James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

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

What is disappointing today is the realisation that this government is just so out of touch with what is going on out in the real world. We don't just have a Canberra bubble; we have this perspex, fibreglass, brick wall bubble around Canberra that seems to be shielding the Labor Party and the Labor Party ministers from what's going on out in the real world. Indeed, their only interaction with the real world is when the secretary of the Labor Party, Mr Paul Erickson, wanders up the hill with his union funded research to tell the Labor Party, 'This is what's happening out in the real world.' There is a cost-of-living crisis out in the real world. There's actually a crime crisis out in the real world.

We just saw in the Queensland election only a few weeks ago that Queenslanders understood that the Liberal National Party, with its priorities and focus on the cost-of-living crisis, the crime crisis, the housing crisis and the health crisis, had the plan, the vision and the knowledge to get on with the job. That's why the LNP won a substantial victory on 26 October and that's why I believe that, with Mr Albanese having bought his retirement home, it would be rude of us to stop him from moving into his retirement home sooner rather than later. I would encourage the Prime Minister to call an election—whenever; we'll be there—because my reading of the people around Queensland in particular is that there is a mood for change to get rid of this Labor Party because of the cost-of-living crisis but also because of the failure of the Prime Minister and those ministers who sit around the cabinet table to keep their word.

We have a Prime Minister who said his word is his bond. Well, he broke his word and he has broken his bond. He's broken everything. The promises that Labor took to the last election, in particular in relation to energy bills and mortgages, have not just been broken by the Labor Party and by the Prime Minister; they've been trampled on, picked up, chewed up, spat out and then run over again. Such is the disregard of the Prime Minister and the Labor Party for the truth when it comes to keeping their promises not only in relation to power bills but also in relation to mortgages. The Prime Minister promised 97 times before the last election that power bills would go down by $275. There is not one Australian who would say that their power bill has gone down by $275 or, indeed, has gone down at all.

Every Australian's power bill has gone up since Labor have been elected to office. Power bills have gone up not just by a small amount; they've gone up by huge amounts. Look at the cost of gas. It's gone up 33 per cent. But it's not just power; it's everything else that's gone up. Health costs have gone up 10.5 per cent. Education costs have gone up 11.2 per cent. Food has gone up 12.3 per cent. Housing has gone up 13.1 per cent. Rents are up 16.3 per cent. Insurance has gone up 17.3 per cent. This is hurting Australians.

There are lessons from around the world, and people are taking the wrong lessons, in my view, out of the American election. The reason that Donald Trump won is that he focused on the bread-and-butter issues of the cost-of-living crisis impacting Americans. It's the reason why we've seen a change of government in Sri Lanka, why the Japanese governing party had a big swing against it, why Macron had a big swing against him and why the Conservatives lost.

The lesson for the Labor Party is that the mob are coming for you because you made promises before the last election, you've broken the promises since the last election and you do not understand how tough people are doing it. The mob are coming for you because of the cost-of-living crisis impacting Australians, and you should be scared. I would encourage the Labor Party and some of those Labor backbenchers to choose a nice font for your CVs—Times New Roman or Arial—because Peter Dutton is going to win the next election, David Littleproud is going to be his Deputy Prime Minister and it will be a government on the side of the people.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to making my contribution to this part of the day's proceedings. I will touch on the cost of living, but I just want to go to the question that Senator McGrath asked in question time around small businesses. I want to say this with the greatest of respect: I don't know Senator McGrath's background—in fact, I don't know the backgrounds of the majority of those on the other side—but I actually was in a small business. My wife and I had our own little trucking company, and we had 11 years as owner-drivers, progressing from a rigid around town as a 20-year-old to running road trains from Perth to Darwin for the last 2½ years. So I do have a little bit of knowledge from my own patch, my history and my world of what small businesses want and what small businesses need.

Those on the other side who have been in small business will speak for themselves, I have no doubt. My good friend Senator Colbeck is a man who, like myself, worked with his hands, and I have the greatest respect for those who have come from that background. In this chamber in February and leading up to February, we had hundreds of thousands of small business owners and owner-drivers who were, through their associations—whether it be the TWU, the National Road Freighters or the membership of the state organisations, such as VTA, QTA, Western Roads Federation, Tasmanian Transport Association, NatRoad—pleading with that side of the chamber to pass the transport reforms so that the small businesses in this nation wouldn't continue to be screwed by the top end of the supply chain. Payment times can go from 60 to 90 to 150 days—and I won't name that client, but they're a big beer maker—and they expect small businesses to carry their costs.

I find it galling that that side became the champions of small business. When $24 million was put into a scare campaign, they said that, if transport reform had come here, that would not have assisted the small businesses in transport that were pleading for reform. I'll tell you who led the charge. Mobs like COSBOA and the National Farmers Federation did not want to see small businesses in the transport industry be safe, sustainable and viable. It's alright for their small businesses to want to be safe, sustainable and viable—and I want them to be too—but not us truckies and not transport companies. The Minerals Council of Australia—the less said about that mob the better. But, I have to say, they led the charge of transport reform, saying how that would somehow crucify the mining industry. I don't know how that was supposed to happen. Let's not forget the Business Council of Australia, who do not represent small businesses—far from it. In fact, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Industry Group were all partners in crime, chipping money into the $24 million pot to fight against the transport reforms so that our small businesses could be safe, sustainable and viable. They represent the big end of town. These are the ones. They represent the construction mobs and the miners and all those who want to suppress the supply chains at the expense of small family businesses.

I sit there and I am gobsmacked. I absolutely cannot believe—and the people of Australia have to understand this—that that mob not once came up to the government and said, 'We don't want to close the loopholes, but we understand that small businesses in transport want to be protected and want to have their rights and want to be around for generation after generation.' How dare they want to make money and pay their debts and pocket a few bob to buy a new truck or new fork or a new yard! Not once did that side offer any alternative. Not once did they come up and say, 'How can we meet with the trucking industry and understand that those small businesses have their needs and their concerns?'

To wrap it up, I don't want to be crass, but I feel like I want to vomit when I hear that side over there insulting the transport industry, as each and every one of you did. There is no mistake about that. The trucking companies, the trucking families and the owner-drivers here in this nation won't forget because I'm going to be reminding them every opportunity I can that that side over there, and some of the crossbench—Senator Hanson and Senator Lambie and co—sent the same middle finger to the trucking industry.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to add my comments, especially around the cost of living. We've heard all sorts of things about who voted for what or who didn't vote for what. The bottom line is that the government got their agenda through. They got their tax reform through. They got what they call 'cost-of-living relief' and what we call 'sugar hits' through. This chamber has stopped nothing, but they want to say, 'It's because we voted on it that things aren't better.' They got through everything they wanted to help with the cost of living—not everything they promised, but everything they brought to this place, but it is our fault because of how we voted. It made no difference to the outcome. That is what we get with this government. We don't get a fix; we get a long history of sugar hits and bandaids. When we have an economy that can slip back into recession, we throw in extra immigration to make sure that we don't go into recession. We go into per capita recession, but we don't go into actual recession. That's because we allow all these extra people to come in—365,000 in the last quarter, despite them saying that there will be a cap of 270,000. The economy still grows, but only because of the extra people we bring in. That is a bandaid.

When we hear that inflation is low, it's not underlying inflation; it's headline inflation because they give temporary handouts. That is the sugar hit. They never want to fix something; they want to cover it up. The problem is that, when you put bandaid upon bandaid upon bandaid on, sooner or later you'll have a shower and they'll all wash away. You know the bandaid comes off when it gets a bit wet in the shower. That's what's happening in this economy. That's what's happening in this government. The bandaids are coming off, and the wounds are still there because they haven't been treated.

The Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, says that government spending is extending what's going on with inflation. The reason mums and dads are spending more every day of the week, the reason families are suffering and the reason all of this is going on is that the wound is government spending. The wound is government policy, and this government is running out of bandaids. Then there are the electricity rebates—the sugar hits, the sustenance. It's not on a good diet. It's not on a spending diet. It is feeding that problem, so all we do is delay it. Next quarter, when these rebates won't be there, inflation will go back up again. When you're governing to stay elected, you forget the real reason we're here—to govern the nation. When you govern to stay elected, you forget that you owe an obligation to the people who put you there to look after them, not yourself. And when we ask questions about the cost of living and the real policies, not the bandaids and the sugar hits, we hear nothing. This government has run into the bottom of the bag of ideas that will help. Instead, they are desperately grappling with things that will get them re-elected.

Today I heard a great debate from Senator McKim. He was talking about Labor's policy on the HECS debt change. That's their policy. They announced it. I love the move where they say, 'Here's a cost-of-living measure. If elected, this will happen.' This is where the test will come. If you believe in your policy, you will vote for the amendment on the cost of living. But you don't, and you won't. I believe everything that Senator McKim says, because it's all a game to stay elected. They don't care about the real cost of living. They don't care about cutting costs. They care about staying in the same offices in six months time.

Families have had enough. A report out today says that one in 10 people have a bill that a debt collector is actively handling. That's one in 10. When you're out there looking at those sorts of stats, the cost of living has gone too far. When Senator McGrath took note earlier, he talked about the difference between grassroots issues in America and grassroots issues here and the cost of living. In the last two years, real disposable income in the United States has gone up from two or three per cent. Here it has gone down 8.5 per cent. People have less. People are doing it tougher. We need to find ways of fixing things, not bandaiding things. We need to give people real reforms that will make their life easier, instead of these sugar hits that always come out. We come here and it's Ukraine, it's Trump; it's this and it's that.

Winners take responsibility. When the game is on the line, champions want the ball. If you don't want the ball, move out and let us, who want it, get it.

Lisa Darmanin (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take note of the predictable and repeated attacks on industry superannuation that were debated earlier today. The $3.9 trillion superannuation industry in this country is something that we should be proud of. It belongs to the workers of this country—we need to remember that. The vast pool of funds represents the hard-earned wages of Australians, set aside for them to retire with dignity and security. Time and time again, we come in here and we hear the system that is the envy of the world being run down by those opposite. What I'd really love to see in this place is a stop to the politicising of superannuation by those opposite, which comes from their ideological opposition to workers being involved in governing their own retirement savings.

Superannuation, as we know it today, was born out of visionary Labor leadership. It was in the final budget of the Hawke government in 1991 that universal compulsory superannuation was first announced, and it was the Keating government, in 1992, that brought it into law. That's in our lifetime. It wasn't just policy; it was a bold and visionary step in securing the future of every working Australian. And it has delivered. It's about addressing the looming intergenerational challenges of an ageing population, and it is also about fairness—about ensuring that, regardless of your income, your profession or your background, you could build a nest egg for your retirement. Prior to 1985, which is not too long ago, Australia relied only on the taxpayer-provided age pension as the principal post-employment income system. This system, as I said, is the envy of the world. It should not be politicised; rather, it should be supported by all of us.

I'll now turn to the specific debate that was raised by Senator Bragg earlier today. As Senator Gallagher said, the Albanese government expects all superannuation funds to meet the highest standards of governance and to act in the best financial interests of its members. The law requires this, and the independent regulators, APRA and ASIC, have the mandate to uphold these standards. I know this firsthand. I had the privilege of being on the board of a superannuation fund. I was actually the chair of a superannuation fund. I know firsthand the supervision that is applied to funds by APRA and ASIC, the regulators. In my own experience, I met with APRA a number of times, as chair of that superannuation fund, as part of their regular supervision regime.

Labor is committed to delivering accountability, transparency and good governance in every part of our financial system, and we have a very strong record of transparency. We have legislated to align financial reporting requirements by funds with those of public companies. We have expanded the coverage of superannuation performance tests, from around 70 products to more than 600. We have supported APRA's work to expand transparency of superannuation fund expenditure, with its latest release.

The part of superannuation that I think those opposite find most offensive is that it is a partnership between employers and employees, with workers and their employers working together to deliver retirement savings. This working together includes marketing through employer organisations and employee organisations. Often these arrangements are more cost-effective than doing so through other means. In fact, at the October 2023 Senate estimates, Margaret Cole, the Deputy Chair of APRA, said, in relation to some of these marketing arrangements:

… there are many in the super industry who make payments to related parties, and that can include trade unions, that are for perfectly proper purposes and which would appear on the face of it to be value for money and appropriate.

…   …   …

… super funds require services. They may contract with trade unions and others—

including employer organisations—

to provide those services …

As long as it is in the best financial interests of their members, then it is appropriate.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to this motion to take note of answers from government ministers in question time. It's fascinating that the government want to talk about anything but the cost of living and the impact that it's having on the Australian people. Their talking points roll out all the excuses, all the tricky language, all the distractions from the reality of what Australians are feeling.

As my colleagues have said, Australians are hurting. But the focus should be on the fact that the Australian government, this government, made a number of promises to the Australian people, before the last election, in relation to the economic circumstances that they would see under a Labor government. Quite clearly, those promises have been broken and continue to be broken by Labor—of course, the most famous being the $275 reduction in power prices that Mr Albanese and Labor promised 97 times before the election, which will never be seen. The Australian people are now supposed to be grateful that, because Labor broke its promise to them to reduce power prices, they're receiving back some of their own money to mitigate the cost of higher power prices, which is exactly the opposite of what was promised to them before the election.

They were promised cheaper housing costs, and the average Australian is paying over $30,000 a year more on their mortgage than they were when this government came into power. That's clearly a broken promise. They were promised cheaper housing, but housing has only become more expensive. They were promised cheaper food, and that's up by over 11 per cent. The number of things that have gone up by more than 10 per cent since this government came to power is a long list. Health is up by 10.4 per cent. They talk about cheaper health, but health costs have gone up by 10.4 per cent. Education is by 11.5 per cent. Food, as I said, is up by 11.7 per cent. Housing is up by 12.9 per cent. Rents are up 16.4 per cent, and gas is up 33.9 per cent.

This government of broken promises continues to distract, to talk about other people, to do anything but acknowledge that it made these promises to the Australian people before the last election and has no intention, no desire, no will to keep the promises that it made.

Question agreed to.