Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Albanese Labor government has prioritised the delivery of cost-of-living relief at every opportunity because we know that people need support. This has included a tax cut for every taxpayer, energy bill relief for every household and a million small businesses, cheaper medicines, more bulk-billing and Medicare urgent care clinics, cutting the costs of child care, and free TAFE. Why is it so important to provide cost-of-living relief and policies that make a difference in people's lives?

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

I thank Senator Smith for the question and also for her continued advocacy on behalf of the people of South Australia to make sure that the government continues to provide cost-of-living relief where we can do so, when we can responsibly provide it without adding to the inflation challenge that we have been dealing with that we inherited from the former government.

The Albanese government has seen inflation come down, wages go up and more jobs created at the same time—1.1 million jobs, which I know those opposite hate to hear. In one term of government, we have seen wages going up and cost-of-living support provided where we've found room in the budget to do so, where we have prioritised cost-of-living support, whether it be the tax cuts that were made fairer so that they helped all taxpayers, whether it be the energy bill relief that we provided to households and small business that those opposite opposed, whether it be the cheaper medicines—an issue we brought into this parliament that those opposite opposed—more bulk-billing that those opposite consider wasteful spending, and more Medicare urgent care clinics, which were also included in the language of the opposition as 'wasteful spending'. Well, I challenge the opposition to go and chat to a few people using the urgent care clinics and ask them if they think that's wasteful spending. Maybe ask the people that are going into the emergency department that Senator Ruston was laughing at before if they think that investment in public hospitals is wasteful spending. Maybe when people go and get their 60-day scripts—

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

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the personal reflection that was just made by the minister, which I would say is completely inaccurate—

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

Senator Ruston, that is a debating point.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you ask—

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

I beg your pardon, Senator Ruston, it was a personal reflection. I will ask the minister. Minister, if you could withdraw.

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

Me?

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

Yes.

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

Alright, I withdraw. Again, I would challenge those opposite, for all of those families that have benefited from the investment in early childhood education, whether they consider that wasteful spending because that is what the opposition is saying. We've got inflation low, we've got wages up and we've got employment and jobs up as well. (Time expired)

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

Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary?

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just over a year ago, the Prime Minister announced that the Albanese Labor government will deliver fairer tax cuts for all Australians, not just some. How are Labor's tax cuts helping Australians with the cost of living and ensuring they keep more of what they earn?

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

I thank Senator Smith again for concentrating on cost of living and how the government is supporting households where we can responsibly do so. Obviously, those tax cuts are flowing through. It's a decision we took 12 months ago. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, took a decision to make them fairer so not just some people would get a tax cut but 14 million taxpayers across the country would receive a tax cut thanks to our fairer tax plan, and those benefits will be even bigger from July this year. The figures from the Treasurer show there'll be even more money on average in the pockets of every taxpayer next financial year. We have stronger wages growth, we have strong jobs growth, and those tax cuts are flowing through to help households. These are the priorities of the Albanese Labor government: a focus on cost of living, get inflation down, cost-of-living help where we can, clean up the budget, and make sure that people get a fair crack at jobs and opportunities from new jobs across the economy in the future.

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

Senator Marielle Smith, second supplementary?

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How does Labor's economic plan support Australian households, and what are the priorities going forward?

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

Our priorities are low inflation, keeping wages growing, more jobs, more opportunities and cost-of-living support where we can provide that. That stands in stark contrast to those opposite. From the policies they have announced to date there is a $600 billion bill for nuclear energy, for some time in the future, to deliver four per cent of our country's energy needs, and $350 billion in cuts to pay for the nuclear plan they have for nuclear reactors around the country. The other one is $10 billion for people to go out to lunch and slug the taxpayer for it. That is the plan.

That is the contrast between a government that's focused on cost of living and their focus on nuclear reactors and breaking the budget, and then cutting services, cutting pensions, cutting Medicare, cutting school spending and cutting hospitals in order to pay for it. (Time expired)