Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal 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 today, particularly those given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Minister Gallagher).

To hear this government talk about inflation, you'd think that their fight against it is going well. They're fond of quoting the inflationary figure when they came to office. In June 2022, Australia's inflation figure, at an annualised rate, was 6.1 per cent. But, at the same time, in the eurozone it was 8.6 per cent. In the United States, it was 9.1 per cent. In Canada, it was 8.1 per cent. So when the Labor government came to office, inflation in Australia was lower than benchmarked advanced economies around the world—several percentage points lower.

This is the picture today: inflation in Australia is 3.5 per cent annualised, higher if you look at core inflation, but in the eurozone it's 2.2 per cent; in the United States, it's 2.9 per cent; in Canada, it's 2.5 per cent. Inflation was several points lower than other advanced economies when the coalition left office. Now, with Labor in government, two years later, it's several points higher. This is why interest rates are higher in Australia than they need to be, because the government is not getting control of inflation.

We heard the Minister representing the Treasurer say, 'Our economic plan is supporting economic growth.' But the only thing supporting economic growth in this country is immigration running at record highs. We are in a per-capita real GDP recession. We have now had six negative quarters of real GDP per capita growth. That's the largest per capita recession in Australia in 50 years. Real net disposable income per person—this is a measure of how well off or otherwise people feel—is down 8.6 per cent over the past 18 months. So if you wonder why people feel poorer, why households are complaining about the cost of living, this is why: because there is no economic plan from the Labor Party.

We've seen a collapse in productivity. It's down by 6.3 per cent. And we've seen that the only economic measure this government has is an expansion of the public sector. Of the 209,000 new jobs created in the first six months of this year, 2024, one in two of them were public sector jobs, or in the non-market sector. In a normally functioning economy, that would be one in seven. Instead, it was one in two.

We also heard from the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, who claimed that industrial disruption was at an all-time low. In fact, under this Labor government there have been 36,700 days lost to industrial action every quarter. Compare that to the number during the coalition's nine years in office; it was 23,600. So days lost to industrial action is 50 per cent higher under Labor, the result of their sclerotic, union-friendly industrial relations regime they are forcing down the throats of Australian corporations.

If households are wondering why they are feeling worse off, this is why—because their real incomes are not increasing and there is no productivity growth and no productivity agenda from this government. They are paying more in taxes because of bracket creep. This government is collecting record amounts of income tax, and their stage 3 tax cuts, even on their own forward estimates, are going to take more in receipts. You're paying more for your mortgage because interest rates are higher than they should be, despite countless warnings from the Reserve Bank that government spending is too high and keeping inflation higher than it needs to be. Despite all the evidence from economists, respected institutions and people in the financial markets, the government refuses to accept this and instead seeks to blame the Reserve Bank.

In other advanced economies around the world, central banks are cutting interest rates. The Bank of Canada is cutting interest rates. Eurozone is cutting interest rates. The Bank of England has cut interest rates. The US Federal Reserve is poised to cut interest rates. Only in Australia is the central bank, the Reserve Bank, saying that there are no interest rate cuts on the horizon and certainly not this year, because inflation is too high. As I said before, when this government came to office, it inherited inflation that was several percentage points lower than other advanced economies. It is now presiding over inflation that is several percentage points higher.

That is why people are paying more for a life's everyday essentials—because inflation in this country is out of control. This government does not have an economic plan to address the economic challenges facing Australia. They need to come up with one.

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

If you had been overseas and not actually understood what had gone on in this country over the last decade, when those on that side were in government, you might believe some of that contribution, but we know the facts are very different. They were in government for almost 10 years and never delivered a surplus—not one. We've been in government for just over two years and have already delivered two surpluses. Even the RBA governor has made comment about the extent to which that has actually helped to reduce inflation in this country.

You might want to come in and try and paint a very different picture, but people in Australia understand that, if inflation had a six in front of it and now has a three in front of it after two years, that is a downward trend. If you are that concerned about the cost of living for ordinary Australians, why is it that you have voted against every measure that this government has put forward? We know that, under Mr Dutton, there would be higher energy costs and tax cuts would not have been delivered at the rate that we have delivered them, because Australian taxpayers on average have got twice the tax cut under our government than they would have had if they were still in power.

We know that, when we put measures in place, like increased wages for Australian workers, you voted against them. You have voted against every single measure that we have put through this chamber to help with the cost of living for ordinary Australians. You voted against them. Every time you say no. So coming in here and bleating about inflation and what would have happened under you is not going to wash with the Australian people, because they see right through you. What did you do when we introduced cheaper medicines? You voted against it. When we introduced 60-day scripts, which will help people reduce the amount of times they have to go to their GP and cost them less when they go to the pharmacy, what did those on that side do? They voted against it.

Every single opportunity those opposite in this place have to attack superannuation for Australian workers, they do it each and every time. Why do they do that? Why do they attack superannuation? Because, fundamentally, it's in their DNA not to support super for Australian workers. That's the reality of it. Why was it that, when they were in government for almost 10 years, their policy was to keep wages low? Because it's part of their DNA. On this side of the chamber, we will always support Australian workers. We believe in superannuation. We believe in access to Medicare. We haven't tried to tear it down, which is what they have done each and every time they've been in government. That's why Mr Dutton, when he was the Minister for Health, cut billions of dollars out of health each and every time—because they do not fundamentally believe in universal health care.

All these things add to the cost of living. Whether it is increasing wages or making medicines cheaper, they have voted against it. They have voted against every measure we've tried to put in place through this chamber to help with the cost of living. When they actually make a contribution with their hand on their heart, trying to have the Australian people believe they really care about what they're going through with the cost of living, all the people have to do is look at their record of voting in this chamber. Each and every time—they never let them down—they vote no. Their great contribution to the energy debate and reducing the cost of energy for Australian households—22 policies when they were in government, and they couldn't even deliver one of them. And the one they want to try and deliver, if Mr Dutton ever becomes Prime Minister, will cost the Australian taxpayer billions and billions of dollars and not reduce their personal energy bills by one cent. That's the reality, that's the truth and they're the facts that need to be put on the record, which I'm happy to do.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I admired your contribution last night, Senator Polley; this one, less so.

I rise to take note specifically with respect to Senator McAllister's response to questions asked on the McPhillamys gold project.

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

Senator Polley?

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

I am seeking clarity. The first taking note was on one issue alone, one question—

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

He's not moving it. Senator Sharma moved to take note of all answers to coalition questions but more particularly one—so his motion stands.

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

Sorry; I didn't hear that part. I thought it was just one—otherwise I would have gone into other areas!

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

You were confused by Senator Sharma's rhetorical flourish!

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening very carefully, as someone speaking in the debate following!

I rise to take note, following Senator Sharma's very wide motion alluding to all the answers to questions, in relation to Senator McAllister's answer to the question in relation to the McPhillamys gold project. I want to put this in context for the people listening to this debate. There is a dispute at the moment with respect to Minister Plibersek, in her capacity as environment minister, exercising powers under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, refusing approval for a $1 billion gold project called the McPhillamys gold project in regional New South Wales. In defending that decision, Minister Plibersek went on ABC AM:

Sabra—

a wonderful journalist—

just a couple of years ago, the previous Environment Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Liberals, Sussan Ley, made a very similar decision just down the road, about 50 kilometres away in Bathurst.

Now, when this was referred to earlier in the week, I assumed—in good faith—that Minister Plibersek was actually referring to a material project—a project comparable to a $1 billion gold project, but she was in fact referring to a go-kart track. It never even occurred to me that the comparison that Minister Plibersek was drawing was one that sought to conflate a decision made in relation to a $1 billion gold project with one in relation to a go-kart track. That was not disclosed by the minister when the minister made that comment on ABC AM. There is a reason, when you give evidence in court, that you've got to take an oath that you're going to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—the whole truth, and that was not disclosed.

If we look at section 10(1)(d) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, it says that the minister must consider 'such other matters as he or she thinks relevant'. I say to the Australian people: how about these for relevant matters that should have been considered by the minister—the hundreds of jobs that would have been provided in regional Australia by this $1 billion project? How can you compare that and say it's a similar decision to one in relation to a go-kart track? How about a major project of this size acting as a foundation stone for the local regional community?

These projects have economic consequences that go beyond the fence of the project and could provide jobs and support for small businesses, for NGOs, for students to go to local schools et cetera. How about the hundreds of millions of dollars of royalties that would be generated by this gold project? There are at least 10 million ounces of gold in the ore body that this project would have mined, and now those hundreds of millions of dollars of royalties are forgone. How about the $192 million that had already been invested in relation to this project when it got to this late approval stage? Seven years! How can you possibly, in good faith, compare that to a go-kart track?

Lastly, what about sovereign risk? The most disturbing thing about this decision is that it says to mining companies all over the world that you could come to this country and spend $192 million of capital, get to the end of that process, and then have the rug pulled from under you. It's an absolute disgrace.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In taking note of answers this afternoon, the coalition is completely out of touch with the real issues facing Australians, just as the questions they posed to the government were. Looking at the cost of living in our country, we have a shadow Treasurer who is so out of touch with the needs of our country that he calls substantial cost-of-living relief 'manipulation'. Fancy that—manipulation! And we have, coming from the opposition, policies that would pull the rug out of our economy at the very worst possible time. Indeed, at a time when we have an economy that is barely growing, it is absolute economic insanity to slash and burn as the opposition would have government do at this time.

Some $315 billion worth of cuts would leave our economy in a critical condition. Meanwhile, we know they also had on their agenda—which we have undone and which eventually they, sensibly, voted for—tax cuts that they had targeted at the very highest income earners in our nation. Had we not delivered the redistribution of those tax cuts, we would have left the Australian economy and household incomes in a dire, dire plight.

We have an opposition that does not want to fight inflation. You are here, day after day, to fight your ideological battle with us for your own electoral purposes, but, in doing so, you are fighting against the interests of the Australian people. You don't want to help Australians; you want Australians to get hurt and have a hard landing so you can manipulate it for electoral purposes.

You've left us with debt and deficit as far as the eye can see, and now you want to bring forth cuts and chaos on the Australian people. We, the Labor government, are committed to doing the hard work of getting the balance right. I'm proud to be part of those efforts and to see our ministers working hard day after day to balance our books and get our policies right. Meaningful, substantial cost-of-living relief that helps everyone in the fight against inflation is not there to smash what is—as we all acknowledge—an already soft economy.

We know inflation is higher than we'd like, but it is less than half of its peak and is much lower than what we inherited from the coalition. At the election just two years ago, inflation had a six in front of it; now it's come down to have a three in front of it. We know we've got more work to do, but it's good to see that underlying inflation has moderated and we now have momentum towards inflationary pressures heading downward. That is a good achievement. We are pushing in the right direction. Of course we'd love it to be faster, but you're not helping. You're not doing the work to push inflation down; all you're doing is pointing the finger. Monthly inflation has hit a four-month low. Our budget strategy is helping in the fight against inflation, not hampering it.

As we know, fiscal policy isn't the primary determinant of prices in our economy, but our decisions in the budget and as a government are here to help—and they are helping. We want to be, and indeed we are, a government that, day after day, in the last budget, this budget, and the next budget, takes the edge off inflation. That's why we've delivered back-to-back surpluses—

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

Thank you, Senator Pratt. Senator Bragg.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a lacklustre question time, if ever there was one, from the government for vested interests. Our questions this afternoon were about the issues that are important to the Australian people in relation to the cost of living: interest rates, taxation policy and superannuation policy. These are the things that impact Australians.

To hear Senator Pratt say that these are not the issues that impact the Australian people is actually quite offensive. The reality is that interest rates are stubbornly high in Australia because there is a massive inflation problem in this country which comparable nations are not having to deal with. Inflation is running so high because of public sector spending. Labor can't say no to their favourite vested interests. They keep on spending taxpayer funds, which is making the inflation problem so much worse, and households and small businesses are getting smashed. It is outrageous for Dr Chalmers, the Treasurer, to say that the Reserve Bank is smashing the Australian people. It is him and his government, through their lacklustre fiscal policy, who are smashing the Australian people.

Taxes are up. That is also eroding the household budgets of the Australian people. One of the things that this parliament will live to regret is the reinsertion of a tax bracket that was abolished by the last parliament. Who would have believed we would turn back the clock and put a tax bracket back in place? That that has happened has locked in bracket creep in the long term. There will be more and more bracket creep and Commonwealth budgets will be riding high on stealing people's income to pay for surpluses and the like here in Canberra.

The government is offering nothing for small business—absolutely nothing. There is nothing in relation to cutting regulation or taxes or doing things like accelerated depreciation. It is no wonder that business investment is flatlining and the economy is turning sour. The government could do things like cut regulation and taxes, and until they do that, I fear we are heading for the rocks. The central charge against this government is that it is a government for vested interests. It only works hard for the unions and the special interests like the super funds and can't bring itself to work hard on inflation or on things like housing.

But the other part of this very revealing question time was that the government is against choice. On the question on paid parental leave, it was very clear that the government thinks it's a bad idea for new parents to be given access to their own money and they want it locked away for 40 years in a superannuation fund. Now, anyone who has had children would know that, when you have children, you need to buy nappies. Nappies are more important than superannuation when you have children.

The idea that the government would deny people choice and access to their own money shows how paternalistic this government is and how they believe that the Australian people are too stupid to save for their own retirement. There is no rule that says the only way you can save for retirement is through the Labor Party's favourite superannuation scheme. There are other ways to do it. Australians know how to pay a mortgage. They know how to tighten the belt when the going gets hard. So the idea that the Australian people are too stupid and need to have all this paternalistic policy is, frankly, very offensive. But it is revealing that this is the character of the modern Labor Party. It has such a low view of the Australian people: that they are too stupid to save for their own retirement.

That is not our policy, nor is it our position. We think that the Australian people are smart enough to make their own judgements, and if they want to put their money into superannuation, that's fine. If they want to put their money into their own living expenses, that's fine. If they want to negatively gear to provide an investment property for someone else, that's fine. It is our view that people are smart enough to look after themselves.

So that is the choice that is coming for the Australian people next year—or maybe later this year. I assume it will be next year. It will be a choice between, on one side, a party and coalition that is in favour of empowering people to make their own judgements about their own lives and seeks to support small business and, on the other side, the Labor Party that thinks the Australian people are too stupid to make their own judgements, has no interest in helping small business to invest and to grow and is locked into a corporatist, unionist mindset such that it thinks that the function of government is to funnel money and policy in favour of special interests. This is a sickness and a cancer on the Australian polity, and it shows that Alfred Deakin was right 100 years ago when he said that Labor's problem was that it was beholden to vested interests.

Question agreed to.