Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked today.

One of the things that concern me the most is the ongoing challenges in relation to the cost-of-living crisis in our country and the ongoing challenges that everyday Australians have in relation to inflation, which is really problematic. Senator Birmingham asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, a really important question: for how many quarters has Australia been in a per capita recession? That is a very simple question to answer. It takes about five or 10 seconds, maximum. But for two minutes we heard a narrative around what was inherited by this government. We heard a narrative around a scare campaign that the government is running in relation to what the opposition may or may not do when they are next in government. So, instead of actually answering the question and talking about what this government is doing to solve these problems, they keep pointing back to the opposition.

The answer to the question is six—six quarters of per capita recession. It's a pretty basic answer, a standard answer, a one-digit answer to the question Senator Birmingham asked. It's curious to me that Senator Gallagher didn't want to answer the question. It would have been simpler to just answer it and then go on to the next question. But I think it's reflective of the problem we have in this government in that there is, for whatever reason, an inability to answer or a decision actually not to answer questions that are asked, which further compounds the problems we have, for two reasons: (1) if you won't acknowledge or address that you have a problem, you can't fix it; and (2) you then have a complete loss of confidence from the Australian public in your ability to fix any of the problems we currently have.

Senator Birmingham asked more questions in relation to that, and again Senator Gallagher didn't answer. She spoke about sensible investments, and I need to point to the energy rebate of $75 a quarter. I don't think that is a sensible investment. I don't think it is sensible that in a cost-of-living crisis every household in this country gets a $75-a-quarter discount on its bill. People for whom $75 doesn't matter at all get a rebate, and then we have families where $75 is really important and something that helps them make ends meet. So it's not, in my view, a sensible investment to give $75 a quarter to super-wealthy people who don't need it. I was glad, though, to hear Senator Gallagher confirm that we are in difficult times and that we do have an inflation challenge. I think that's a really important acknowledgement.

Senator Hume also asked some questions in relation to the government's spending. Again, Senator Gallagher spoke about investments contributing to the continuing growth of the economy. Well, in fact it's not growing. We have had six quarters of per capita recession. Senator Gallagher acknowledged that population growth is contributing to what she called growth of the economy. So the reason we didn't have the recession that we didn't actually speak of is record migration levels. We are in fact experiencing six quarters of per capita recession in our country. It is something this government doesn't want to acknowledge. If they don't acknowledge it, if they don't speak of it, they can't plan to fix it, and if they don't plan to fix it then they won't fix it at all.

The last piece I want to speak about is around Senator Cash's questions to Senator Wong in relation to the CFMEU. This is really disturbing, particularly in relation to how long our Prime Minister knew about the issues that were afoot at the CFMEU. Whilst there may be a narrative about what was publicly disclosed and what wasn't, it's important to understand that during this period this government continued to take donations from the CFMEU—over $6 million worth of donations. If you believe that there is something wrong and that funds are potentially the proceeds of crime, you should not be taking them. But this Prime Minister continued to take those funds, and there are some serious questions we need to ask. When did the Prime Minister know? Why did he keep taking the money, and did anybody encourage him to stop taking the money?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Gallagher, in her answers, talked about making sensible investments, and part of those sensible investments that she spoke about was to help people with the cost of living. But, while we've been making those investments to help people with the cost of living, we've been getting the budget in better shape, and Senator Gallagher also talked about that.

Senator Gallagher talked about how we have ensured that we've had a surplus. In fact, she outlined very clearly that, during the period of time that we've been in government, we've had two surpluses and that those opposite weren't able to have one surplus in the decade that they were in government. She also talked about how strong population growth and sensible government investments have ensured that our economy keeps on growing. It's certainly strong population growth and sensible government investment that have made sure that our economy keeps growing.

The primary focus of the Albanese government is to ease the cost-of-living pressures for Australians, but, at the same time, we are fighting inflation in our economy. We recognise that people are under the pump, and we're doing something about it.

I note that Senator Kovacic talked about the energy rebate and how she felt that the manner in which it had been delivered wasn't sensible. I'm not sure how many constituents the senator has spoken to out there since that energy relief has come through, but I know a number of people have come and talked to me when I'm out and about in the community, have rung the office and have come into the office to thank the Labor government for that initiative, which has really helped them in terms of their cost of living. I guess there are two lots of people that we're talking about here.

We're already rolling out tax cuts for every taxpayer and energy rebates, as we've spoken about, for every household, and there will be more that will continue to be rolled out over the months. We're making rents cheaper for nearly one million households. We're finalising the rollout of 60-day dispensing for additional medicines. We've already had one lot of 60-day dispensing, with a lot of opposition and carrying on from those over on that side, but, I'll tell you what, the pharmacies are doing okay. They're doing really well, and the constituents who are on the receiving end of those savings from that 60-day dispensing are thanking us for that initiative. They are thanking us because we are helping them with the cost of living and the costs of their medicines.

We're indexing payments for people on JobSeeker, the age pension, the disability support pension, the carer payment and the parenting payment, as well as the Commonwealth rent assistance. But we're doing that in a responsible way that helps fight the fight against inflation.

We know that those on the other side have opposed all of this. They opposed the 60-day dispensing. They opposed the energy rebate. Whatever we put up, they're opposing it. They're still opposing it. The housing bills that we've got currently on the table to get through this place so that people can get assistance to purchase a house, they are opposing. They are definitely the 'no-alition'.

They say that they will cut $315 billion from the budget, and that includes all of that cost-of-living relief that I talked about. It beggars belief that, at a time when so many Australians are under pressure, they want to take away this help. That is their mantra. We've brought in lots of initiatives that will help people with the cost of living and help them meet daily living expenses. And what are those opposite going to do? They're going to take it all away—and other things as well—because they're going to cut $315 billion from the budget.

They are also going to lower wages. It's in their DNA. We know that; they've said that for a very long time. They would pull the rug out from under people at this very important time. It's the worst possible time that people could have their cost of living relief attacked by those opposite. Their cuts would leave the economy in a critical condition. That's what the facts are. They don't want to fight inflation; they want to fight an ideological battle against the Australian people, when we are working hard to cut the cost of living and help people save.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Was that five minutes? It felt like about 50! But I think it was five. Anyway, I'll try and compose myself and we will get back on track. That was excellent!

I'm often reminded, when I come in and hear contributions like that, of the words of the late, great Margaret Thatcher, who said words to the effect of—don't quote me—'The problem with communism is that ultimately you run out of other people's money.' We are seeing almost the embodiment of that principle across the other side of the chamber. The answer to these six consecutive, I think, quarters of recession in this country is not to just keep blaming those before you or getting out the big novelty cheque and running it around. That's just not the way this is done.

I'm old enough to remember what the product of these types of policies, this so-called progressive agenda, was. I don't know why it's always called 'progressive'. You wouldn't want to progress too far, if this is where we're going; we'll progress right off a cliff if we continue to take this path. But I can remember what this was like. I had a very early introduction to this, as a young man, an adolescent, going to Victoria in the early nineties and seeing the product of a very socialist Victorian government, on top of the always socialist Labor government, here, federally. Seeing what that did to the state of Victoria—in particular, to the city of Melbourne—was a very early lesson for me as a young person. So, when I come into this place and hear these excuses and these harebrained political schemes, it's often something that I look back on.

This is, of course, a government whose Prime Minister made a solemn promise to the Australian people that Australians would be better off. Well, that is extraordinary. We've had, I think, something like nine quarters since the federal election in May 2022. Six of them have been in recession; I think six out of nine have been in recession. That doesn't sound like a country that, ultimately, is better off, frankly.

When you drill down into the statistics on this, it becomes even more alarming. The price of gas in this country is up 33 per cent. The price of electricity is up 14 per cent. The rental prices in this country are now up 16 per cent across the country. On healthcare costs, we hear all the time about how that side of the chamber is doing it for the man on the street, but in fact these are the sorts of things which actually hurt—an 11 per cent rise in healthcare costs. Education is up 11 per cent. Food is up 12 per cent. And insurance, the sleeper—this is the one that gets business, of course, all the time—is up 17 per cent since this government came to power.

These are actually some of the worst national account figures since the early nineties—the slowest GDP growth, in fact, since the early nineties. Australians ultimately are experiencing a decline in their living standards of something like 8.7 per cent in real disposable income in per capita terms.

We can hear about how people walk into the offices of those opposite, thanking them for giving them their money back in terms of some offset. But what people really want is a government with a plan. This government doesn't have a plan. It's written on a piece of paper. It's like Run,Spot, Run. It's not a plan; it's just a whole lot of words jumbled together with the word 'progressive' tacked onto them. It's not going to take us out of this. This is a product of Australians putting their trust in this government that has breached that trust.

Even the Salvation Army now are talking about the catastrophe. There was a story that they recently put up on their website about how 40 per cent of Aussie households have struggled to afford household basics in the last few months, and over half of Australians now say that they won't be able to pay an essential bill over the next few months.

This is the Australia that this Labor government has created. This is the Australia that it has given us, on top of ambit promises—simple-word statements like 'a future made in Australia'. Well, what does that look like? What's this country going to look like if we go through another three or four years of this? It's going to look like Venezuela. It might even look like Somalia. Who knows? We are constantly finding out things we didn't want to know about how government can be run, and that masterclass is being put on by those opposite.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition try to score political points here today over slow or soft growth in the Australian economy, but one of the problems that they face, and one of the problems that sit at the heart of their lack of economic credibility, is that they are against one of the measures that are driving up economic growth in our economy at the moment, and that is public spending. The coalition have indicated that there is $315 billion in public spending, mainly cost-of-living measures and investments in economic infrastructure, that the coalition would not have committed to, and they have indicated that they will take hatchets to parts of this spending. Well, that's going to have a negative impact on economic growth.

The second criticism that was levelled heavily today is that this is a government that doesn't have a plan. Well, that's simply inaccurate. The coalition members are not listening. There are three aspects of the government's plan to support economic growth that I want to talk about today. The first is competition reform, the second is investment in skills and training in Australia and the third is our paid parental leave reforms. But the reality is that economic reforms and policies that support growth and support improvements in productivity in our economy take time to implement. You put in place the reforms, and the dividends of those reforms come a bit later on. That's essentially why the government is making the investments that it's doing.

The first is in relation to competition reform. Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh recently released a consultation paper on revitalising national competition policy. The original national competition policy, a child of Paul Keating and an economically reformist Labor government, was a driver of economic growth and proactivity in Australia. Competition drives firms to innovate and to make positive changes internally. It can also incentivise the flow of resources to more productive outputs. Competition is a good thing in our economy, and the original National Competition Policy aided economic growth in the 1990s. In a report published in 2005, the Productivity Commission estimated that the gains from the policy reforms that flowed from the National Competition Policy led to a permanent increase of 2.5 per cent in Australia's GDP. As Dr Leigh recently observed, in contemporary terms that lift equated to around $50 billion a year, or $5,000 per household. By revitalising national competition policy, the government is putting in place measures that will improve productivity in Australia over time and will ultimately be drivers of economic growth.

The second aspect of those investments is investment in Australia's human capital through education and training. That goes back as far as early childhood education, the proper and equitable funding of Australia's public schools and investments in vocational education and training, including fee-free TAFE programs. This government has invested $500 million to create 320,000 new places in TAFE over the next three years. Five hundred thousand Australians have enrolled in fee-free TAFE places. The government has invested $30 billion in the National Skills Agreement, where, together with states, we're seeking to expand vocational education and training in priority areas. That includes TAFE centres for excellence in critical and emerging industries. There's also $600 million invested into skills growth and development in clean energy, construction and manufacturing. These are things that will form foundations for economic growth in the future.

The final aspect I'd like to talk about is changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. These changes have increased the period for which paid parental leave will be paid from 20 to 26 weeks over the period from July 2024 to July 2026. It expands and makes more flexible the circumstances in which paid parental leave can be accessed by parents of both genders. That radical organisation the Business Council of Australia itself supports the reforms on the basis that they are going to increase workforce participation among women and, it's thought, will also result in positive productivity gains in the long term.

A former French premier said, 'To govern is to choose,' and ultimately this government has made choices that will yield long-term economic benefits for Australia. The same cannot be said for those opposite, who are yet to release serious policies about which of the spending proposals and cost-of-living measures will be cut, how they would change Australia's tax system, or which of the industrial relations reforms that are driving wages up and improving workplace conditions they would strip away.

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

I've set the clocks for three minutes. Senator Bragg.

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

The Australian dream is becoming a nightmare under this government, and it is very curious that the government now, all of a sudden, want to come into this chamber and talk about housing. They are desperate that we pass this Help to Buy Bill. But this Help to Buy Bill was announced more than 800 days ago, so Labor have had 2½ years of government and they haven't bothered to bring this on for a vote. It can't terribly important! The Australian dream is becoming a nightmare under this government, but this is a continuation of Australia's history—

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

Point of order, Senator Urquhart?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding was that we took note of all questions on the cost of living and the CFMEU. Senator Bragg is taking note on housing.

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

Actually the motion was 'all answers to all questions'.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it was—

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

No, no. I listened carefully. It may have been done without intention, but the actual motion that was moved was 'all answers to all questions'.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is it was from government senators, but I'm happy to be—

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

It was. I listened carefully. I'm not sure it was necessarily intended, but that was the motion that was moved. Anyway, Senator Bragg, you have the call.

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

The government are so sensitive and so embarrassed about their terrible failure on housing that it seeks to obstruct debate. The reality is that after 2½ years Labor have failed on the supply side and the demand side. The Australian dream is slipping away from younger people, which is why under-40s are going crazy about this government's failure to build houses and help younger people get into their first home.

The reality is that there are fewer homes being built under this government than there were under the last government and there are fewer first home buyers getting into those few houses that are being constructed. So, after failing to legislate their key demand-side policy for more than 800 days, they now want to come in here and ask us to vote on it. Maybe it's because the election is approaching and they are embarrassed that the next time they have a campaign launch they'll be launching the same policy.

Over the last 2½ years, the government have had a handful of policies on housing. One of them is what I call their 'corporate' housing policy, which Senator Gallagher loves, which is where the super funds and the foreign fund managers are given tax cuts and incentives to build, construct and own houses and then rent them out to Australians like they're serfs. This is part of their 'rent forever' plan, which is now underwritten in the budget in perpetuity. But what you never hear the government talk about is lending policy, banking policy or how we can help people get a first mortgage. The government never talk about that, even while banking policy is within the preserve of the Commonwealth government.

Another thing you never hear them talk about is super, other than how they can help the funds own all their houses and become landlords. They never talk about people's lived reality, which is that we're living in an age where, because of compulsory super, a large group of people now have super as their biggest pool of capital. So, unless you have the access to the bank of mum and dad, which is now the sixth biggest lender, this is your best chance of getting into a house. The key determinant of your success in retirement is not your superannuation balance; it is your home ownership status. That is why we make no apology for allowing people to use their own money, unlike Labor, who see people using their own money as 'raiding'. It is a bizarre world they're living in.

Question agreed to.