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

I rise to talk about the Albanese government's top priority: providing cost-of-living relief to Australian families. Our cost-of-living plan is providing relief in three critical ways.

Firstly, we have introduced measures to reduce cost pressures for families, Labor's cheaper medicines policy saved families in my home state of New South Wales $63 million last year. Labor's 60-day prescriptions have already saved Australians $12 million, and it has only been in place since September. The Liberals and Nationals opposed cheaper medicines because they said it would cause pharmacies to close. But the data is in. And, in the six months since 60-day prescriptions began, applications to open new pharmacies are up 50 per cent. Now, either those opposite had no idea what they were talking about or they were being very loose with the truth yet again.

We made medicines cheaper, despite opposition from the Liberals are Nationals. Labor has made child care cheaper, saving the average family $1,780 per year. Labor has sent 350,000 people to TAFE for free, providing cost-of-living relief, or giving Aussie workers the skills they need to get well-paid secure jobs. Now, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said fee-free TAFE was 'wasteful spending'. Can you really believe it? Those opposite gave $40 billion of JobKeeper payments to companies that actually increased their profits, but they are saying helping people get free education is a waste of money.

Labor is also investing in increasing housing supply through the Housing Australia Future Fund and of course the Liberals are Nationals voted against that too. After doing nothing about high housing prices for a decade, they have stopped trying to fix the mess that they created. Speaking of messes that we inherited, we are taking action on energy policy. Labor's Energy Bill Relief Fund saved the average Australian household $230 on their energy bill last year. Of course, the Liberals and Nationals voted against that too. Just last week, the Australian Energy Regulator announced small businesses in New South Wales will see their power bills go down by up to 9.7 per cent and households by up to 7.1 per cent. These figures show our plan for cheap, clean and reliable energy is bringing down the high power prices we inherited from those opposite.

What is the alternative plan put forward by the Liberals and Nationals? A nuclear fantasy that will take 20 years and cost taxpayers not tens of millions but hundreds of millions of dollars to even deliver the first reactor. The Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor in the United Kingdom has just come in at $86 billion—just for one power station—and those opposite want to build six. How will six $86 billion power stations bring down power costs? They cannot tell you across the way. They have not released any details or costings. So, on health, education, child care, housing and energy, we are reducing cost pressures, and those opposite are voting against us at every opportunity.

The second way we're providing cost-of-living relief is by ensuring Australians keep more of the money they earn through our tax cuts. Under Labor's tax cuts, all 13.6 million taxpayers will receive a tax cut. That's 2.9 million more than would have benefitted from Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. Most importantly, 84 per cent of taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut. So we're bringing costs down, we're helping Aussies keep more of what they earn and—thirdly—we're laser focused on ensuring Aussie workers earn more.

Over their decade in government, the Liberals and Nationals had a deliberate plan to keep wages low. It wasn't a secret. Their finance minister said it on national television. The Liberals and Nationals are for low pay because lower pay means higher profits for their paymasters in the corporate sector. That's the business model of those opposite. Those opposite have opposed or voted against every single measure we have taken to grow wages and improve job security. The Liberals and Nationals opposed the increase to the minimum wage in 2022 and in 2023, and we're seeing what their response is now. It's the same sort of argument to keep wages lower. Under the increases Labor called for, minimum wage earners now have $110 more per week than they had under the previous government. That's $110 more per week than before we came to government. We have proudly said again for the 2024 minimum wage decision that we believe those on the minimum wage must not go backwards.

What have we heard from those opposite? The member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, said someone earning another $110 a week is more like just 'window dressing'. He is seriously saying that someone earning $110 more a week is mere 'window dressing'. Explain that to people on minimum wage. Senator Hume, the shadow minister, complained on Monday morning that 'the Labor government wants to make minimum wages go higher as a cost-of-living measure'. Yes, we do. That's exactly what we want to see happen. That's why we advocated for increases to the minimum wage. That's why we passed our secure jobs, better pay bill, and those opposite voted against it. Secure jobs and better pay do two things those opposite cannot abide. The shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, said at the time that he opposed the secure jobs, better pay bill because 'it pushes up wages'. The opposition leader, Mr Dutton, said in a media release that he opposed the bill because 'it's going to result in higher wages'. Well, yes, it does put up wages. That's the whole point. It was in the title. The Labor Party is here to improve pay and working conditions. It's incredible that Mr Dutton, Mr Taylor and Senator Hume, the three people responsible for economic policy in the Liberal Party, are so explicitly against wages going up.

Then we get to the closing the loopholes bill. I have never seen such ridiculous and vicious opposition to a piece of legislation in this building. The bill closed a loophole for companies like Qantas and BHP, who used it to rip off their workers through labour hire. It made wage theft a criminal offence. It gave casuals the right to become permanent employees if they work like one. It gave gig workers and truck drivers the right to have minimum standards for the first time ever. Of course, they voted against all of that. The shadow minister for employment, Senator Cash, said the reforms would close down Australia. Instead we've seen unemployment all the way down, at 3.8 per cent, which is virtually full employment, we've seen inflation come down from the highs we inherited and we've seen real wages growing for the first time in years. It turns out you can pay people a living wage and give them job security, and the economy doesn't come crashing down—surprise, surprise. It turns out that all the predictions of Australia shutting down from the big business lobby, from the Minerals Council and from those opposite were total nonsense.

So what happens next? Given all these gains for wages and job security, what happens if the Liberals and Nationals get into government again? Well, don't take my word for it; look at what they're saying themselves. When the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, was asked on Sky News if they would to repeal these laws he said, 'Yes, we will.' The shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, said he may have a package of repeals in this area if he gets into government. Luke Howarth, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, said, on the closing the loopholes bills, 'We're going to get rid of this stuff when we come in.' That's a direct quote.

Rights for casuals, rights for labour hire workers, rights for gig workers and truck drivers, and protections against wage theft and industrial manslaughter are all on the chopping block when those opposite get back in. It'll be back to the bad old days. The only way to keep wages up is to keep the Liberals and Nationals out.