable. Own up to what you've done over the last decade, own the policies that you put in place, own the legislation that you passed and own the things that you didn't pass. This whole hypocrisy that is being played out is offensive.

We know—the facts are there—that childcare costs rose by 49 per cent under the last coalition government. Yet they are making all sorts of accusations about the policies that the Labor government has put in place to reduce the cost of child care. Our policies do multiple things to support families and to support women to get back into the workplace. In nearly a decade, they never once increased any of the supports for paid parental leave. They said no to more social and affordable housing, including for women and children fleeing domestic violence. They said no to $30 million for veterans housing services. The kinds of issues that have been blocked by those opposite are embarrassing to this country. That's before we even get started on what's been done in the housing space, with the blocking of money to build new houses when, every single time they stand up over there in question time, they raise the issue of mortgages and rental prices. Surprise, surprise, people, increasing supply will help reduce the costs of housing. Stop pretending that you don't understand and stand up and own what you've done and own what you have blocked and what you have passed.

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

I rise to take note of the answers to questions asked by the coalition today, specifically on the cost of living and the Voice. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker using the word 'hypocrisy'. We shouldn't use words we don't know the meaning of, but I'm sure the other side knows the meaning of that word only too well. I'm going to use a word they may not know the meaning of: trust. Let's talk about the lead-up to the last election and the promises that were made, including the promise that you could trust this government, now elected, to bring down your power prices and trust it to bring down the cost of living and make your life easier. Everything was going to be great. All I know is, if you look at the scoreboard, it's like everything has gone up. Everyone knows mortgages have gone up; they know energy prices have gone up; they know grocery prices have gone up. If you look at the scoreboard, the people at home know what's happened. It's like in round 18 this year in the NRL, when the Wests Tigers came off the field losing 74-0 to the Cowboys, a horrible result. Imagine if the coach of the West Tigers got up and said: 'It's the other side. They didn't pass us the ball. They didn't kick us the ball. They didn't give us a ball.' You're in charge of your own destiny when you get here. You got into government to run your own game. If the people trusted to you make their lives better, the scoreboard says you are failing.

The previous senator mentioned that child care might have gone up by 49 per cent under the previous government. I'm not going to dispute that; it may have. It was nine years. If the government's first year is anything to go by—and assuming it's in office for nine years—child care will go up 200 per cent over the same period. This is the hypocrisy we're talking about here. They talk about a bill to solve the energy crisis that wasn't voted for by the coalition. It got through. If energy prices have not gone down, it's because that policy has failed. The vote of this side had nothing to do with how that policy is going out there in the world. That's where we're at. We're here in this place talking about trust—the trust that the people of Australia misplaced in the government with their vote, and the trust that the cost of living would come down and people's lives would be better. They are not.

Now we go to the other part of the question and the trust the government are asking Australians to put in them on the Voice. They don't trust the people of Australia enough to give them the details; they don't trust the people of Australia enough to give them the answers, and we heard that here today. The 26 pages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart raise some specific questions that this government endorses in full and wants to deliver in full. Where is the trust in telling Australians how it will work, who will vote for Voice members, how they will be housed and these sorts of things? If this government won't trust you with the information, why should you trust them with your vote? That's what this comes down to in this chamber. We're here to do a job. We're here to make people's lives better. It's a job of government to get their legislation through—make it better, negotiate, talk to people. If the Housing Australia Fund doesn't come through, it's not the fault of those over here or those at the end of the chamber; it's the fault of the government for not putting forward a bill that is supported by enough people because it is good enough.

People in regional Australia don't want to put their money on a roulette wheel to see if they get a housing allocation for key workers. They want certainty. The people in Mudgee spent six months trying to attract an IT worker for their school. After three months of living there, they couldn't find permanent accommodation, so they moved back to a city. They can't take a risk on that. They don't want to bet that the future fund does well. They don't want to bet that the stock market goes up. They don't want to bet on red when black comes up. They want certainty, and that's why that bill is no good.

After just 12 months of this government, we have all these costs going up. We have a focus on a piece of legislation that is dividing Australia, and it was determined to do that. A legislated voice and a vote at referendum for recognition could have brought Australia together. It was chosen; it wasn't an accident. It had to be chosen to be rolled into one. By design, Australia is being divided when what this government wants could have been delivered quite easily and in a better manner.

To those at home deciding what bill not to pay, deciding what money to hide, deciding what their kids go without, put it down to this: trust yourselves to do the right thing because you can't trust government. Ask the questions. And be strong.

Question agreed to.