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 without notice asked by coalition senators today.

There is one question on the minds of Western Australian families, and that question is this: what have they done to deserve the economic mismanagement of Anthony Albanese, the Labor Prime Minister, and Dr Jim Chalmers, the Labor Treasurer? Why has the Labor government let down Western Australian families when, just 2½ years ago, the WA Labor Party elected Labor Party members in Western Australia on the back of a promise? Labor's promise was that they would stand up for WA and for WA families. We know that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is getting desperate when it comes to Western Australia and the next federal election. Why do we know that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, supported by his WA federal Labor MPs, is getting desperate? That's because he's now trying to create a GST scare campaign in Western Australia when there doesn't need to be one at all.

So I want to use this opportunity just to remind people about Labor's record when it comes to the GST. Despite Roger Cook and Prime Minister Albanese's efforts to confuse the GST debate, Western Australians have not forgotten that it was federal Labor that was the last to join the chorus of local Western Australian voices arguing for a fairer GST deal in Western Australia. In fact, it was the West Australian newspaper who first complained about the silence of federal Labor parliamentarians, in April 2017, noting:

To date, WA Labor members in Canberra have done nothing about the GST other than grumble the system is a rip-off.

At the same time, the Sunday Times newspaper in Western Australia reported that federal Labor representatives had 'let WA down', and that their submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry at the time contained no answers to fix the situation. A few months later, it fell to Roger Cook, now the Premier, who was then the Acting Deputy Premier, to implore his federal Labor MPs to take more notice and get real about the GST issue. And who can forget that Bill Shorten, then the Leader of the Labor Party, the opposition leader, turned his back on Western Australia in November of that same year, admitting that he and Labor would not change the GST carve-up or introduce a GST floor? Instead, he said that Labor would offer Western Australia just $1.6 billion in infrastructure funding, compared to the very generous GST deal that Western Australians now enjoy as a result of the coalition government. In January 2018, Labor's candidates in five seats said that they would defend Bill Shorten's opposition to the GST changes and instead support a very meagre—just $1.6 billion—infrastructure deal.

Western Australian families are being let down by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers. WA households' disposable income has now fallen by more than eight per cent, mortgage rates are up, and the expectation for ordinary WA families is that interest rates will continue to rise. And, as we've heard, per capita GDP is in freefall in this country. So why is it that 2½ years ago Anthony Albanese and federal Labor MPs went to Western Australian electors and said, 'We will stand up for Western Australia', and, just 2½ years later, those same Western Australian families and households are now paying a very, very high price for Labor's poor economic management? Why is it that federal Labor have turned their backs on Western Australian voters?

Well, soon we'll know what Western Australians think. When we go to the polls—perhaps in early December or perhaps in February or May next year—Western Australians are going to vote, and they're going to vote Anthony Albanese and all of those federal WA Labor MPs down, because they have failed them. They have broken the trust, and they've broken their promises.

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

I am taking note of answers to those questions that were put by the opposition. In particular, I will start off with the question that was put by Senator McKenzie about the regional effect of industrial relations policy. I recall Senator McKenzie saying that the Nationals at one time represented regional communities, but what Senator McKenzie is actually saying is that she's opposed to minimum wage increases for some of the lowest paid workers in this country. What Senator McKenzie is failing to enlighten the rest of the Senate and the Australian community about is the fact that when there were increases to the minimum wage in 2022, 2023 and 2024—leading to people earning $110 extra a week, which has a particular effect in regional communities—the member for New England, Mr Barnaby Joyce, described it as window dressing. So here we've got questions being asked by those on the opposite side, who are saying the industrial relations policy that delivers better pay for communities in regional Australia is something that should be abandoned.

Then we start going to same job, same pay. Some of the richest, most powerful and most influential—you only have to ask the Nationals—mining companies and other businesses in this country want to smash and slash same job, same pay. Workers in regional Australia are now finally, as a result of the legislation we brought forward, getting paid between $20,000 and $30,000 extra for doing exactly the same job that the person next to them is doing. They were getting paid less despite being under the same supervision and the same rosters and doing the same job. Senator McKenzie wants to bring all that back. Where there are well-paid jobs in regional Australia, those opposite want to drive them down, and, where there are low-paid jobs, they want to make sure they can only go lower. If you say $110 a week is window dressing, I think you need start asking somebody in your own community how much window dressing $110 a week is, and you need to start asking everybody across the Australian community about what the impact of a government led by Mr Dutton would be if it were, unfortunately, to be elected. Regional Australia would be smashed.

These are the people opposed to a future made in Australia. You can name any policy. These are the people who are opposed to the support that was given by this Labor government on electricity. They want everyone to pay $230 extra a year. They want to have people's wages go lower. They want the people who are getting paid a fair wage to lose $20,000—hit after hit after hit. Why? Because miners and their ilk, some of the wealthiest organisations in this country, want to make sure they can put more in their pockets, so the Nationals want to make sure that the miners can put their hands in others' pockets, which would mean that regional Australia gets paid less.

Let's start talking about some of the things those opposite have already let out in the industrial relations field and some of the impacts in the trucking industry. I remember that when legislation was passed here on road haulage, giving support on industrial relations policy to medium, small and large businesses, those opposite voted against it. Guess where a large number of jobs are in regional Australia: in the trucking industry, where, in particular, small and medium operators are operating. So those opposite want to smash them as well. They want businesses, including small businesses, smashed. Do you know who wins out of that? It's the big businesses at the top.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask our sheep farmers who's being smashed.

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

I'll take that, Senator Reynolds. What a foolish question to raise! If Senator Reynolds knew anything about the trucking industry, she would know that trucking businesses, companies and associations across this country support what the Albanese government did, but you, you, you and you opposed it, because you don't like truck drivers and trucking business getting a fair shake. They don't want fair competition. They don't want small business to have a fair shake. They want to make sure the big gorillas at the top keep lining their pockets and putting their hands in the pockets of small business. That's why they want to vote against low wages being increased. That's why they want to vote against rights for small businesses and other businesses in the supply chains of these big, big, big companies like miners. We know what they're up to. I know what Senator Reynolds is up to. Along with the others, she wants to make sure the mining industry keeps putting its hands in the pockets of hardworking Australians.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what a load of rubbish. Let's have a look at the facts about what those opposite are actually doing to Australians in general and to the Western Australians I represent. Western Australia is the economic powerhouse of our nation, but this government's ideological policies have declared nothing short of war on the west—on the cost of living for every single family in Western Australia and on our industries, particularly our mining sector. This inevitably will have a terrible impact on jobs in my state.

Those opposite talk about rhetoric and how life is wonderful for Australians under them. Well, I'll tell you what: I am sure that not one of the people here in the gallery and the people listening all across Australia will stand up and say, 'We feel better off after 2½ years of Labor.' Let me tell you what those opposite have done. They actually inherited an economy with low unemployment and strong growth. Also, there was a strong financial recovery underway. And you inherited, among the G20 nations and probably most nations, the strongest recovering economy in the world post COVID. And what have you done? What have you squandered and what have you done to the Australian people?

National account growth is down. Living standards are down. Productivity is down. The government has spent this term fighting everything but inflation. And what has this done for the Australian people? It has caused their cost of living to skyrocket. Mortgage interest rates have tripled under those opposite. Gas is up 33 per cent. Electricity is up 14 per cent, and that is after the subsidies that this government provided. Rents are up 16 per cent. Health costs are up 11 per cent. Education costs are up 11 per cent. Food—food for families—is up 12 per cent. Finance and insurance costs are up 17 per cent. Personal income tax is up 25 per cent. No matter what those opposite say—they try to say, 'People are much better off. Australians are much better off underneath us. Australian workers are much better off with us.' What a lie. It is simply not true. The facts, the data, speaks for itself.

The Prime Minister's train wreck of a press conference this week demonstrates he still does not get it. He does not have an economic plan for this nation, and he doesn't have a plan to help struggling Australians. He certainly does not have a plan to help Western Australians and to ensure that the Western Australian mining sector can continue to grow—instead of putting the brakes on it, or declaring war on it, as he currently is doing.

Mr Albanese's tone-deaf speech to the Minerals Council dinner in Canberra last week really demonstrated without question just how much he does not understand the mining sector in this nation. He talked about, with great platitudes, all of the amazing things those opposite are doing for the sector. The sad truth is not a single word was true. As the sector said very clearly, 'You are doing everything you can to destroy the sector, and that includes our critical minerals sector. You are not doing anything, despite the rhetoric, to help build new industries.' We need the new minerals sector. We need it for the environment. We need it for every single piece of new energy technology that we have today. We need a wide range of new minerals. Those opposite say, 'We're helping the sector.' No, you are not.

Today, investors in the minerals sector have many more investment opportunities than here in Australia. And guess what? They're going elsewhere, to countries that don't have the same environmental standards and to countries that use slave labour. Those opposite know—it's your dirty little secret—that, if they go offshore, China and other nations go to countries where they use slave labour and have poor environmental standards. Shame on you all.

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

I've said this before and I just have to say it again. I am constantly amazed that the opposition can come into this place at question time and other times and, without any hint of irony, complain about the cost of living and the economy. I've reminded them before where the current wave of inflation actually started. It started with them. It started with their nearly 10 years of absolutely no action on anything. In recent years, the peak of quarterly inflation was reached in March 2022. Now, let's think about who was in government in March 2022. That's right; it was those on the other side. They created this crisis. They had almost a decade of wasted opportunities and inaction when they were in government, and then they have the absolute gall to come in here and demand that we fix everything yesterday.

Unlike those opposite, we are actually doing something about it. Let me tell you about just one example. After almost a decade of failure by those opposite to tackle the housing crisis, we are taking action by providing more social and affordable homes for Australians and helping more Australians own their own home. As for the coalition's policy on housing, they had this thought bubble the other day. I'm not quite sure who had it, but the thought bubble was about allowing people to access superannuation for housing. Saul Eslake, in a very recent report, has found that it would make homes more expensive, hinder the homeownership aspirations of young Australians, reduce retirement income and lead to significant long-term costs for the budget. I will quote Mr Eslake. He said, 'If super for housing was introduced, it would be the worst public policy decision in the last six decades.' In the last 60 years, it would be the worst public housing policy.

You've got to stop and think, 'What do they really stand for on the other side?' We know that they don't want to support our housing policy and we know that they've got this strange alliance with the Greens and the Greens don't—well, I'm not sure where the Greens stand on our housing policy, to be honest, because I think they actually agree with it; they just don't want to show people that they agree with it. And that's why earlier this week we had that quite strange debacle where people were running all over the chamber and the Greens and the Liberal and National parties voted together to delay our housing policy. The Greens do not care a hoot about people living rough. They don't care that families are being broken up. I know this for an absolute fact. I've had people call my office. I've been and talked to people that were living in tents who then contacted me to say their kids had been taken into care, the mother had gone to a shelter and the father was couch-surfing.

And what do the Greens do? They vote with the coalition to delay the implementation of our housing policy. They would rather put at risk virtually every aspect of a person's life, including a sense of safety and social support, not to mention life expectancy and overall health issues, by leaving people homeless so that they can campaign against us. That's what it's about. It's about them having something to mobilise on. That's why the Greens don't want to support our housing policy. Truly, if they have the courage of their convictions, why don't they come in and vote it down, not just vote to delay, the same as they did when we put up the HAFF legislation earlier? They're happy to leave people, including children, open to violence and victimisation, let alone the trauma of living rough. The Greens are the party that say they care. Give me a break. They would rather kids be traumatised by having to live in tents or having to be split up from their family and their parents than actually have the courage of their convictions to come in and vote our legislation down. They are happy to delay it. 'Oh, yes, we care about people, but we'll delay it until the end of November.' What an absolute disgrace.

As for the coalition, we're just pretty used to them saying no to everything. That's why they're called the no-alition: because everybody knows that everything we put up they say no to.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People that say yes to bad ideas are idiots, if you ask me, and this government has a lot of bad ideas. The fact is that the Greens, the entire crossbench and the opposition think the government's legislation is some of the worst in the world. That's why we're voting no. And to listen to the last speaker talk about how their plan, which to date has built, you guessed it, zero houses, will get young people off the streets—it is a joke. This government has no answers for any problems anyone is facing. Today we asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. 'What are you going to do to save people's jobs that are at risk?'

Deputy President, could I ask you to—

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

My apologies! Senator Bilyk, please allow Senator Duniam to continue.

Senator Duniam, please proceed.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. I know it's difficult when people are called out for their folly. That's what has happened here, and people get a bit sensitive. So let's go to what I was actually going to talk about. The last speaker spoke about 'doing something'. My question was around changing the laws of the land that generate bad decisions. I said to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water: you've got laws and you keep telling us in question time that you must obey the law in relation to how you assess a goldmine, for example, or how you assess the salmon industry. Those industries are under threat. A goldmine was knocked on the head. It went through full state and environmental approvals and was still knocked on the head by the minister for the environment because of a small group of Indigenous Australians who did not like that proposal. We've been through the details in this chamber many times. But the minister, in defending that decision, said, 'Well, the law is the law.' The minister, in defending the risk posed to the Tasmanian salmon industry, which employs over 5,000 people in regional communities, said, 'The law is the law, and we must apply the law.'

Well, the law can be changed. The government is in charge of what comes onto the Senate Notice Paper, the order in which we debate legislation and the amendments that are put forward for this place to consider. The fact is that this government don't actually care about the workers they claim to care about. Otherwise, they'd be changing the laws relating to section 10 of the ATSIHP Act to protect those 800 workers who would get jobs out of the McPhillamys goldmine. They'd be changing the laws that have now put at risk the entire salmon industry in Tasmania, affecting 5,000 people. They would be changing the EPBC Act to actually protect those jobs. The fact that they are not doing that says that they don't think they need to because the decision is right.

If you obey to the letter the laws that are deployed and reach the decision you did, that will of course knock on the head the McPhillamys goldmine and the 800 jobs that would go with it, as well as the billion dollars of economic activity associated with it and the hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties revenue that would go into places like the state of New South Wales to pay for schools and hospitals. All of that is gone as a result of this decision, because of the law that we must obey. Instead of responding to that in the way that you would think a party that claims to be the friend of the worker would, they say, 'The law is the law, and we have to apply it.' It was put to me by the minister representing the minister for the environment that the laws before the parliament now relating to the Nature Positive plan would somehow address this. They wouldn't. They'd make it worse because the same laws would be in effect when it comes to the decisions we've made here.

The point is that this government talk a big game when it comes to addressing issues that face Australians, be it the cost of living, housing, job security, environmental protections or investor certainty, but nothing they have bowled up in the way of a legislative agenda will in any way address those issues. This is why the polls are trending in the direction that they are. It's because, frankly, Australians know a dodgy deal when they see one, and this is what they've got with this government. They cannot in any way trust what's being said. They can't take this government at their word in terms of what it promises to do.

The fact that they're willing to stick by the laws which have killed off projects like McPhillamys goldmine and which will probably kill off the salmon industry in Tasmania says everything about this government and what they actually think about regional jobs. As I said in my second supplementary question today, this government is more interested in ensuring that inner-city seats where the Greens are snapping at their heels are protected than in protecting the hundreds and thousands of workers whose jobs in regional Australia are at risk.

Question agreed to.