Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister confirm that a multimillionaire with a main residence and two holiday houses will receive the $300 energy rebate announced in last night's budget for each of their properties for a total of $900? Why is the government prioritising energy rebates to those with multiple properties instead of Australian families who are doing it tough right now under Labor?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to hear that the line of questioning that I'm getting from the opposition seems to indicate that they are not going to support the energy bill relief that we have in the budget despite the Leader of the Opposition saying they would. I think the shadow Treasurer said they would. Now I am clearly getting the vibe that something has happened on the Senate side to say that they are not supporting it.

Cost-of-living relief has been an important part of this budget, and it was an important part of the previous two budgets. We have looked at ways to provide assistance to people, including those who aren't on existing concession arrangements. The success of the energy bill relief last year showed that we could put downward pressure on inflation. I would remind those opposite that inflation, when we came to government, had a '6' in front of it. It now has a '3' in front of it. The forecast of Treasury has us reaching an inflation rate with a '2' in front of it through this year.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, I have a point of order in relation to relevance. With all due respect, the question was: why are you giving $900 to millionaires and billionaires and not focusing on the people who are actually doing it tough under Labor?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen.

A government senator interjecting

Order! Order, Senator McKenzie! On this side, I'm assuming it was Senator Watt. I am asking you both to come to order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of our cost-of-living relief is broad based and some of it is targeted. So our tax cuts are for every taxpayer; our energy bill relief is for every household. Our focus has been on people who are doing it tough, particularly those on concessions, and that's why you see, with medicines and rent assistance, that they particularly target those households. But the most efficient and effective way to deliver energy bill relief above the concessions threshold, for a short period of time, over the next calendar year, is to apply it to every household.

Now, our focus is on those households that are on the concessions, on fixed incomes, and those in Middle Australia. We make no secret of that. But the most efficient and effective way to deliver this program through the states and territories and through electricity retailers is to make the program broad based. Every household will receive that assistance, and it recognises that the cost-of-living pressures are up and down the income threshold.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Senator Cash, a first supplementary?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister guarantee that the energy costs of Australians will actually be lower next year and that the $300 rebate will not simply be used to offset another increase in energy prices—increases that are now the hallmark of the Albanese government?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind Senator Cash that, when they voted against energy bill relief in the last budget, electricity prices, without that relief, would have been 15 per cent, and, with the relief, they were two per cent. So I would just remind those opposite: when they voted against energy bill relief in the last budget—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Senator Cash, order.

Senator McGrath.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

you voted for higher power prices. You are now indicating to me, through your line of questioning—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that you don't support energy bill relief to every household in Australia, so you are therefore—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left, particularly Senator Cash and Senator McGrath, who I called. Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we are providing short-term relief for those energy increases that we've seen—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Again, on the amnesia that is taking hold over there: just remember the energy crisis we inherited from you the day we came to government. Remember how you hid the price increases? You hid the price increases before the election. We provided energy bill relief. We will continue to do so, as we transition to a net zero economy, which will continue to put downward pressure on energy prices. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, a second supplementary?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the minister finally concede that the Albanese government has broken its key election commitment and that Australians have not saved and will not save $275 a year on energy, but are, in fact, paying much more under the Albanese government? We always said life wouldn't be easy under Mr Albanese. And guess what? That's right.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that energy prices are lower under this government, without the assistance of the opposition. You voted against energy bill relief. Remember that? Have you forgotten that? You forgot that? You forgot the old hot—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left. Order!

Senator Cash, I've called, 'Order.' That applies to you. I should not have to name you. Minister Gallagher.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We inherited an energy crisis; we had inflation running at six per cent; we had deficits; we had debt as far as the eye could see. We have turned it around, and we are providing cost-of-living relief, where it's affordable and responsible to do so, to take some of the pressure off those bill increases that we've seen. That's what a responsible government does. That's what a government does that puts the people at the centre, as opposed to the politics. And I will be looking forward to the Leader of the Opposition's budget in-reply speech, to see what he actually says about these energy bill rebates, because it seems to me there's a mixed view amongst his team about whether or not you're going to support them. And, if you're not going to support them, you can go and explain why energy bills should be higher than they would otherwise have been without this subsidy.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and will reference Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing, page 186, department expenses table. The government has been conducting a program of reducing spending on external providers—contractors; consultants—and hiring employees directly instead, to perform those duties, and One Nation supports that. These conversions, from external providers to employees, save taxpayers money, being the difference between paying a public servant to do that work and paying a consultant, partly balanced out by the increased costs of office expenses, travel and so on. Minister, how much has this program saved in 2023-24, and how much will it save over forward estimates? I note that, as I understand, the budget papers have another 2,502 conversions projected.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for asking me a question about Budget Paper No. 4. That is the budget paper that Finance has responsibility for. We have worked hard to make conversions, as you say, and to reinvest and put increased capability into the Public Service. What we did find out from the audit on employment was that the real size of the APS when we came to government was much larger than had been publicly reported, so we are taking steps to rebalance it and to put public servants into jobs that labour hire had done.

In the last budget, I think the savings were in the order of $800 million in terms of the conversions that were being made. In this budget we're finding a further billion dollars in reductions to agencies' departmental expenses because of the investments we're making in the Public Service. Obviously, we are making additional investments in the Public Service for additional responsibilities that they have, but what we're doing is painting a very honest picture of the price of delivering improved services.

Those opposite, I know, are going to do what they always do and say they want a smaller Public Service, but they should then explain why 41,000 veterans who didn't have their claims allocated now have their claims allocated and now are getting access to pensions. It's a direct result of our investment in the Australian federal Public Service. We weren't seeing those results, whether it was in Immigration, DFAT, Services Australia or Veterans' Affairs. We see that on the payments side now because veterans are getting access because they are being dealt with. Because they've got public servants dealing with their claims, they are getting access to the money that they deserve.

So it's a piece of ongoing work, Senator Roberts. If there's further information I can provide to you, I will. But we are finding savings from the program at the same time that we're making additional investments.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The table shows many departments costing less to run in 2027-28 than they do today, despite ongoing inflation, and rents, electricity and expenses far exceeding the savings from operations. The department of infrastructure is down from $554 million in this budget to $452 million in 2027-28; Health and Aged Care, $1.6 billion down to $1.1 billion; and Services Australia, $5.7 billion down to $4.5 billion. Minister, please explain from where these huge claimed projected savings will come.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the savings that we've applied through this budget, it's an extra billion dollars onto the $3 billion that we had built into the budget, so that gives you a total of $4 billion. There are additional savings that come through the conversions of expensive labour hire into permanent Public Service work, and so that is part of it. I think it's probably a question we can go through at estimates, as well, because I don't have that page in front of me. But there are savings, and we take that money from departments; they don't get that funding. So that is a saving that is realised at the time that that budget decision is taken.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The $155 billion provided in the budget as departmental expenses in 2024-25 is projected to grow to $169 billion in 2027-28 almost entirely from increases in defence and the NDIS. How could your forward projections show flat or reduced costs for, in effect, the entire government except the NDIS and defence when the budget puts inflation over that period at 13 per cent? Does your budget dramatically understate projected deficits?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The budget papers, as they're released—Budget Paper No. 1, which goes to providing the UCB, is based on all of the information that runs through all of the budget books, and that would include departmental expenses. There is extra investment going into defence and into the NDIS. As you would expect, they are two of the five fastest growing areas of the budget. The NDIS is the second, and I think defence would be the third or fourth, and so they would be seeing increases. But the budget UCB takes into account all of those decisions. It may be reported slightly differently in different tables, based on different accounting standards, but the UCB is an honest reflection of the state of the Commonwealth's finances.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Payman for the question and for all the work she does supporting women, particularly women in WA and particularly young women, with all of the hard work that she does.

We've made it clear since day one that women's safety, women's economic equality and women's equality more generally were at the centre of this government's thinking and its decision-making. In relation to women's safety, there are additional investments towards funding the national plan, including the leaving violence payment and some smaller investments looking at preventing violence. We are building on the 10 days paid domestic and family leave, and we are implementing all the recommendations of Respect@Work. In relation to housing for safety, there are some important announcements in the budget for new investments directed to housing for women and children who are leaving domestic violence and for young people. Of course, some of the national agreements on housing that we have been making with the states will have an impact there.

Our tax cuts will benefit every woman taxpayer, with 90 per cent of women better off. Women, unsurprisingly, are the largest group receiving Commonwealth rent assistance, so they will benefit from those additional investments as well. We're also building on our effort to close the gender pay gap, and we are seeing progress there. The gender pay gap is the smallest it has been on record. We're really pleased with that. That of course comes with recognising the economic value and the investment made in aged care and some of those other care workforces where we know it is predominantly a female workforce.

Importantly, we have $1.1 billion going into super on PPL. Those opposite are trying to undermine super constantly; we are trying to improve it and improve it for women, making sure that women don't retire with the gap— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): I thank Senator Payman. It is a bit hard to hear at the moment. We have put in place the leaving violence payment, which I referred to in my earlier answer. Also, importantly, there is appropriate indexation of the National Legal Assistance Partnership and the family violence prevention legal services as we consider the review and the report that's been done. That's urgent funding because those roles were not indexed properly—surprise, surprise—under the former government in the legal assistance partnership. There's some extra money to establish a national student ombudsman to help eradicate gender based violence from universities. There's some funding to establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. We have some investments in providing policy advice to government to prevent gender based violence, particularly as it relates to research in perpetration, and we have targeted investments to support refugee and migrant women, First Nations family dispute resolution pilot— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Payman. As we know, we have reintroduced the comprehensive Women's Budget Statement to show in detail all of the policy decisions as they relate to women. But it also gives those who are interested in women's policy all of the matters in the budget in one place. The Women's Budget Statement certainly provides a lot of detail about women's safety—the work that's underway and the investments that are made. But it also goes through the paid and unpaid economy, so it looks at how we can pay for prac placements for nurses, teachers and social work students, and it looks at extra investment for aged-care workers and for our early childhood education and care workers, who are looking to their decision from the Fair Work Commission relatively soon. We've made some changes to the carers payment. We're making some investments for young parents and dads to build up parenting skills. So this is a very comprehensive analysis of what's in the budget. We take women's policy seriously under this government.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. After three budgets, Labor has added $315 billion of spending, adding fuel to the inflationary fire. Analysis by Deloitte says the result is a relatively large increase in government spending over the next four years, potentially putting further upward pressure on inflation. Ratings agency Standard & Poor's have confirmed that the result of this year's budget is almost no chance of an interest rate cut for struggling families this year. Will the minister admit that Australian families face higher interest rates for longer because of Labor's bad decisions and wrong priorities?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I completely reject that question that's been put. I would remind those opposite that inflation had a six in front of it when we came to government; it now has a three in front of it. It's been moderating. The highest quarter of inflation happened on your watch. The first interest rate increase happened on your watch. This is the budget and the economy that we inherited—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left. Minister Gallagher, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, Senator Davey uses the $300 billion figure. So you are not going to index the age pension, then? You see that as wasteful spending? You're not going to make sure that veterans get their compensation? You see that as wasteful spending? You're not going to index other payments and income supports? You know how big they are in the budget, so you go out and you try and incorrectly accuse us of allocating new spending in that area, when you know exactly what that means. If Mr Dutton uses that figure tomorrow night, we know that you are not going to index age pensions, and we will be making it clear to every age pensioner that you see that—

Well, be accountable for the figures you use, Senator Birmingham. If you're going to use that figure, then it is clear that you do not support indexation of payments. Inflation is moderating. Real spending growth is half of what it was under your government. We have lower debt. Our interest on our debt is lower. We've had a surplus and we are shooting for a second. All of that shows exactly how responsible we've been with the budget and shown restraint but how we've also been able to find room for priorities. I know you don't support them all, but these are priorities that we believe are the right decisions for people's cost-of-living pressures right now and to put down the foundations for growth into the future.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get the narrative right!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I have constantly had to call you to order for the last hour. You are being incredibly disrespectful. I'm going to ask you, for the remaining two questions, to sit in silence. Senator Davey, first supplementary?

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alan Kohler has written in the New Daily that 'the budget brought down on Tuesday is worth two more rate hikes'. At the very least, interest rates will be higher for longer due to Labor spending. Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for the Albanese government's weak economic leadership?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The position that Mr Kohler puts and that is supported, presumably, by Senator Davey is not the advice to government. You've seen that reflected in the budget papers in the Treasury advice on the forecasts for CPI, on what they expect. They make a forecast or an assumption about what the cash rate will be. All of the advice to government does not support the argument that Senator Davey is putting.

We have been very restrained with our spending. We have been cleaning up the mess, dealing with terminating measures, paying down debt, delivering surpluses, restraining real spending growth and saying no to more things than we say yes to in this budget. What we've tried to do is to find a balance between short-term cost-of-living relief that doesn't add to inflation—in fact, it puts downward pressure on inflation and knocks off half a percentage point—and, at the same time, looking forward, as growth slows because of those interest rate increases and global challenges, at how we drive future economic prosperity. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Davey, second supplementary?

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under Labor's budget to date, the typical Australian household with a mortgage is already more than $35,000 a year worse off. Now Mr Albanese wants to spend $13.7 billion on tax credits for billionaires at a time when ordinary Australians are struggling. How much worse off will Australian households be if underlying inflation and interest rates stay higher for longer under Labor?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the government is doing is making sure that we're providing cost-of-living relief where we can, where it's affordable and responsible to do so. We've got wages moving again to provide support for household incomes so that they get the appropriate wage increases that they were denied under 10 years of wage stagnation, a deliberate design feature of the former government.

In relation to the production tax credits that you raised in the second half of your question, it's interesting but not surprising to see that the opposition, who say no to everything, are still in denial about the transition that's happening around us, the net zero transition that's happening globally. You still haven't reconciled that, and you are now saying no to future economic prosperity for this country. That's what you're saying when you're dressing it up like that. We don't agree. It's obviously a fundamental difference. You want to vote against a future made in Australia. We want to support and build a future made in Australia.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia plan was a key part of last night's budget handed down by the Treasurer. I refer to comments made last night by the Treasurer. He said, 'Our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package will help make us an indispensable part of the global net zero economy'. Could the minister please outline Future Made in Australia? How will it create more trade opportunities, create more jobs for Australians and help ease the cost-of-living pressures for Australian households?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Polley for her question. Her questions are always excellent. I know she is very interested in Future Made in Australia, as is the Albanese government.

Our plan is about maximising the industrial benefits for Australia as we move to net zero while securing our place in the new global economy. Our government's $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package is all about promoting growth of new export industries by leveraging our world-class resources and advantages in renewable energy because the transition to a renewable economy means more well-paid, secure jobs in the energy sector. It means Australian workers can power the nation while helping to meet our commitments to net zero. We will continue working with our trading partners to ensure that we remain an indispensable part of the global economy by building new clean energy industries and supply chains in renewable hydrogen, green metals, batteries and critical minerals processing, just to name a few.

We've committed $520 million to deepen trade in net zero industries through stronger engagement in our region to help us to become a renewable energy superpower. We'll launch new efforts to improve our competitiveness on the world stage by working with trade partners to support global rules on unfair trade practices and negotiate benchmarks to boost trade in our critical minerals, because this government, the Albanese government, knows that a future made in Australia will create more trade opportunities with our partners, and more trade means more jobs and higher wages for Australian workers.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for that informative answer. I apologise for those opposite, who obviously aren't listening. Last night the Treasurer also spoke about how the budget will help Australia seize the opportunities presented by the transition to net zero. Could you outline how the government's Future Made in Australia plan will attract more productivity, foreign investment in Australia— (Time expired.)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can answer that question, Senator Polley. The government welcomes foreign investment, especially in renewable energy. Our Future Made in Australia plan involves creating a new front door for foreign investors with major transformational investment proposals, making it even easier to invest here in Australia.

We're also delivering important changes to streamline and strengthen Australia's foreign investment framework. These changes deliver a stronger, faster and more transparent approach to foreign investment, helping attract the game-changing projects, jobs and capabilities that we need to build a future made in Australia. Attracting investment is also an important part of our ambition to become a renewable energy superpower. More investment in renewable projects means more national income and more well-paying local jobs for Australian workers.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister also explain to the Senate how the Future Made in Australia package will help Australia move up global supply chains to contribute to creating more value-added diverse, resilient and sustainable industries here in Australia and particularly in my home state of Tasmania?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can, Senator Polley. The Future Made in Australia package will help build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient Australian economy powered by clean energy. The package will give our country and workers a leg-up in industries where we have a comparative advantage, while also supporting our goals of decarbonisation and supply chain resilience. For example, the new critical minerals tax production credit will move us up the global value chain while incentivising more investment in critical minerals for solar panels, batteries and high-tech manufacturing.

Peter Dutton, on the other hand, thinks there's no point—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Farrell, please refer to those in the other place by their correct titles.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition thinks there's no point investing in a future made in Australia. And that's— (Time expired)

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.